jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (184 posts)

Obama to seek a new tax rate for wealthy

  1. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is expected to seek a new base tax rate for the wealthy to ensure that millionaires pay at least at the same percentage as middle income taxpayers.
    A White House official said the proposal would be included in the president's proposal for long term deficit reduction that he will announce Monday. The official spoke anonymously because the plan has not been officially announced.
    Obama is going to call it the "Buffett Rule" for Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained that rich people like him pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers.
    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-seek-tax-ra … 20977.html
    is this fair ...and why is Boehner opposing it? should the wealthy have to start paying more taxes?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      51% of Americans pay no income tax.

      ... So if he's serious about balancing budgets and "being fair" then he'll work to fix that first.

      Until then, all I'm hearing is class warfare being used to distract us from the fact that our liberties are being stolen from us.

      1. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They still pay things like sales taxes, excise taxes, and potentially property taxes, so it's not like anybody (even illegal immigrants) is a true moocher who makes no contribution to society.

        http://i52.tinypic.com/ilj5nc.gif

        The midpoint of the first quintile is about $11,000, and even a household earning that little pays about $1,400 in total taxes. The household in the second quintile, earning around $30,000 per year, pays $7,000 in taxes. Most of these taxes are regressive, also. A family making $11,000 that loses more than 10% of its income in taxes is going to hurt much more than a family making $200,000 that loses 35%.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do you expect people who have no income or very little income to pay income tax? Get real, Evan.

        1. road2hell profile image79
          road2hellposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, he really meant the 50% that don't pay income tax comes from the filthy rich!

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Evan, you don't like Obama's nor the Dems in Congress, nor Bernanke's policies, but ntither you nor the Republicans in Congress nor the GOP presidential candidates have revealed your plan for reving up the economy and reducing unemployment. What's your theory? Boehner endorsed neo-Keynesian economics when he said it's not a good idea to raise taxes when we are in a recession. As far as I can tell neither Boehner nor McConnel nor Ryan has a coherent economic theory for what to do RIGHT NOW BEFORE THE SHIP OF STATE RUNS ON THE ROCKS.

        1. junko profile image73
          junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The plan is beat Obama by 2013, than change work laws and regulation by 2014. By than the people and their minor children will be glad to work for less and feel blessed. The American Dream will become a nightmare. The rich and powerful will change America from a 1st rate country to a 2nd rate country approaching 3rd rate by 2016.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            ++

    2. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No this isn't about fairness, its about envy and the view of Obama and the democrats that the current and growing disparity of wralth between the rich and the poor is a problem that can only be addressed by government and by punishing the rich. If wealth equality is their goal then why not tax wealth instead of income or investment? If too much success is bad, punish it with tax!

      Punishing investors, risk takers, and the rich which are actually the people responsible for creating jobs and wealth for us all is the height of stupidity driven by envy, and greed. We are taxed enough already! Add up all the taxes we pay fed, state, city, property, and sales taxes, now heap onto that all the fees we have to pay, licenses, tolls, parking, park and entrance fees, application fees. Buy a home and oay a mortgage tax, theres gas taxes, phone taxes, then theres the most evil of all, the death tax! How much is enough? How much more does the government need to take from us? Its not the rich that are the problem, its the government.  Enough is ENOUGH!

      1. profile image0
        Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        the funny thing is that Obama and his wife are so rich...millions and millions....of course their money would not be taxed under a new rate as it was taxed under the old rate....

      2. pisean282311 profile image56
        pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        @lady it is not enough...infact this step would make him win 2012...then it would be enough tongue

      3. Quilligrapher profile image89
        Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Lady. Thanks for sharing this with us. I accept that you firmly believe that the rich create jobs in the private sector.  I happen to agree with you but more on this later.

        As I’ve said before, I respect every person’s right to his or her own opinion. I’m much less interested in what they think than why. But some posters regurgitate elitist talking points as if their livelyhoods depended on it. They are the ones who rely on a barage of generalities, hyperbole, and inuendo rather than acknowledge one single fact that contradicts the distorted reality they are being paid to promote.

        Understanding who possess the nation’s wealth and how much they own is essential to any discussion about the financial consequences of the recession and who suffers most during the recovery.  Those who blindly accuse others of class warfare are the mouthpieces of the rich who refuse to admit publically that the Great Recession of 2008 has had a greater impact on the assets of average Americans than it has upon the most wealthy among us.  Examine the data and you will learn the marketable wealth of the median household (i.e. when excluding the value of their home) shrank 36.1% since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. In glaring contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households fell only 11.1% indicating that the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” is much greater now then in 2007. Cheerleader rhetoric does not change these facts. The fat cats that brought on this economic melt down are getting fatter as they have been doing steadily over the last 25 years.  Back in 1983, the least affluent 80% of US households actually owned 18.7% of the total net worth.  In 2007, the same population wedge owned only 15% of the total net worth after the upper 1% tier rose by about 0.7% and the next 19% of households gained 3.0% of the wealth. (1)

        The segment of the population who created the economic collapse and then raided the treasury for whatever was left in the till is now being asked to contribute a little more toward the nations recovery efforts. As you said above: “the rich which are actually the people responsible for creating jobs and wealth for us all.”  Okay, we can see their wealth is growing but where are the jobs for those Americans who have lost both their jobs and their homes?

        Our founding fathers knew from their own experiences that wealth equates to power and influence.  It always has and it always will.  The 80% of the US population with only 7% of the marketable wealth, and the least power and influence, only have their votes to protect them.  May they use them wisely.

        M’Lady. I wish you the best life has to offer. 

        (1) Edward N. Wolff, “Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007” http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?docid=1235

        1. lovemychris profile image81
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "It only becomes "class warfare" when we fight back!"

        2. lady_love158 profile image61
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I notice wealth distribution is a theme in your excuses for raising taxes on the rich. As I said before the recession has nothing to do with how wealth is distributed. The rich naturally suffered less because their main source of wealth is not their homes as it is with the middle class. This inequality exists in part, not because of anything that the rich did, but because of government efforts to promote home ownership even among those that couldn't afford it and monetary policy that kept interest rates artificially low. Corporations then found themselves stuck with worthless stock the value of which was derived from high risk mortgages held by people that didn't have the ability to pay them back. These are well documented facts. Once again the government intervened and bailed out the banks that they forced to give out those loans. Now you want the government to punish the rich! Corporations are afraid, sitting on piles of cash suffering from Dodd-Frank regulations and the impending onslaught of unkown costs soon to be unleashed in Obamacare and you want to tax them even more! And for what? What will these taxes be used for? Paying retirement benefits for substandard teachers? Bailing the state pension funds out of democrat supporters? Providing temporary jobs for AFLCIO members? Or perhaps to fund the NLRB in their fight to prevent Boring from creating jobs in SC? This is not a government for the people. This is not what Obama promised, to be a uniter. This is a corrupt government willing to crush our capitalist society to benefit their well connected socialist friends! And you speak of wealth distribution? Get government out of the way! Let people keep what they earn and reward them for creating wealth don't punish them for it! If you want more of something, tax it less, if you want less of something tax it more! Personally, I think there should be a tax on government!

          1. Quilligrapher profile image89
            Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hi Lady.  Hope you are enjoying your Sunday afternoon.

            If you examine the data, you will learn that the distribution of wealth in this country is a good reason, and not an excuse, for raising taxes on the rich. Those who created the economic collapse, benefited from all the recovery programs, and suffered the least from the meltdown are now being asked to contribute a little more toward regaining our former economic health. If you disagree the wealthiest in this country suffered the least then please look at the data again. Failure to acknowledge complisity in the Great Recession of 2008 and insensitivity to the hardships it has caused to the other less fortunate 80% of the population is hardly an admirable position for any person or for any political party. 
            You admit this inequality exists but you misplace the blame upon the government for encourageing people to invest in their own homes. You excuse, by omission, the mortgage brokers and banks responsible for knowingly steering poorer Americans into subprime loans they couldn’t afford to carry. The same club of bankers then bundled these mortgages and sold them as safe and reliable securities. Who are the real culprits?  You say the Government.  I say the wealthy bankers and mortgage brokers who later whined for a government handout.  To borrow some of your words, “Corporations then found themselves stuck with worthless stock the value of which was derived from high risk mortgages.” Mortgages that big banks created, others repackaged, and still others insured as trustworth, I would add.

            I have little simpathy because, again your words, “Corporations are afraid, sitting on piles of cash.”  It is difficult to admire the 20% of our population who already own 93% of the US marketable wealth or their lackeys who defended AIG for distributing $165 million in employee bonuses after the “too big to fail” insurer accepted a $170 billion bailout from the American taxpayers.  Instead, my admiration is for the not-so-wealthy teachers of Montgomery County Maryland that willingly gave up their contractural right to a five percent pay raise in order to save $89 million that was used to save programs and teachers slated to be terminated in their school district. “The salaries they voluntarily cut averaged $67,000 a year, probably not much more than the monthly take of the AIG bonus boys and gals. Other examples of shared sacrifice are proliferating around the country. One further example, the Anderson Ranch in Snowmass, Colorado, a teaching community for the arts has taken a five percent staff pay cut, period.” (1)

            These are admirable examples of less wealthy Americans willing to contribute what they can to rebuild this country. I would think the wealthiest of all Americans would also be willing to accept a temporary tax increase to help reduce the national debt and to rebuild our sinking economy.

            M’Lady, I’m looking forward to the final days of September and the onset of fall.  I hope both prove pleasant for you too,
               

            (1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j … 77451.html

            1. lady_love158 profile image61
              lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Except the 2 corporations most at fault for those sub prime mortgages was Fannie and Freddie Mac! No question the bailout were wrong, but it was the government that invented too big to fail not corporations!

              Again how wealth is distributed has nothing to do with anything. Pew research shows people around the world favor free trade, free markets, and capitalism and understand that all do not benefit equally.
              Yours is an observation not a description of a problem especially one that government needs to solve.

              And you never answered amy of my questions! How convenient! What will a tax increase do to solve your imaginary problem? How will that change the distribution of wealth in this country? Taking from the rich and giving to the government will only make the poor, poorer by providing less opportunity especially in this economy. This is the LIE perpetuated by Obama and the left, that the rich aren't paying their "fair" share and that taxing them more solves all our problems, debt, unemployment, foreclosures, poverty, and wealth distribution, when in fact it solves NONE of our problems and only provides more money to the government to give to constituents like Solyndra, and Lightsquared.

              If wealth distribution is such a problem, let Obama propose to make being wealthy illegal, let him tax their wealth and their income so his destruction of America is complete!

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And that Lady Love, even by your usual standards, is absolute rubbish!

                1. lady_love158 profile image61
                  lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh really? Why, because you say so? Read it and weep! Overwhelmingly people around the world, even the poorest countries prefer the economic freedom of capitalism. It's only the selfish, self absorbed, "intellecuals" of the left that think otherwise. One has to wonder, why? Because they want it all to themselves! They're liars and hypocrites and power hungry narcissists, they are evil and will be defeated wherever they rear their ugly ideology!

                  http://pewresearch.org/pubs/879/assessi … ntegration

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    There is no freedom in capitalism beyond the freedom enjoyed by the few at the top. Not everybody in the capitalist society can afford to spend all day on the forums you know, most have to work hard for a living.

                  2. kirstenblog profile image79
                    kirstenblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You really should look in a mirror

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  ++

              2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So, LaLo's line of reasoning seems to be this:
                A) the Left want to redistribute wealth.
                A1) The left wants to do this by raising taxes on the wealthy.
                B) Redistributing wealth is wrong.
                C) Raising taxes on the wealthy will do nothing to redistribute wealth.
                D) Raising taxes on the wealthy is wrong.

                Okay. Even if we accept as true everything from A to C, I'm not sure D follows from them....perhaps we've skipped a step?

                1. lady_love158 profile image61
                  lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  A1 is wrong. The left SAYS that taxing the rich will lead to equitable wealth redistribution, but they really just are going to steal it and give it to their friends.

                  For example, did you know the democrat party is a creditor in the Solydra bankruptcy?

                  Things that make you go hmmmmm.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "The left SAYS that taxing the rich will lead to equitable wealth redistribution, but they really just are going to steal it and give it to their friends."
                    Oh, like happened with Halliburton and Blackwater? Yeah, it was the Left that gave them all that money that went missing.

              3. Quilligrapher profile image89
                Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Good day, Lady Love.

                It is never a good strategy to let your opening sentence make you look like a purveyor of misinformation. To say “the 2 corporations most at fault for those sub prime mortgages was Fannie and Freddie Mac” is to reveal you understand neither the woes of subprime mortgages nor Fannie and Freddie Mac.

                “In the instance of subprime mortgage woes, there is no single entity or individual to point the finger at. Instead, this mess is a collective creation of the world's central banks, homeowners, lenders, credit rating agencies and underwriters, and investors.”(1) “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase and guarantee mortgages through the secondary mortgage market. They do not originate or service mortgages. Mortgage originators sell mortgages directly to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or exchange mortgage pools with them in return for a mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) backed by those same mortgages but which carry the added guarantee of the timely payment of principal and interest to the security holder.” (2)

                Perhaps you can cite a balanced and unbiased data source that supports your claim Fannie and Freddie were “most at fault” for the sub prime mortgage mess.
                The topic is “Obama to seek a new tax rate for wealthy.” Data that enlightens us about wealth and tax rates has everything to do with the topic. Although, I can see many reasons why you prefer to introduce other issues. The data clearly shows the wealthy, who brought on this economic melt down, have suffered the least during the recession and they are getting fatter as they have been doing steadily over the last 25 years. This fact, which you claim “has nothing to do with anything,” explains why many struggling Americans feel the wealthiest among us stand to reap the greatest rewards from a temporary tax increase that will reduce the national debt and rebuild our sinking economy.
                How far off topic will you go to avoid data that runs counter to your mostly unsupported talking points?  If you have any data to support your conclusions about taxation then let’s discuss the data. You repeatedly avoid most statements about taxation and tax rates and always change the subject. Please forgive me for trying to stay on topic. If you begin other threads on other subjects, I would be happy to look into those issues too.  But so far, none of your opinions presented here alter the sound rationale calling for the wealthiest Americans to cover a
                the largest portions of short-term future tax hikes.


                (1)”Who Is To Blame For the Subprime Crisis?”
                http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07 … z1Z5ggLV2V
                (2)“Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, Boon Or Boom?”
                http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07 … z1Z6R0Qc3D

                1. BillWest165 profile image60
                  BillWest165posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Barney Frank and the Democrats running Freddie and Fannie put pressure on the banks to make the subprime mortgages. Then covered up the financial mess during hearings during the Bush adninistration. The Dems wanted minorities to be able to get mortgages.

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image89
                    Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hi again, Mr. West, and thank you  for your comment.

                    Another poster said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “the 2 corporations most at fault for those sub prime mortgages” I replied that such a position revealed a lack of understanding about the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and the roles of Fannie and Freddie Mac. That’s why I quoted what I found to be the predominate consensus that “this mess is a collective creation of the world's central banks, homeowners, lenders, credit rating agencies and underwriters, and investors." (1)

                    Perhaps you agree with the first poster or, perhaps, you want to suggest other culprits. I’m not sure. At this time, however, I neither agree nor disagree with your statements. I do know this is a very complex and convoluted subject that defies simple explanations confined to one paragraph. Any attempt to reduce this matter to a cover up by one political party during the administration of the opposing party seems, at first blush, an over simplification.  I recommend the rather comprehensive explanation for the sub-prime catastrophe found at   
                    http://www.informedtrades.com/2699-simp … t-1-a.html as a good starting point. But don’t stop there. Other viewpoints can be found elsewhere too.

                    Thanks again, Mr. West, for your view. I hope you will share your findings with us somewhere along the line.

                    (1)"Who Is To Blame For the Subprime Crisis?" http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07 … z1Z5ggLV2V <http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-blame.asp>

                2. lady_love158 profile image61
                  lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Do you even read your own sources? The first paragraph of your sources states the danger Fannie and Freddie pose to the finacial system. The article btw, was written in 2007 before the meltdown. I suggest you read Morgenstern's book on the subject where she names names.

                  2nd, I don't change the subject, other posters do and I just go where they take it. I'm not the forum police and I don't care.

                  I am well aware of the topic and I have posed a number of questions to you on point which you refuse to answer. Instead you bring up statistics on wealth distribution when the post is about taxes on the wealthy. As I have stated many times an additional tax on the wealthy at this time would not be helpful to the economy, this idea is one accepted by both parties including JFK, and even Obama himself! Suddenly he's flip flopping on his position, attacking the rich for not paying their "fair" share. This is a distraction for political purposes to divert attention away from his failed economic policies. Even his own party refuses to put his tax and jobs bill on the senate calander! Why? Because even some democrats realize they can't can't afford to heap anymore economic pain on their constituents and expect to be re-elected!

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image89
                    Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Good evening, M’Lady.  I appreciate your making the time to reply.

                    Yes, I do read my own sources and I thank you for reading them too. The first paragraph of my source states precisely “We'll then explore the danger these behemoths could pose to the U.S. mortgage market if they failed to manage their risk effectively.” Now, if you will be so kind as to explain to us how this justifies your statement “the 2 corporations most at fault for those sub prime mortgages was Fannie and Freddie Mac.” (most at fault are your words.)
                    Now you look like you’re trying to re-write history. Everybody knows the sub-prime snowball started with declining housing prices in 2005 and 2006 and grew into an avalanche by the fall of 2007. (1) These sources were written during the height of the crisis.
                    The fact is you change the subject when you reply to me.  You shouldn’t blame that on other posters.

                    Data that enlightens us about who the wealthy are and how tax rates effect them has everything to do with the topic. Although, I can see many reasons why you prefer to introduce other issues. The data clearly shows the wealthy, who brought on the economic melt down that grew out of the sub-prime fiasco, have suffered the least during the recession and they are getting fatter as they have been doing steadily over the last 25 years.(2) This fact, which you claim “has nothing to do with anything,” explains why many struggling Americans feel the wealthiest among us stand to reap the greatest rewards from a temporary tax increase that will reduce the national debt and rebuild our sinking economy.
                    BTW,  your introducing the American Jobs Bill into this discussion is another red herring you can’t attribute to other posters.

                    Thank you, lady_love.  Stay well and always follow your bliss.

                    (1)http://zmang.hubpages.com/hub/Subprime- … A-Timeline
                    (2)http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri … html?print

        3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ++

    3. ElderYoungMan profile image80
      ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Of course the rich should pay more in taxes.  To say or think that somehow those that have been blessed the most in a society should contribute the smallest percentage to the upkeep of that society is just dumb.  The tithe is 10%.  A flat tax is fair.  If the rich want a tax break then they need to do things that help the people that the government is supposed to represent.  If they do things to hurt the economy, they should be taxed more.  This is not rocket science people.  If you went to sell on Ebay, in order to make money, you have to pay into the upkeep of the selling environment.  The top 1% in the country are sitting on $2.1 Trillion dollars right now.  That's not their money, it's ours.  I think Obama is being too nice based on the situation.  Until we are healthy as a country, no American should even be allowed to hoard $2.1 Trillion.

    4. Pollyannalana profile image76
      Pollyannalanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Of course they should, but remember the ones voting on this are some of the wealthiest, so good luck with that. Obama is just running his mouth anyway for show right now, i don't believe a word he has to say. He fooled my once, shame on him, if he fools me twice shame on me and I am not THAT stupid.

    5. Zubair Ahmed profile image73
      Zubair Ahmedposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Good luck to him - I doubt very much his gonna get enough support to pass that one.

      The wealthy in society in comparison to the others don't pay enough taxes, no where near what they should pay.

      This will never change - as they the rich continue to say they pay too much  tax as it is, and the poor continue to struggle with the unfair tax system.

      1. lady_love158 profile image61
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The ignorance of the left knows no bounds! The rich pay the bulk of the taxes in America! The top 10% of earners in America pay 70% of the taxes!

        http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But actually own 80-90% of stocks, shares, trust funds and business equity.

          1. Repairguy47 profile image61
            Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That explains perfectly why they are footing the bill for the other 90%. Actually the lower 50% paid 2.7% of all taxes in 2008, that was the last year I found any information on. I didn't really look that hard. Its time the 50% not contributing started to.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well that's easily sorted, pay them enough to come into the tax paying bands.

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I know, right? It's the logic that the right use to explain why the wealthy benefit the most from an across-the-board tax cut: If you pay a dollar and get 10% off, you get a dime back. If you pay ten dollars and get 10% off, you get a dollar back. Fair, right?

              If you get 70% of all the income, you pay 70% of all the income taxes. Fair right? (It would be, except the top 10% actually get about 85% of all the income, as John correctly points out.)

              Even if we accept LaLo's erroneous claim that they have 71%, that still means that they should be paying 71% of the income taxes, not 71%. A tax increase is only fair.

              1. Repairguy47 profile image61
                Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Only fair to whom? The top 50% pay 97.3 % of the taxes, the bottom doesn't pay squat. Pay their fair share and start today.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That's a fallacy, too. The top 50% do not pay 97.3% of taxes. They pay most of the taxes on earned income, true, but everyone who takes home a paycheck pays socsec and medicare taxes. Everyone who buys gas pays the federal gas tax (and all other things being equal, someone who earns 50K pays a much greater percentage of his income to the gas tax than someone who earns 500K). Everyone who buys anything pays the cost of corporate taxes that get passed along to the consumer. So that old line about the bottom 50% paying no taxes is a falsehood.

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image61
                    Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The only problem with that is they get a large chunk of that money back at the end of the year. In fact most get much more than they actually paid in.

                    http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

              2. lady_love158 profile image61
                lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Erroneous?  I posted a link backing up that fact! Now you changed the subject to income from wealth. The top 20% collects 50% of the income. That's more evenly distributed than wealth!

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You said the top earners paid 70% of the taxes. Not the wealthiest.

                  "The top 10% of earners in America pay 70% of the taxes!"

          2. lady_love158 profile image61
            lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nope. The top 10% has 71% of the wealth.

            http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/facult … wealth.htm

            Pretty equivalent to their tax rate wouldn't you say?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              80-90%

          3. BillWest165 profile image60
            BillWest165posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Where did you get your figures?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Demn, must record sources! But this one came from multiple sources.

            2. Quilligrapher profile image89
              Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this


              Hello, Mr. West.
              May I jump in here?

              Based on wealth (not income) John appears to be correct. “In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.”
              http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri … ealth.html (page 3/18)

  2. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Yay Obama!

  3. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    Most Republican have an issue with taxes but don't have any answer or clue on how to pay for stuff except borrow from the Chinese. Making the wealthy pay their share is more than fair. So why does crybaby Boehner feel the need to oppose it? Also there needs to be a crackdown on Social Security fraud. It seems that everyone and their brother/sister is collecting SSI for some kind of bogus reason for not getting up off their asses and get a job. It's too easy to get con some doctor to write a note for some "back or neck injury". Granted, there are legit cases out there and this does not pertain to people 62+ years old. I'm thinking along the lines as my drunken sister and her looser boyfriend who collect SSI basically for cigarette and beer money.

  4. Ms Dee profile image87
    Ms Deeposted 5 years ago

    From what I understand, Obama's plan is more like putting a bandaid on the problem--a temporary fix. What is really needed and there is growing support for is a rewrite of the entire tax code.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's true, but I'm not sure I would trust the current Congress to re-write the entire tax code. They might make it worse.

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Might make it worse? lol Most likely would make worse you mean. lol

        1. Paul Wingert profile image79
          Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thomas Jefferson suggested a revolution every 20 years. Times and thinking has changed since the late 18th Century, but this country can review, amend, change stuff like tax codes, constitutional amendments, etc every 20 years or even sooner if needed. Yes, the current tax code leaves too much for interpretation.
          Also individual states need to do the same. For example, in North Dakota, it’s still against the law to shoot buffalo out of a second story window or to put a rock on a railroad track in Alabama.

  5. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    The Republican reaction against Obama's "Buffett" tax proposal on the basis that there should be no tax increases during a recession is an implicit acknowledgement of the validity of Keynesian economics.

    1. Paul Wingert profile image79
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      For people who earn $1million+ annually don't seem to be hurting much from the recession compaired to the people who make less.

      1. lady_love158 profile image61
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh I see, so the role of government is to insure the rich are equally miserable as the middle class? Class warfare is what this us about and the president's reelection. He needs to distract is from his record of "accomplishments".

        1. pisean282311 profile image56
          pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          after bush even jesus wont have done any better...Obama being a politician would use what he can to become president again...that is rule of the game...whats wrong in it...republicans do it , business ppl do it , obama does it...

  6. pisean282311 profile image56
    pisean282311posted 5 years ago

    step is right direction...buffet proposes it ...good for usa...

  7. Reality Bytes profile image92
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    How much out of every dollar earned should a human being be allowed to keep?

    Anyone, what is a fair share?

    1. ElderYoungMan profile image80
      ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What part of a dollar earned can you take with you when you die?

      1. Moderndayslave profile image60
        Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nobody gets that yet.

        1. ElderYoungMan profile image80
          ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          They will.  God is making it real apparent that worshiping and hoarding "Dollars" while people starve and die on the street mocks his way and his Word.  So he's taking our dollars power away.  People will get that real soon.

          1. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Absolutely right.

    2. Danny R Hand profile image60
      Danny R Handposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      75%

      1. Reality Bytes profile image92
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree that is a fair amount.  I also believe that everyone being equal under the Law should be allowed to keep the same percentage.

  8. ElderYoungMan profile image80
    ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago

    The part of the dollar that you can take with you when you die.

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    "Obama Jobs Plan Deserves a Hearing" Christina Romer in the NYTimes.

    With 14 million Americans unemployed and no prospect of rapid recovery on the horizon, we really have no choice: we must take additional measures to create jobs. What policy makers need to discuss is which measures will be most effective in putting people back to work, and in hastening the day when government support is no longer needed.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/busin … ;st=Search

  10. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    How many times do we have to prove it:
    Trickle down economics does not work.

    Corporations aren't sitting on wads of cash because they are in fear of Obamacare.
    They are sitting on wads of cash and not creating jobs because there is no incentive for them to do otherwise.
    In short: BECAUSE THEY CAN.

    1. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You never proved any such thing! And no corporations would much rather put that cash to work than to sit on it.

      1. ElderYoungMan profile image80
        ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You are really naive and you really have no clue what this economy is base upon.  Once you understand what the economy is based on at an elemental level, you be able to recognize when one of the key elements, in this case Capital, is missing.  You don't have to "Prove" anything.  There is no capital investment into the small business sector.  The number that you don't believe is being sat on is $2.1 Trillion.

        1. lady_love158 profile image61
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Who said I didn't believe corporations are sitting on cash? Maybe you should read it again. What I said was they aren't sitting on it because the want to, but because of the fear induced into the market place by this administration. Look at the markets. Obama is a spreader of fear a divider, an enemy of capitalism and freedom. Nobody is going to invest in this environment!

          1. ElderYoungMan profile image80
            ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'll repeat what I said earlier.  You are Naive if you believe that there is a fear among the people that are sitting on the capital.  Either you are naive or your are complicit or a combination of both.  The equilibrium of the system "Changes" the environment.  A healthy economy where money is being created with fix the current economic ills that we see, absorb higher taxation and regulate itself.  The rich need to pay back into the environment that they have destabilized.  It isn't a question of fear and you know that.  How about the rich do their job and let the capital flow and we get our politicians to fix what's broken with the money they collect.  Once the things are fixed, we've paid off our debts and have a decent, livable infrastructure, then we chop everyone's taxes back down.  That doesn't seem like an overly complex plan to me.

            1. lady_love158 profile image61
              lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Look, before you spend money on something don't you need to know the price? Do you go to the car lot and say I'll take that one and then the sales guy tells you what it costs? Do you research how much it will cost to operate that car before you decide to buy it? How much gas it uses? How much to insure it?
              Business has to do the same before they invest, before they hire, they have to know what it's going to cost. Right now HHS secretary is still writing the rules to implement Obamacare. Remember Pelosi said we.had to pass it to see what's in it? Well business is still waiting to see what that will cost. Then there is Dodd Frank, and other concerns like tax rates. Obama has been constantly attacking the rich. He wants to tax them more and we know the Bush tax cuts are going to expire. If you think there isn't an extreme level of uncertainty by business and that's holding them back, then its you sir that is naive!

              1. Repairguy47 profile image61
                Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Tis true.

              2. ElderYoungMan profile image80
                ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You aren't getting me.  The "Rich" aren't buying anything so they don't have to evaluate a price.  They are simply paying a dividend back into the economy that untaxed, unregulated profiteering has destabilized.  Obamacare is a word, it means absolutely nothing.  It's smoke and people who think like you are high on it.  There is enough wealth in this country to pay off the deficit and return the country back to equilibrium.  That has to happen first before any tax cut means anything.  Think as though there weren't groups of people in this country that you were mad at for being unproductive.  It's going to take some grown-ups to fix this problem, not people who hoard and worship money.

                1. lady_love158 profile image61
                  lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You're right I'm not getting you because you don't make any sense. Where you live, in Wonderland, economic laws are different then here on Earth.

                  1. ElderYoungMan profile image80
                    ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You're right, I don't live here with you on the Earth.  Your life is governed by your "Economic Laws", inflation, deflations, supply and demand (garbage).  Pick up a Bible and read on God's economics and you might get a bit of what I'm trying to say to you.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's been proven in the real world.

        In the 50s and 60s we had high tax rates for the top incomes, powerful unions, more regulation of the financial sector, and increasing prosperity for everyone from top to bottom.

        in the 90s and 00s we had a continuing trend of lower income taxes (the tax rates are the lowest they've been since before the Great Depression), weakening unions, deregulation of the financial sector, and a downward trend in the prosperity of 98% of Americans.

        This is fact. What hasn't been proven is that there's a causal relationship between tax rates and overall prosperity. But the Right continues to say that lower taxes, weaker unions, and deregulation will create greater prosperity?

        Let's take a look at something way simpler.

        A kid drops his books on the floor and the lights turn on. He concludes that dropping books on the floor makes the lights go on. That's a logical fallacy, taking a sequential relationship and assuming a causal one.

        If the Left claimed high taxes, strong unions, and greater regulation will result in greater prosperity, they'd be guilty of this fallacy, known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (A happened before B happened, therefore A caused B to happen.) This is bad logic. It would be better to take a more provisional stance, like this: A happened before B happened, therefore, A may have caused B. Let's see if B happens every time A happens.

        The right, however is claiming that lower taxes, weaker unions, and deregulation (that is, the opposite of A) causes greater across-the-board prosperity. They do not have a temporal relationship to base this conclusion on. Their reasoning is something like this:

        A happened before B happened, therefore, if we do the opposite of A, then B will happen again.

        This is about the worst logic ever.

        Imagine a kid dropping his books on the floor and then the lights turn on. The next time the kid wants to turn on his lights, he puts the books on the shelf. And then he's surprised and dismayed that the lights don't come on. He concludes that he didn't put enough books on the shelf to make the lights turn on, so he puts some more books on the shelf. That doesn't work either, so he puts more books on, increasingly uncomfortable that he's still standing in the dark even though he's doing the exact opposite of what he did when the lights turned on last time.

        This kid doing what the Right is doing: trying the opposite of what may have worked before, and not understanding why opposite action isn't giving identical results.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image61
          Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I think you just explained Obama's stimulus package and the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

        2. lady_love158 profile image61
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You're going to tell me that there was MORE regulation in the 50 and 60s??? By what measure??? Yes the tax rate was higher and guess what, JFK cut it to stimulate the economy! Back then democrats weren't socialists with evil motives!

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "there was MORE regulation in the 50 and 60s??? By what measure?"
            In the financial sector, absolutely there was.

            When I was shopping for a home, my mortgage officer told me a qualified for a huge mortgage. I asked him how that was possible given my income. He gave me quite an eye-opening history lesson about the regulation of the banking industry, which is a long trend of less and less regulation of loans to consumers, starting in the 70s. Once upon a time, a mortgage had to be no greater than a certain number based on the morgagee's annual income and on or two other factors. That number went up and up and up, and then the regulation disappeared altogether. Of course, this meant that people seemed to be able to afford more and more expensive homes, and concurrently, homes got more and more expensive.

            Democrats aren't socialists with evil motives now. You're trying to pretend they are, and branding your opponents as "evil" rather than "people of good will who disagree on the best policy for the country" is far more evil than anything either the Democrats or the GOP want to do.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image61
              Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So, did you take that large mortgage because you could or did you do the responsible thing?

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hell, no! First, I knew there was no way I was going to want to pay that much every month. Second, I didn't need a ji-normous house (nor did I want to have to clean a ji-normous house). Third, I wasn't planning to flip it; I wanted to live there for a long time. But then, I was a bit more savvy than your average first-time home buyer.

                I took a modest loan on a modest home that I could afford.

                'Course, even though I did the responsible thing, my mortgage still went underwater after the housing crisis. If I needed to sell my home for some reason, I would lose big time. I can only hope that the market recovers to the extent that I'll be able to break even if I do sell.

            2. lady_love158 profile image61
              lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              With conventional mortages you can only borrow 80% of the assessed value of the home and your income had to be at least 38% of the mortgage payment.  Regulation changed all that Fannie and Freddie, not the lack of it. Those formulas were developed by lenders to make sure they got repaid, regulations we're passed by gov't to get people in homes at any cost. It all worked fine as long as real estate values continued to rise helped along by artificially low interest rates. As we can see, ponzi schemes can't last forever.

              1. ElderYoungMan profile image80
                ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Very well put Lady, but you did miss one dimension of the mortgage fiasco.  Legislation was pushed from democrats mandating loans in lower income area, by banks with little or not oversight.  So, the loan products put into the consumer market, the option ARM, which is more of an investor's sort of home financing.  Those were essentially business loans, where the borrower never signed the paper without a rock solid exit strategy.  Why did the bankers do this?  It's simple.  It was a win win for them.  They got these poor folks into larger homes than they could customarily afford with a rapidly increasing home value (up to 20% annually in some states), so when the mortgage payment increased and the fish defaulted, they'd get a well appreciated asset back in the foreclosure process.  This is why you can't just look at these things from a non-spiritual perspective.  Banks victimized the poor.  No so much the illiterate or poverty stricken, but people that are not as diligent as you or I might be.  Home values tanked instead of increased, so the banks went crying to our government to bail them out.  You can call that God or karma or whatever, but God will not be mocked.

                1. ElderYoungMan profile image80
                  ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That's the view post wonderland by the way ;-)

                2. Repairguy47 profile image61
                  Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  And whose fault was it that they were not diligent?

                  1. lovemychris profile image81
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The lenders are the experts.....why wouldn't you trust them? It's a friggin bank....were people supposed to expect gangsterism there??

                    Stop blaming the victims..blame the perpetraitors!

                  2. ElderYoungMan profile image80
                    ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It was their fault, but they aren't 100% responsible.  You are a MAD Christian...Oxymoron...  Jesus' only recorder fit of physical anger was directed towards the very people that put those loans into circulation in the first place.  Come on up brother.....  Get yourself out of hating and raging.  That's His call to you.

  11. Stump Parrish profile image61
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    Jeff, no one on the right will buy anything you said no matter how much sense it makes. You neglected to explain that it was actually Obama's fault the lights weren't coming on the second time.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      More cars get built in Ontario than in Michigan. Why? It's not because Canadians work for significantly less money than Americans do. It's not because Canadian workers aren't unionized. They've got the CAW (Canadian Auto Workers). They also have national healthcare, which means the car companies don't have to negotiate a healthcare package with the union.
      Seems to me, American corporations would be better able to compete with foreign ones if they didn't need to worry about a health plan for their workers.

      But yeah, reality is hard for any ideologue to deal with (not just those on the right).

      1. lady_love158 profile image61
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe its not health care costs burdening American auto makers, but unions with their work rules etc and regulations! But you didn't bother to suggest that, just voice your support for unconstitutional national healthcare but you're not an ideologue, you're a critical thinker right?

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You obviously didn't read the post.
          Canada has Unions. The CAW is at least as strong as the UAW. So the car makers didn't go to ontario to escape unions.

          And if you think Canada has fewer regulations than the US, you're nuts. The car makers didn't go to Canada to escape regulations.

          The main difference seems to be Canada has national healthcare while the US does not.

          You're right: I'm not an ideologue. I'm a critical thinker. I'm also pretty good at reading comprehension. There are classes available through your local adult education program. Perhaps you should look into them.

  12. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Psittacula_krameri_-angry-6.jpg

    Squaaaaaaaaak!  Class warfare, socialism... squaaaaaaaak  Obamacare......tax cuts...Squaaaaaaaaaak!

    1. ElderYoungMan profile image80
      ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You get it!!

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately, yes I do.

  13. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "They were greedy and screwed the whole thing up."

    The Banksters, yes.So much so, that the whole world is paying!

    Now THAT'S greed!

    1. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nope, the consumer was the greedy one. If I make two dollars a day and told I'm able to spend three a day then I say no. If I'm greedy and don't care I will spend the three, what will happen? All they can do is take what I didn't have before. Greed/criminal behavior/stupid its all the same.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But that's OK when speculators do it? Have you actually read what you've just said?

        1. Repairguy47 profile image61
          Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Aw Jeeeeeeze

          1. ElderYoungMan profile image80
            ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's why your dollar is losing its worth...Brother....  No compassion, hatred and the fact that the dollar means more to you than the condition of your fellow man.  The Christian is not an elitist or a hater....Oxymoron...  Anti-Christ...

            1. Repairguy47 profile image61
              Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Preach brother, preach.

          2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Clearly not.

        2. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Repairguy is obviously one of the chosen few who have never made a mistake or fallen foul of a con trick in his whole life!

          Boring, you know what they say, the man who has never made a mistake has never made anything.

          1. Repairguy47 profile image61
            Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I have made plenty of mistakes, the key word is I. You don't seem to grasp that you should take responsibility for your actions. No, I have never been the victim of a scam, I am not so foolish with my money. I would sill blame me if I had been though. Responsibility, try it sometime.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Don't presume to lecture me on responsibility.
              Try opening your eyes first.

              1. Repairguy47 profile image61
                Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I just did lecture you on responsibility, do you need another class? I'm sure you have all kind of scape goats for your bad decisions, but they are all yours.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Why do you assume that I am only speaking from personal experience? Is it because you are so self obsessed that you can not understand that somebody else isn't?

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image61
                    Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    John, I really don't care what the story is. I am just tired of those who will not accept their role in damaging themselves. The real victims, the only victims are the tax payers who bailed out the bankers so they could live to do this again. The wrong message is being sent.

                2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  And if you ever reach a point in your life where you can utter a response that doesn't consist of 'or jeez' or ' I just can' then you will no doubt look back at this period in your life and feel completely embarrassed. But, I won't hold my breath.

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image61
                    Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you ever get the feeling you're being ignored? You should.

  14. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    And just like that, the Banksters are off the hook!!
    A-freakin-Mazing.

    No--I think you will see the real culprits taken to task. In fact, the Obama admininistration is investigating 19 or so of these gangster banks.....

    See, when a person lies to you and that person is a businessman with credentials...he's in heap big trouble. I say bank-man speak with heap big forked tongue.

    I say bank-man gangster going DOWN!

    1. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Intelligent answer.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image61
          Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't think you would get it and I was right.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Come on then smart guy, explain it, if you can, in words of more than two syllables.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Bet I know what your gonna post, come on, give us all a laugh.

            2. Repairguy47 profile image61
              Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Take the first letters of each word and drop the rest. Letters is two syllables.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Letters aren't two syllables and WTF is hardly an answer. Just as I thought, you't don't even have one. You don't even understand what you have to say.

                1. Repairguy47 profile image61
                  Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Letters doesn't have two syllables?

                  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/letters

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I had a look at your link, interesting, but I mentioned syllables not symbols.

                2. Repairguy47 profile image61
                  Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  WTF? is a question, hence the question mark.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    WTF isn't really a question, but you know that right? You do know that? Letters can symbolize the alphabet, it is also a word containing two syllables. You know that right? You know that? But, still, you cannot offer a reasonable answer, just as I thought.

      2. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't drink.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image61
          Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You sure?

  15. ElderYoungMan profile image80
    ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago

    I'll give you that one.  Sin of the eyes, yes.  But you have to understand that the banker had an army of bean counters weighing out risk versus reward.  They had tons of analysts going over what those appreciation rates would be and they knew exactly what their upside was.  If they considered the downside, ie the values going down instead of up, that should have made the use of the option arm loan not make any business sense to them.  You can blame the consumer, that's your perspective, but the people that controlled the selling environment were the bankers.  They came up with the re-invented consumer ARM loan and they didn't do that to help anybody but themselves.  They also have a powerful enough lobby in washington to get bailed out and rewarded for their despot behavior.  That's why my issue is more with them than the dummies that got fleeced.

  16. road2hell profile image79
    road2hellposted 5 years ago

    Why aren't the millionaires paying at least the same tax rate of the middle class?  Any suggestions?

 
working