Tea Party Crashers

[Red Arrow]

If I made $100 Million and had to pay $40 Million in taxes, I could still live quite nicely on the remaining $60 Million.

[Conan71]

If they value individual liberty and small government then where the eff were they during the Bush administration?  Lying hypocrites. 

I could be wrong as I'm not a follower of the movement.

They aren't hypocrites from that aspect as I understand what their main issues are, Bugo.  The Tea Party movement was brought about by dissatisfaction with the Democrat leadership and the direction the Republican Party had taken in the previous 8 years.  Many are people who thought Bush was a globalist with incredibly liberal spending policies.  They also weren't happy with his sycophants in Congress either.  Otherwise if these people had been satisfied with the GOP and the Bush policies, they would not have split off as a third "party".  Not quite sure where President Bush cut into individual liberty, but if you say so...

[Conan71]

Michael Jeffries of Abercrombie and Fitch would be another good example.  $71 milliion in compensation in a year when the company made $245,000.  Thousand, not million.  That was down from the previous years when they did make about 250 million and 400+million. 

So terrible to have to pay a whopping 15% on all that!!  What a shame.  I guess I can afford to keep up my 40% so he can have the life of luxury he is accustomed to...after all, I am not used to that lifestyle, so won't even know the difference.

= class envy?  Don't know what to tell you.  Unless you are a shareholder who lost money in Abercrombie, why do you care?  Assuming 100% of his taxable income was taxed at 15%, he still would have paid $10.65 million in taxes.

Are you pissed off President Obama only paid about 33% in taxes on his income of $5.6mm, and got to have government room & board to boot?

When policy makers start paying 50 to 60% tax rates on income (it's amazing how much better off legislators become after being elected to office, they wind up making far more than just their Congressional or Senate salary) then fine, the rest of the wealthy can do the same.

[Cats Cats Cats]

= class envy?  Don't know what to tell you.  Unless you are a shareholder who lost money in Abercrombie, why do you care?  Assuming 100% of his taxes were taxed at 15%, he still would have paid $10.65 million in taxes.

Are you pissed off President Obama only paid about 33% in taxes on his income of $5.6mm, and got to have government room & board to boot?

When policy makers start paying 50 to 60% tax rates on income (it's amazing how much better off legislators become after being elected to office, they wind up making far more than just their Congressional or Senate salary) then fine, the rest of the wealthy can do the same.

Indeed, Obama is a sucker for creating and selling something instead of making his money off the stock market.  Thus he pays double the % what the top 400 earners in the US pay.  They should keep capital gains at the income tax rate and then cap it at 30%.  Then drop the 25% and 28% tax brackets down a couple percent to even out the income generated.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Republicans grumble grumble grumble about taxes.  You know why we have taxes, because we have spending.  Do you know how you lower taxes, you lower spending.  You just don't lower taxes and increase the deficit (which they have done every time they have cut taxes the last 30 years).  When is the last time the country spent less money than the year before?  Hasn't been while i have been alive.

[Conan71]

Republicans grumble grumble grumble about taxes.  You know why we have taxes, because we have spending.  Do you know how you lower taxes, you lower spending.  You just don't lower taxes and increase the deficit (which they have done every time they have cut taxes the last 30 years).  When is the last time the country spent less money than the year before?  Hasn't been while i have been alive.

I agree.  Lower taxes should be a reward for lower spending.  Although it's been proven that lower tax rates actually increased the overall tax revenue.  Simply unfortunate that was done at a time of ramping up spending for military escapades, unprecidented natural disasters, and a totally moronic increase in discretionary domestic spending.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Class envy?  Why should I care?  Well, maybe if one were naive enough to believe in "liberty and justice for all" it might be.  But it isn't, it is just plain old concern/irritation/anger/whatever you want to call it that we the regular people cannot afford to buy our very own personal Senators and Representatives like Big Business and Wall Street can.  (Yeah, I know...life's unfair)

Ok, maybe third time to say the same thing is a charm...comprehension will ensue.

I care, as everyone who is in the lower brackets should care because WE are subsidizing those CEO's.  They pay 15 or 16% and WE pay 40%.

And they are NOT paying that on an investment, they are paying it on their annual compensation.
And it's even worse with some of the big venture capital guys, because they don't have to wait the token 1 year.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I agree.  Lower taxes should be a reward for lower spending.  Although it's been proven that lower tax rates actually increased the overall tax revenue.  Simply unfortunate that was done at a time of ramping up spending for military escapades, unprecidented natural disasters, and a totally moronic increase in discretionary domestic spending.

The Republicans always come up with some excuse to spend away.  Which overspending for social programs is socialism for the poor.  Overspending to corporations is takes from the many and gives to the few, just on the other side.

[Conan71]

Kudos to the Democrats for reigning in all that crazy spending!

(insert appropriate Republican, Bush, neo-con action as justification for more stupidity here)

[Cats Cats Cats]

Kudos to the Democrats for reigning in all that crazy spending!

(insert appropriate Republican, Bush, neo-con action as justification for more stupidity here)

Clinton (Plus republican House) had 50% less government spending increases than the average of Reagan, Bush Sr,  Bush Jr.  Reagan +57%, Bush Jr +60%, Bush Sr +22% (4 years).  Clinton had an outlay increase of 26%.

[Conan71]

I think we are all well versed in the fiscal restraint of the Clinton years. That doesn't address what is going on right now though.

[nathanm]

it's been proven that lower tax rates actually increased the overall tax revenue.

The Reagan tax cuts probably increased revenue. I've seen no peer-reviewed studies that suggested the Bush tax cuts did the same. The pre-Reagan tax rates were much higher than they were when Bush cut taxes, hence the difference in response.

[Red Arrow]

I believe Pres. JFK tax cuts also increased fed revenue.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Every single one of the tax cuts trotted out by the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch consortium as being sooooo good for the economy was in fact followed within a couple of years by tax increases.

That is the pattern of economic recovery that works.  Tax cut followed by increases very soon afterward. 

Not what we had in 2001 and 2003.  Hence the problems that have dogged this economy for many years.

[nathanm]

I believe Pres. JFK tax cuts also increased fed revenue.

I wouldn't be surprised. Reducing the top marginal rate from 90% probably did free up quite a bit of money for investment.