Full Poll Results
 Posters' Poll: Top Sportsbooks February 2013 |
SBR Book & Casino
Top Points Winners
|
|||||
| #1 5Dimes (SBR rating A+) | 294 Pts | #1 Goblue23 | 4,474 Pts | SBR Sportsbook | ||
| #2 Pinnacle (SBR rating A+) | 264 Pts | #2 Boeing Power | 3,757 Pts | SBR Sportsbook | ||
| #3 Bookmaker / BetDSI (A+) | 236 Pts | #3 Samgurt | 3,330 Pts | SBR Sportsbook | ||
| #4 Heritage (SBR rating A) | 203 Pts | #4 Prior22usaf | 2,967 Pts | SBR Sportsbook | ||
| #5 Bet365 (SBR rating A) | 78 Pts | #5 Moneylinedawg | 2,810 Pts | SBR Casino | ||
Obama and Biden "paid less taxes than their secretary"
Returns for both the Pres and VP have been released. With all of their calls for "those rich people making over $250k need to pay higher tax rates than their employees...fairness...fairness...pay your share"
Obama's tax rate 20.5%
Joe Biden 23%
And we all know the namesake Warren Buffet of the 'Buffett Rule" keeps his rates under 23% also by maneuvering it into sheltered investments and charitable proceeds claimed.
Do I as say...not as I do strikes again.
and in 2004, John Kerry only paid 13% in taxes. Funny there were no democrats screaming about the rich and how they are so out of touch with the average American. No class war fare back then.
7 of the top 10 richest Senators today are Democrats.
What are you talking about do as I say not as I do, are you suggesting that Obama and Biden should pay more taxes than they are supposed to pay currently under the law? Do you think that Obama would attempt to dodge paying his taxes if the Buffett Rule was in place? I don't know how the fact that Biden and Obama pay that rate right now supports your idea that they're hypocrits for supporting the Buffett Rule, but whatever works in your illogical mind I guess.Originally Posted by itchypickle
Returns for both the Pres and VP have been released. With all of their calls for "those rich people making over $250k need to pay higher tax rates than their employees...fairness...fairness...pay your share"
Obama's tax rate 20.5%
Joe Biden 23%
And we all know the namesake Warren Buffet of the 'Buffett Rule" keeps his rates under 23% also by maneuvering it into sheltered investments and charitable proceeds claimed.
Do I as say...not as I do strikes again.
Absolutely not. They are correct in finding any legal means of paying the bare minimum under existing code. The point is they criticize others for the same thing they do when in fact if they are truly in agreement with their 'fairness' claim...they can simply opt for the higher tax bill - since they can afford to more than most. Either forgo itemization and deductions...dozens of ways to increase taxable amounts.
The buffet rule is idiotic idea and is just a smoke screen for the over spending and wasteful spending in Washington. No one will deny Buffet or anyone else to pay more in taxes if they choose to but you gotta be an idiot if you enthusiastically want to pay for taxes so that Obama can waste it on Solyndra and other failed projects.
Buffet was hired by arnold schwarzenegger to help California get out of debt and we can also see the disaster the occurred.
The fact is Millionaires reinvest millions back to the economy and create many more jobs that the government can. I rather let someone that made a ton of money decide how he can make more money with his money than someone that loses money every time and is accountable to no one.
That's where you're wrong, no one is criticizing millionaires and billionaires for paying the minimum that the tax code allows, not Obama, and not anyone else that speaks for Obama(as long as they are doing so legally). What they are criticizing is the fact that those billionaires and millionaires CAN pay so little, and doing so is legal. This is not a subtle distinction, this is a huge distinction.
You seem to think, however, that Obama is criticizing millionaires and billionaires and saying that instead of paying so little by using loopholes that they should voluntarily pay more. He is not saying that at all, he is again saying that the law should be changed so that him and people like him have to pay a certain minimum percentage.
You're missing my point.....if they are truly for it...simply do what you can to pay the most...not saying write a bonus check to the Treasury...simply take a stand and declare yourself in the highest bracket possible to show your commitment. I do it in a much smaller way of course...but still do it.
Its simple...if you think you have more than you deserve in comparison to others...then don't try and keep more next time.
Looks like there's at least one person on cnbc that tells the truth
Except that is not what Obama is calling for. Do as I say not as I do have no application. He is not asking millionaires and billionaires to voluntarily opt to pay more taxes. He's asking CONGRESS to fix the law. Nothing more, nothing less. And when they do I trust that he will happily comply with the new law as it applies to him.
Do you really not comprehend this or are you just messing around?
SBR POKER TOURNEY10th Place 6/14/2013
SBR POKER TOURNEY1st Place 5/27/2013
SBR POKER TOURNEY2nd Place 6/11/2013
SBR POKER TOURNEY3rd Place 6/10/2013
SBR
Bash 2012
Attendee
8/17/2012
SBR POKER TOURNEY3rd Place 6/17/2013
SBR POKER TOURNEY3rd Place 6/12/2013
SBR Founder Join Date: 8/10/2005
lets hope congress tells Obama to go **** himself and quit trying to deflect attention away from his incompetence. The debt is way to big and taxing millionaires more won't make a bit of difference. It will only make it worse.
Simple math...what is the maximum tax rate you can pay for Obama's Gross income filing as he did, single married or with/wo dependents? Then look at the rate he actually paid. If there is a difference in the numbers then he should have told the accountant to please not extend him deductions because "we need more tax revenue...I'm doing just fine so please allow me to contribute my FAIR share". Take a leap as certain Governors and Mayors across the country have done....only accept a salary of $1 this year because your already have enough to live comfortably...let the extra few hundred thousand in salary stay in the Treasury for other programs for the less fortunate. The list goes on and on.
I'm not missing anything here...of course Tax policy begins in the House and so forth...the 'Buffett Rule' is nothing more than a moral move for political points...it will never pass under this or any Congress (wonder why Nancy Pelosi made around $30 million in one year while she was Speaker and never asked for this to be considered?).
Yeah, I'm done with this discussion, you really don't get it and I don't think you ever will.
The debt is way too big, and taxing millionaires and billionaires more won't solve it, but I disagree that it will somehow inherently make it worse. Was the economy terrible in the 90s prior to the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003? The answer is no it was not, this again mythical idea that the tax rate is the panecea and cause of all problems is frankly ridiculous. Now I realize you're not saying that exactly, but that seems to be the argument that a lot of conservative politicians are making. Its a claim without a warrant, and is empirically false.
Do you know why its empirically false? Because it has been shown over time that giving millionaires and billionaires more money does not in fact create more jobs, because those millionaires and billionaires, despite what the Republican party wants to tell you, are not the people creating the majority or even a plurality of jobs.
Another misconception about the capital gains tax rate(which is really what we're talking about being taxed more by the Buffett Rule, ordinary income already comes fairly close to the Buffett Rule) is that investing in the stock market is also not investing in a company, except at the IPO phase or secondary offering phase, when you "invest" in a company you are simply buying shares in a company that someone else already owns. Sometimes that's a company insider and he benefits, but its not the company itself unless its an initial offering.
99% of job creators will not be effected by the Buffett Rule, and those that do create jobs who are effected by the Buffett rule don't create jobs with their own wealth but instead create jobs with their company's wealth, which is not subject to the Buffett rule, which only affects somewhere in the neighborhood of 350,000 people.
We do need real fiscal reform in this country, but its not just gonna come from cutting, there's not enough to cut without really hurting something that is necessary(despite what you probably think the federal government performs gobs of essential things that you really don't want cut if you think about it). The majority of Americans know this, they know that we need a combination of cuts and increased revenue. But you know who doesn't know it? The Republican party. Grover Norquist, who insist that politicians sign a pledge that they will not raise taxes. Republicans also won't voluntarily cut military spending which makes up a strong percentage of the federal budget. You know who else doesn't know this simple fact that we need revenue enhancement, across the board cuts and entitlement reform, Democrats. Who won't cut social programs and seriously reform entitlements.
But the reality, and the frustrating reality is that we need all three, we need a) revenue increases, b) spending cuts across the board, military and discretionary, and c) real entitlement reform. But everyone in Washington is a rich politician, and they don't really care what is right, they only care what will get them elected.
And you know what the reality is, its this, http://www.gallup.com/poll/153887/Am...fett-Rule.aspx
43% of Republicans, 63% of Independents, and 74% of Democrats favor the Buffett Rule. So yes, Obama will keep pushing it, even though you are right it won't make that much of a difference(but I disagree strongly with the Republican talking point that it will somehow hurt 'job creators' that's just simply not true). But its not because of his incompetence, that is equally shared on both sides of the aisle, its that all of them are politicians, and nothing will get done because there is no real incentive to do anything but pander, even with raging deficits.
Last edited by Shaudius; 04-13-12 at 04:38 PM.
Thanks for my laugh for today, guys.
If you think that after raising Buffet's rate, they will use the extra money to reduce yours, then....
Raising tax rates for businesses absolutely DOES hurt job creators. If you don't think so, then check the image in the post above. You know, America has a much higher corporate tax rate than just about all of the countries that leftists like to point to for example, such as Canada and a bunch of European ones. I think the number was Canada at about 20% and America at about 34%.
But, in the case of Buffet, yeah, he doesn't really create too many jobs. But raising the tax rate for investors is still dumb, and it will strongly, strongly discourage investing. There's already high risk attached to it. For comparison, imagine that you're a sports bettor, and it's extremely hard to hit the 53% needed to beat the books. Now, once you do do it and make a decent amount off of it, the government also wants to tax 35% of your earnings (which, they probably do). Would you keep betting?
The only difference here is that sports betting is admittedly not a huge job creator and offers no real production -- instead just moves money around, with most of it moving to the books. Keep in mind that I still think all gambling should be 100% legal and have 0% taxes on it, but just saying that it's useless in comparison to investments. Investing does help create real, productive jobs.
--
As for cutting government, that's another argument. We'll be forced to cut just about everything if our dollar keeps getting defaced like it is (both parties). I don't think our federal government needs to do much of anything at all, which actually worked pretty well for the USA for about 150 years or so (if you throw out the Lincoln years). Then they introduce a 1% income tax. No biggie, right, 1%... Lol. We all know how that goes. And they start stealing more with bullshit programs like Social Security, etc., and so on. But that's really a discussion for another thread.
Last edited by CrazyCarl; 04-13-12 at 06:28 PM.
That's all well and good, but what does that have to do with the Buffett Rule. Millionaires and billionaires aren't businesses onto themselves basically ever, and certainly Warren Buffett the namesake of the proposed rule is not.
If you were a winning bettor? Yes, yes you would keep betting, and you're neglecting something that people tend to when they are arguing against raising the capital gains rate. Capital loss deductions. The risk isn't nearly as great for investors because they can offset the tax on their gains by the loss on their losses, additionally, in many cases you can choose when to realize these losses, which is advantageous from a tax standpoint. This is the same way in which professional gamblers can deduct their gambling losses against their gambling winnings.
That's not any different at all, 95% of investors are not job creators and offer no real production, they are simply trading amongst themselves, not investing in companies. The only time, as I've said in other threads, that someone is investing in a company itself is when they are part of the IPO or a secondary offering. You may be lining the pockets of people who are equity stakeholders of the company when you buy their shares(not ones own by the company still), but you are certainly not investing money in Apple when you buy Apple stock.
That is a debate for another thread, but suffice it to say I can point to numerous programs where people would be very upset if no government agency was responsible for it.
Did the Pres and VP make at least 1 million this year in their AGI? Because if they didn't, the tax hike won't matter to them. And if they did, they could easily invest their money in Municipal bonds and drop their AGI below the 1 million threshold.
He laid it out pretty clearly that really anyone should be able to understand. Obama is NOT saying that people should pay the maximum rate, he wants Congress to legally RAISE the minimum. This is so much a basic and easily understood concept that you literally have me worried about your interactions with everyday people, someone mentally incapable of understanding this shouldn't be among the public.
Regarding the 1990s, this stat surprises most people but the economy actually grew faster H.W. Bush's last 4 quarters in office then it did in Clinton's first 18 quarters (4.5 years). It wasn't until Clinton cut capital gains taxes in 1997 that the economy really took off - and those capital gains taxes were 60% larger then W's. Just FYI: only 3 presidents since WWII have left office with capital gains tax rates lower then what they inherited - Carter, Clinton, and W. Of the 3, W gave the smallest cut. But the greatest growth this country has had was actually before we had an income or capital gains tax.
You're somewhat correct about IPOs, but it must be noted that it is quite common for corporations to buy and sell stock to make extra money.
I'll just leave this discussion as it is for now -- I'd love to continue parts of it another day though.
Quickly, though, on the tax rates connected to the economy thing, have you ever heard of the depression of 1920? For awhile it was very, very bad, almost to like Great Depression levels. Then, the president cut taxes and spending in half, and it took 5 or 6 months, and then the recession was over. Was the extremely quick recovery due to the cuts? I'd argue, yes. Study it some, even if it's just the wiki article or something, before you offer the automated "but that doesn't prove correlation".
Corporations are sitting on so much cash right now. Instead of investing in their company,
they are investing in the market. I've never seen an economy so bad and the market so
good. I see a bubble about to burst. My guess would be the 14,000 mark. You saw what
happened at the 13,000 mark.
Mitt Romney paid over $3,000,000 in taxes in calendar year 2010 and will be paying over $3,000,000 for calendar year 2011.What they are criticizing is the fact that those billionaires and millionaires CAN pay so little,
CAN PAY SO LITTLE? Shaudius, how much income tax did you pay in 2010? How much will you be paying in 2011?
I am assuming the amount is far greater than Romney's $3,000,000?
You also are refusing to admit that raising the capital gains tax will deter stock investment so its time for an extreme example:
If the capital gains tax rates were raised from 15% to 90%, would that have a negative impact on the financial markets? If your answer is no, then there is no hope for you whatsoever. If you can admit it would, then you also have to admit that raising the capital gains tax rates will have a negative impact on investment even if its only raised to 35% or 40%.
Shaudius, do you have significant exposure to the financial markets? Have you ever? It appears you have very little first hand experience in this area.
If you're making $50,000/year and someone asks whether you support raising taxes on those making over $1,000,000/year, most people will answer with a resounding YES. However, people who are not negatively impacted by these tax raising measures should have no voice whatsoever in regards to them being passed.
Last edited by andywend; 04-14-12 at 08:59 AM.
And all three of those Presidents left office with recessions. Carter, recession in 1980/81, Clinton recession in 2000/2001, W recession in 2008/2009. But again, that doesn't mean cutting capital gains causes recessions, just like growth that follows cutting capital gains sometimes doesn't mean the cut in the capital gains rate caused it, correlation(even though there isn't much of one in this case) does not equal causation.
"It wasn't until Clinton cut capital gains taxes in 1997 that the economy really took off "
Yes because the internet boom had nothing to do with it, it was all the cut in the capital gains rate.
"But the greatest growth this country has had was actually before we had an income or capital gains tax."
That depends on how you define growth. Do you believe the economy in the US grow more in the period 1800 to 1900 than it did between the period 1900 to 2000?
"You're somewhat correct about IPOs, but it must be noted that it is quite common for corporations to buy and sell stock to make extra money."
Common in that it happens a fair bit? Sure. Common in that its a majority or even a plurality of stock transactions, no. I don't have exact figures, but I feel comfortable saying it makes up somewhere between 5-10% of all stock transactions, which is why I feel comfortable saying that 95% of investors are not participating in this sort of activity, nor are 95% of investors given the privilege of participating in IPOs.
Mitt Romney's net worth is 1000x times mine, his annual income is approximately 300x times mine. This year, I paid far in excess of my tax percentage of Mitt Romney's net worth in income taxes(if we take his rate and apply it to my percentage of his net worth), and an infinite percentage more in SS and medicare taxes(since Mitt Romney is responsible for 0 of that). Similarly if you take my percentage of Mitt Romney's income this year, I also paid a larger percentage in income taxes than he did.
I am decidedly upper middle class in my income range and if my hypothetical spouse made approximately what I do we would be in the upper 5% of households in America, and yet Mitt Romney is paying less than me as a percentage of his net worth and income.
So yes I feel comfortable saying that Mitt Romney is paying "so little". To argue otherwise would not be to argue for a flat tax as many on the right do, because in that case he would actually be paying the same percentage as me, but instead to argue for a regressive tax where the wealth pay less as a percentage of their income, which is actually what the capital gains and carried interest taxes cause, the uber wealthy do not generally speaking earn their income from ordinary income.
This is a strawman, no one is suggesting that the capital gains rate by made 90%, which is a farcry from its current rate. My argument is simply this, there will always be incentive to invest in the capital market as long as the capital gains rate is equal to or lower than the marginal ordinary income rate on that same income because, despite what you say, in the aggregate there is very little risk to investing in a balanced portfolio in common stock. Especially when you are uber wealthy and have access to almost surefire profit IPOs on a fairly regular basis.
Will this always be the case? Who knows, but for now, you can deduct your losses from your wins, so there will always be incentive to risk losses against wins, at any point where that capital gain will be taxed at the same or lower rate than if the money was sitting in a bank account earning ordinary interest because people will be avoiding whatever percentage of tax it would accrue gaining interest in the bank account and are able to deduct their losses from their wins.
I have to laugh at this, yes they have no voice in polls about the issue, but to suggest that they have no voice with regard to things like this being passed is extremely laughable. Wealthy people are one of the few groups that actually does have a voice in American politics. Both uber wealthy individuals and wealthy people running corporations and fronting political organizations.
Well, the greatest 20 year period of economic growth in this country's history was from 1870-1890, and by 1890 we had the #1 economy on the planet.
Obama and Biden could always cut a check to the fed for the difference.
Obama would get the money back anyway when Michelle takes her next taxpayer funded vacation.
They're investing their money so they increase it to spend it. I agree the bubble will burst but I think it will be a few more years. That's what happens when the Fed messes with the economy.
You think the Obama's vacations are paid for by the taxpayers? Only in so much as every President and first family has to have secret service protection, and fly in a government plane for their protection when they travel. Were you complaining about all the vacations that Bush took to his ranch in Texas each of those cost the taxpayer money in flight down and secret service protection while he was on vacation.Obama and Biden could always cut a check to the fed for the difference.
Obama would get the money back anyway when Michelle takes her next taxpayer funded vacation.
Does anyone remember Laura Bush taking separate vacations without George, like Michelle does?
I don't recall anything like that.
That's because when Republican presidents do it under the guise of official travel(which has other things paid for besides the flight and the secret service detail) at the taxpayer expense, right wing media pundits don't have a field day.
"Laura Bush was also a frequent flier who often brought her daughters along for the ride.
Her first foreign foray was a ten-day trip to Paris, Budapest and Prague in 2002 with daughter Jenna, who was then 20.
The White House made sure Laura Bush had at least one "official" event in each city, but she and Jenna spent the bulk of their time at each locale shopping and taking in the sights.
During her husband's second term, Laura Bush also made five goodwill trips to Africa to raise awareness about HIV/AIDS and malaria. But on an African trip in 2007, Laura Bush took Jenna and her other daughter, Barbara, on a safari.
Laura Bush also made an official trip to Burma in support of the pro-Democracy movement and another to the Middle East to promote breast cancer awareness.
The former First Lady's last official foreign trip was to Panama. She brought daughter Barbara with her."
Of course you'll now try to make the argument that those were official trips and these are vacations, but neither was with the President, and all could better be described as vacations than official trips, since the bulk of the time was not spent on official duties.
The Bush trip to Africa for AIDS awareness makes sense, since the Bush Administration pledged $15 Billion to combat the disease, compared to a measly $50 million by the Obama administration.
Oh, you mean 15 billion of taxpayer money? I am sure if the Obama administration spent 15 billion of taxpayer money on AIDS anything right wing pundits would explode.
That doesn't justify Laura Bush spending money taking a Safari on a supposedly necessary for government purposes trip.
You are right, I thought $50 million was too much.
But on the other side, Obama supporters where swooning about how much he cared and just shrugged off the amount Bush sent.
Reply With Quote