C****n
发帖数: 2324 | 1 I was surprised. Man, why 60%? Why not 98%?
This makes me feel that, maybe, American still has hope. At least 38%
Americans knows what they are doing. | l******g
发帖数: 6771 | 2 或者不在乎
【在 C****n 的大作中提到】
: I was surprised. Man, why 60%? Why not 98%?
: This makes me feel that, maybe, American still has hope. At least 38%
: Americans knows what they are doing.
| b*x
发帖数: 5456 | 3 现在给偷换概念了， 加税给2%有鸟用， 最重要的是改 Entitlement。 福利和浪费不
砍， 加到80%都是空的。 有钱的肯定有办法逃税。 而且， 没法给wealth top 2%加税
的。
income 2%还是俺们吃苦。逃也逃不过 | C****n
发帖数: 2324 | 4 You might be right.
Based on democratic theory, raise tax on top 2% is good for the 38%.
And they don't care about their well being?
And I personally many friends not in the 2% camp against the tax raise on
top 2%. They said they are afraid the number will be changed to top 10%, top
20% soon.
You think they are paranoid?
【在 l******g 的大作中提到】
: 或者不在乎
| m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 5 60% is a huge number. You are not in China, North Korea or a dictatorship
country, where winning less than 95% of votes is considered as a failure.
Remember that Reagen and Obama won a 52% of general votes, which is
considered as a landslide win.
60% in congress and senate is called super majority.
In a democratic society, 50.1% is supposed to be enough to pass new laws.
Then they invented filibust, which can be broken by a 60% supermajority.
When you have a 66.7%, you have a power to invalidate president's veto. A 66
.7% majority is close to a total control. Whatever you want to do for the 2/
3 will be done in this country.
【在 C****n 的大作中提到】
: I was surprised. Man, why 60%? Why not 98%?
: This makes me feel that, maybe, American still has hope. At least 38%
: Americans knows what they are doing.
| C****n
发帖数: 2324 | 6 You probably don't understand what I am talking about, so I will say it
again.
Rais the tax of the top 2%, based on Obama, is supposed to be good for the
rest of the 98%, as those money will redistributed among the 98%, and only
hurt the top 2%.
So in theory, these 98% should all be happy for such a bill.
And yet, there're 38% feel this is not right to get money from the top 2%
and put it in their own pocket.
You think these 38% are stupid? No, I think they might be the smartest among
the 98%. They are afraid of two things:
1. Before long, this top 2% will become top 10%, or top 20%. They will be
hurt too.
2. It's just NOT right to punish the working hard. (Please note, we are not
taxing the top 2% wealthy people, we are taxing the top 2% income people, i.
e., the top 2% hard working, also smart people).
Don't give me the notion that the top 2% do not work hard. I am telling you,
people make over $200K, is the most hardworking people of all. There're so
many people around me and on this board making over $200K, and they work so
hard, so responsible for themselves, for their family, for this country!
They DO NOT deserve to be punished!
66
2/
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: 60% is a huge number. You are not in China, North Korea or a dictatorship
: country, where winning less than 95% of votes is considered as a failure.
: Remember that Reagen and Obama won a 52% of general votes, which is
: considered as a landslide win.
: 60% in congress and senate is called super majority.
: In a democratic society, 50.1% is supposed to be enough to pass new laws.
: Then they invented filibust, which can be broken by a 60% supermajority.
: When you have a 66.7%, you have a power to invalidate president's veto. A 66
: .7% majority is close to a total control. Whatever you want to do for the 2/
: 3 will be done in this country.
| a*******1
发帖数: 1554 | 7 59%的共和党反对给富人加税，说过多少次了，美国当前最大的问题是一帮奴隶成天为
奴隶主操心，顽固不化。。。。现在的美国，资方势力太强压榨劳工，政府和劳方太弱
，唯有联合起来，才能获得自己应得的那份收入。。。 | l******g
发帖数: 6771 | 8 呵呵
【在 a*******1 的大作中提到】
: 59%的共和党反对给富人加税，说过多少次了，美国当前最大的问题是一帮奴隶成天为
: 奴隶主操心，顽固不化。。。。现在的美国，资方势力太强压榨劳工，政府和劳方太弱
: ，唯有联合起来，才能获得自己应得的那份收入。。。
| m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 9 Who is right or wrong is another matter to debate.
But this is a democratic country, so laws have to benefit the majority,
which means 50.1%.
When the 50.1% demand something, they speak that this something is good for
them.
You are claiming that the rest of 38% is smarter than the 60%. Do you do
some IQ tests and polling before you conclude this?
I can say the opposite, that the 38% is among the stupidest, which may be
right or may be wrong, who knows, as a serial murder can get a 30% approval
rating in this country, a true story.
among
【在 C****n 的大作中提到】
: You probably don't understand what I am talking about, so I will say it
: again.
: Rais the tax of the top 2%, based on Obama, is supposed to be good for the
: rest of the 98%, as those money will redistributed among the 98%, and only
: hurt the top 2%.
: So in theory, these 98% should all be happy for such a bill.
: And yet, there're 38% feel this is not right to get money from the top 2%
: and put it in their own pocket.
: You think these 38% are stupid? No, I think they might be the smartest among
: the 98%. They are afraid of two things:
| d******a
发帖数: 178 | 10 The phrases that make me vomit:
(1) their fair share:
IRS statistics: 47% do not pay income taxes. some even get paid instead.
average effect tax rate for $20K-$50K earners is below 5%; that for $50K-$
100K earners is below 10%; that for Obama defined riches is over 20%. well,
I only see Mitt's 14% rate, and Buffet's rate is lower than his secretary,
who must belong to middle class (yes must).
(2) because they can afford it.
yes, no other excuse is necessary. take their money because they have it
. being rich by itself is already evil. they can afford it by not taking
vacations, by not buying luxury goods. they will not die from more taxes.
the 98%, on the other hand, can not afford another dime. they already live
paycheck by paycheck. they spend all money on "basic" needs. well, if the
welfare people lower their heater thermostat to where I set it in my house,
they will freeze to death; if they turn up their AC thermostat to where I
set it in my house, they will sweat to death. | | | C****n
发帖数: 2324 | 11 Agree "Who is right or wrong is another matter to debate".
The FACT that Republican is majority in the HOUSE already told you people
prefer "Republican ideal" in the house.
Besides that, I am not a big fun of a "democratic" idea anyway. As we all
know, people are selfish, people are greed. The fact that there're 38% who
does not want to raise TAX on somebody else: the "RICH" people, that could
potentially benefit themselves, really surprised me. Prop 30 in California
want to raise tax on top 2% got passed landslide, and I was not surprised at
all.
A pure "democratic ideal" is very dangerous to human kind, I don't want to
explain why, assume you already knew it. The fact is: If people can get
something without working for it, they will!
I remember somebody said, 人民， 人民大众， 如果把人民大众这个整体看成一个人
的话， 你会发现， 他道德中等偏下， 智力更是中等偏下， 但是能量惊人。 对这个
人要时刻保持警惕。
for
approval
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: Who is right or wrong is another matter to debate.
: But this is a democratic country, so laws have to benefit the majority,
: which means 50.1%.
: When the 50.1% demand something, they speak that this something is good for
: them.
: You are claiming that the rest of 38% is smarter than the 60%. Do you do
: some IQ tests and polling before you conclude this?
: I can say the opposite, that the 38% is among the stupidest, which may be
: right or may be wrong, who knows, as a serial murder can get a 30% approval
: rating in this country, a true story.
| d******a
发帖数: 178 | 12 CK,
Let me provide a possible explanation to the 38%: The poll question (do you
support raising taxes for the 2%?). I totally agree with you that humans are
selfish and greedy (which by the way has been the main source of mankind's
progress). The 60% supported it probably just out of admiration/jealousy/
hatred toward the rich. The 38% did not support probably because they have
some sympathy towards the rich or hatred towards some lazy welfare people.
Imagine if you emphasize the benefit for the 38%, such as "do you support
raising taxes for the 2% so Chairman Obama can pay you $1000?". My guess the
support rate will be over 90% if not 98%.
In simple words, 38% did not think they will benefit much or rather the
benefit will go to the 60%. If they are guaranteed $1000 benefit, they will
definitely vote for it. It's pure human nature. | C****n
发帖数: 2324 | 13 Agreed.
So what I am saying is:
1. At least 38% Americans think that raise the TAX on top 2% is not a good
idea. Either because it won't benefit themselves, or because they simply
think it's WRONG!
2. Democratic IDEAL has foundamental flaws. Greedy and selfish will destroy
human being itself. I mean, greedy and selfish are good. But greedy +
selfish + democracy = BAD!
Raising the TAX of top 2% is different than raising the TAX for TOP 49%? Be
careful!
As a matter of FACT, USA is not a democratic country if you look closely.
The founding fathers did everything they can to prevent a pure democracy in
US. The design of senator, house, especially JUSTICE, is one way to prevent
a pure democracy in USA.
Democracy was known as "The rule of MOB". Don't know why and when, it became
an IDEAL political system for a lot people.
you
are
s
the
【在 d******a 的大作中提到】
: CK,
: Let me provide a possible explanation to the 38%: The poll question (do you
: support raising taxes for the 2%?). I totally agree with you that humans are
: selfish and greedy (which by the way has been the main source of mankind's
: progress). The 60% supported it probably just out of admiration/jealousy/
: hatred toward the rich. The 38% did not support probably because they have
: some sympathy towards the rich or hatred towards some lazy welfare people.
: Imagine if you emphasize the benefit for the 38%, such as "do you support
: raising taxes for the 2% so Chairman Obama can pay you $1000?". My guess the
: support rate will be over 90% if not 98%.
| d******a
发帖数: 178 | 14 Exactly, Founding Fathers did not give everyone a vote. In order to be able
to vote, one needed to have properties for taxation. If you do not
contribute but receive government services, if you live on other people's
handouts, you should not be given the power to decide how much other people
have to handout to you. Otherwise it is just immoral. | l******g
发帖数: 6771 | 15 有一说一，it seems you know founding fathers pretty well.
able
people
【在 d******a 的大作中提到】
: Exactly, Founding Fathers did not give everyone a vote. In order to be able
: to vote, one needed to have properties for taxation. If you do not
: contribute but receive government services, if you live on other people's
: handouts, you should not be given the power to decide how much other people
: have to handout to you. Otherwise it is just immoral.
| m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 16 First of all, only a third of the congress members went for reelection this
year and republicans lost votes to democrats. So you do not know whether if
the full congress go to a reelection, republican still will hold a majority.
Secondly, the president campaigned on high taxes on the 2% as the major
theme for reelection and he won a landslide, taking almost every swing state
except north Carolina, with a margin of electoral vote 332 to 206.
Thirdly, California's prop 30 that raises tax on the wealthy, passed with a
simple majority, with a margin of 54% to 46%.
Lastly, every poll finds that a super majority of 60% supports higher tax on
the every wealthy. I find that this reflects a very significant demand from
the people and the politicians better listen to them, to reduce their
resentment.
I do agree that this country is not simply running on the popularity but is
designed to be ruled as a Republic by the founding fathers of this country.
So not every prop is up to a popular vote. This may be good in the longer
terms because a popular vote on every issue is every expensive and
inefficient. Nothing gets done this way in the end.
at
【在 C****n 的大作中提到】
: Agree "Who is right or wrong is another matter to debate".
: The FACT that Republican is majority in the HOUSE already told you people
: prefer "Republican ideal" in the house.
: Besides that, I am not a big fun of a "democratic" idea anyway. As we all
: know, people are selfish, people are greed. The fact that there're 38% who
: does not want to raise TAX on somebody else: the "RICH" people, that could
: potentially benefit themselves, really surprised me. Prop 30 in California
: want to raise tax on top 2% got passed landslide, and I was not surprised at
: all.
: A pure "democratic ideal" is very dangerous to human kind, I don't want to
| l******g
发帖数: 6771 | 17 1/3 rule works for senate and house seats are all up for re-election every 2
years.
this
if
majority.
state
a
on
from
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: First of all, only a third of the congress members went for reelection this
: year and republicans lost votes to democrats. So you do not know whether if
: the full congress go to a reelection, republican still will hold a majority.
: Secondly, the president campaigned on high taxes on the 2% as the major
: theme for reelection and he won a landslide, taking almost every swing state
: except north Carolina, with a margin of electoral vote 332 to 206.
: Thirdly, California's prop 30 that raises tax on the wealthy, passed with a
: simple majority, with a margin of 54% to 46%.
: Lastly, every poll finds that a super majority of 60% supports higher tax on
: the every wealthy. I find that this reflects a very significant demand from
| d******a
发帖数: 178 | 18 Lake frog, I don't know any of founding fathers. I just looked up some
historical facts. Originally in most states only white men with real
properties can vote. I am not saying that standard was right. I am only
saying that pure takers should not have the power to decide how much givers
have to give to them.
【在 l******g 的大作中提到】
: 有一说一，it seems you know founding fathers pretty well.
:
: able
: people
| d*****y
发帖数: 1365 | 19 Because the 38% is stupid enough to believe they belongs to the 2%.
【在 C****n 的大作中提到】
: I was surprised. Man, why 60%? Why not 98%?
: This makes me feel that, maybe, American still has hope. At least 38%
: Americans knows what they are doing.
| b*******h
发帖数: 2585 | 20 你说的有道理。实际上我自己觉得联邦税的主要部分应该就是SS MC。 因为联邦政府
除了提供一个基本的安全网，不应该有其他的功能。 不缴税的人无权讨论税收。
因为税收本来的意义，就是自愿捐献。
政府要调节社会， 应该控制一些公共事业。 或者把对一些公共事业的经营许可权收税
givers
【在 d******a 的大作中提到】
: Lake frog, I don't know any of founding fathers. I just looked up some
: historical facts. Originally in most states only white men with real
: properties can vote. I am not saying that standard was right. I am only
: saying that pure takers should not have the power to decide how much givers
: have to give to them.
| | | m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 21 I do not think that they are that stupid to believe in this shit.
Most likely they believe that they will end up as 2%, someday down the road.
It is a not bad thing to want to be success. In fact, most of us want it.
But I believe that raising tax on the top 2% NOW will help my dream to
become wealthy in the future, because I am not wealthy right now and I hope
the wealthy share a bigger burden.
【在 d*****y 的大作中提到】
: Because the 38% is stupid enough to believe they belongs to the 2%.
| d*****y
发帖数: 1365 | 22 "The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time
magazine survey that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of
earners. Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the richest 1 percent
and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. "
So that explains this 38% number....
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hope-o
road.
hope
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: I do not think that they are that stupid to believe in this shit.
: Most likely they believe that they will end up as 2%, someday down the road.
: It is a not bad thing to want to be success. In fact, most of us want it.
: But I believe that raising tax on the top 2% NOW will help my dream to
: become wealthy in the future, because I am not wealthy right now and I hope
: the wealthy share a bigger burden.
| d******a
发帖数: 178 | 23 If you dream to become one of the 2% someday down the road, with help of
raising tax on the top 2% NOW, what makes you believe when that day comes, I
will not do the exact thing you are doing now? the 98% unite together and
take money from the 2%. They probably start with little money, soon they
will need more, and more, and take it all. Soon the 2% will have no money
and the previous 3-4% will become the new 2%, and so on. Everyone will have
a chance to be the 2%. People, as a whole, is not intelligent enough to see
a few more steps ahead. Most people, the 60%, just want others' money NOW.
road.
hope
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: I do not think that they are that stupid to believe in this shit.
: Most likely they believe that they will end up as 2%, someday down the road.
: It is a not bad thing to want to be success. In fact, most of us want it.
: But I believe that raising tax on the top 2% NOW will help my dream to
: become wealthy in the future, because I am not wealthy right now and I hope
: the wealthy share a bigger burden.
| d*****y
发帖数: 1365 | 24 If the tax is not raised this time, united states will be doomed. The income
gap as large as this will hurt the economony and stability of the united
states. At the end of the day, everyone, including the the greedy but
short-sighted top 2% and dumb 38%, will be the victim. You will be in your
dream to be among the top 2%.
I
have
see
【在 d******a 的大作中提到】
: If you dream to become one of the 2% someday down the road, with help of
: raising tax on the top 2% NOW, what makes you believe when that day comes, I
: will not do the exact thing you are doing now? the 98% unite together and
: take money from the 2%. They probably start with little money, soon they
: will need more, and more, and take it all. Soon the 2% will have no money
: and the previous 3-4% will become the new 2%, and so on. Everyone will have
: a chance to be the 2%. People, as a whole, is not intelligent enough to see
: a few more steps ahead. Most people, the 60%, just want others' money NOW.
:
: road.
| d******a
发帖数: 178 | 25 The plan is not to tax the top 2%, rather to tax the $200K/$250K. People
might not know if they belong to top 1% or not, but they sure know how much
they make in a year!
percent
【在 d*****y 的大作中提到】
: "The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time
: magazine survey that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of
: earners. Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the richest 1 percent
: and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. "
: So that explains this 38% number....
: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hope-o
:
: road.
: hope
| m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 26 Debating in abstract or what is possibly going to come is a useless excise.
DON'T pretend to be a victim, when in reality the rich enjoy great
advantages in this country. Don't try to deny this. It will only lead to the
conclusion that you are not mature enough to have a serious discussion.
Answer this question first, "is the rich in a distressed or worse condition
than what was before, in any time of the history?"
If you don't know this, I will illustrate a few things enjoyed by riches.
1. Inventing the offshore accounting rules, so basically avoiding paying
nothing in taxes. The fine example is GE.
2. categorizing incomes into different kinds. The kind that the rich gets
have the lowest tax rate ever, which is capped to 15%, and does not have to
pay social security and medicare taxes on them.
3. MOST IMPORTANT. They invented limited liability rule of corporations.
Their personal wealthy is shielded from the risk of doing business.
This is so huge for the riches. They could take unlimited risk and make a
killing on billions of profit and pass the money to their personal coffer.
When the company is bankrupted, they still enjoy billions of their wealthy.
In 20s, when BANKs and companies are bankruptied, the rich guys have to kill
themselves, in order not to pay the debts. IT IS DIFFERENT NOW. And they
don't have to.
The subprime mortgage company CEO paid himself several billions dollars of
money, by betting "successfully' on house. But when subprime scam was over,
the CEO is several billions dollar rich. And taxpayers pick up the debts of
the bankrupted company. Bankruptcy law is not written to get back the money
from CEOs. In the old day, this CEO had to kill himself to pay the mistake.
I
have
see
【在 d******a 的大作中提到】
: If you dream to become one of the 2% someday down the road, with help of
: raising tax on the top 2% NOW, what makes you believe when that day comes, I
: will not do the exact thing you are doing now? the 98% unite together and
: take money from the 2%. They probably start with little money, soon they
: will need more, and more, and take it all. Soon the 2% will have no money
: and the previous 3-4% will become the new 2%, and so on. Everyone will have
: a chance to be the 2%. People, as a whole, is not intelligent enough to see
: a few more steps ahead. Most people, the 60%, just want others' money NOW.
:
: road.
| c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 27 你这个李双双吃黑屎涂鞋油之余，说说联储会是代表超富还是穷人的？
民主党誓死捍卫联储会反对audit FED是怎么回事？
尼玛你个票蛆除了奉旨吃屎有啥遗愿智力。
【在 a*******1 的大作中提到】
: 59%的共和党反对给富人加税，说过多少次了，美国当前最大的问题是一帮奴隶成天为
: 奴隶主操心，顽固不化。。。。现在的美国，资方势力太强压榨劳工，政府和劳方太弱
: ，唯有联合起来，才能获得自己应得的那份收入。。。
| d******a
发帖数: 178 | 28 Then go after the unfair advantage for riches you mentioned. But drawing a
line in the sand and raising the already higher tax rates over that is not
right. I am a hard working individual and make $150K. You and your spouse
are both hard working individuals and make $150K each. What makes you think
that your $300K income is evil while my $150K is innocent? If you hate CEOs
making a billion dollars, find a way to stop them from making that kind of
bloody money on the expense of the public. Authorize them to make the money
first then rob them using democracy is not right. Let alone rob some honest
hard working people at the same time.
.
the
condition
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: Debating in abstract or what is possibly going to come is a useless excise.
: DON'T pretend to be a victim, when in reality the rich enjoy great
: advantages in this country. Don't try to deny this. It will only lead to the
: conclusion that you are not mature enough to have a serious discussion.
: Answer this question first, "is the rich in a distressed or worse condition
: than what was before, in any time of the history?"
: If you don't know this, I will illustrate a few things enjoyed by riches.
: 1. Inventing the offshore accounting rules, so basically avoiding paying
: nothing in taxes. The fine example is GE.
: 2. categorizing incomes into different kinds. The kind that the rich gets
| C****n
发帖数: 2324 | 29 Well said.
We need to work on the creating a fair system, instead of work on
redistribution.
That's WHY I like GOP. GOP propose to close the loophole in TAX, cap the
morgage deduction to $25K. And this will raise $1.3T tax in next 10 years,
based on some analysis.
But GOP is against raising tax on rich ($200K+), which will only raise $440B
in next 10 year if you raise tax on the rich.
Basically GOP's idea is: Raise TAX will discourage people to work.
Cap the Morgage deduction to $25K will NOT hurt most middle class, if you
have too much a loan that you have to deduct over $25K interest a year, man,
you are already in trouble, unless you are already rich.
think
CEOs
money
honest
【在 d******a 的大作中提到】
: Then go after the unfair advantage for riches you mentioned. But drawing a
: line in the sand and raising the already higher tax rates over that is not
: right. I am a hard working individual and make $150K. You and your spouse
: are both hard working individuals and make $150K each. What makes you think
: that your $300K income is evil while my $150K is innocent? If you hate CEOs
: making a billion dollars, find a way to stop them from making that kind of
: bloody money on the expense of the public. Authorize them to make the money
: first then rob them using democracy is not right. Let alone rob some honest
: hard working people at the same time.
:
| m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 30 You are laughable to quote lies again and again. Where do you get the line "
already high tax"? The tax rate NOW is the LOWEST in history since world war
2.
The "tax rates on the richest Americans fell from 91 percent in the 1950s
and 1960s, and 70 percent in the 1970s, to the current low rate of 35
percent.
The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to
Uncle Sam. Today, they pay 18% on the average, according to Steve Rattner,
a Wall Street financier
think
CEOs
money
honest
【在 d******a 的大作中提到】
: Then go after the unfair advantage for riches you mentioned. But drawing a
: line in the sand and raising the already higher tax rates over that is not
: right. I am a hard working individual and make $150K. You and your spouse
: are both hard working individuals and make $150K each. What makes you think
: that your $300K income is evil while my $150K is innocent? If you hate CEOs
: making a billion dollars, find a way to stop them from making that kind of
: bloody money on the expense of the public. Authorize them to make the money
: first then rob them using democracy is not right. Let alone rob some honest
: hard working people at the same time.
:
| | | m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 31 Do you realize that by enforcing what the GOP propose, the net taxes paid by
the high middle class will go up significantly. It will become harder to
realize the American dream, to be the top 0.1%, with Annual income more than
$1.6 millions.
440B
【在 C****n 的大作中提到】
: Well said.
: We need to work on the creating a fair system, instead of work on
: redistribution.
: That's WHY I like GOP. GOP propose to close the loophole in TAX, cap the
: morgage deduction to $25K. And this will raise $1.3T tax in next 10 years,
: based on some analysis.
: But GOP is against raising tax on rich ($200K+), which will only raise $440B
: in next 10 year if you raise tax on the rich.
: Basically GOP's idea is: Raise TAX will discourage people to work.
: Cap the Morgage deduction to $25K will NOT hurt most middle class, if you
| b*******h
发帖数: 2585 | 32 就是说GOP只是去掉豪宅的MORGAEGE INTREST DEDUCTION？ 自由派好像有意不提这一点？
440B
【在 C****n 的大作中提到】
: Well said.
: We need to work on the creating a fair system, instead of work on
: redistribution.
: That's WHY I like GOP. GOP propose to close the loophole in TAX, cap the
: morgage deduction to $25K. And this will raise $1.3T tax in next 10 years,
: based on some analysis.
: But GOP is against raising tax on rich ($200K+), which will only raise $440B
: in next 10 year if you raise tax on the rich.
: Basically GOP's idea is: Raise TAX will discourage people to work.
: Cap the Morgage deduction to $25K will NOT hurt most middle class, if you
| C****n
发帖数: 2324 | 33 I don't see how.
The morgage deduction capped at $25K or $17K, should be more than enough for
most middle class.
Again, if you have a bigger morgage, you are either irresponsible, or you
are already rich!
That's why I like this idea. It encourage people to work, encourage people
to live within their means.
Obama's plan will force people to be IRRESPONSIBLE! If you are a responsible
person, you will punished, taxed. If you are NOT a responsible person,
guess what, you will be rewarded by government subsidization: We will pay
your morgage interest for you! Buy a bigger house, you idot! That's
basically Obama is promoting.
by
than
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: Do you realize that by enforcing what the GOP propose, the net taxes paid by
: the high middle class will go up significantly. It will become harder to
: realize the American dream, to be the top 0.1%, with Annual income more than
: $1.6 millions.
:
: 440B
| l******t
发帖数: 12659 | 34 good points.
Any media mentioned these?
for
responsible
paid
to
【在 C****n 的大作中提到】
: I don't see how.
: The morgage deduction capped at $25K or $17K, should be more than enough for
: most middle class.
: Again, if you have a bigger morgage, you are either irresponsible, or you
: are already rich!
: That's why I like this idea. It encourage people to work, encourage people
: to live within their means.
: Obama's plan will force people to be IRRESPONSIBLE! If you are a responsible
: person, you will punished, taxed. If you are NOT a responsible person,
: guess what, you will be rewarded by government subsidization: We will pay
| C****n
发帖数: 2324 | 35 Yes.
And Raising the tax for $200K+ income will only eaise $44b per year. It's
nothing! Obama is just trying to prove to his voters that he WILL punish the
$200K+ folks for sure.
点？
【在 b*******h 的大作中提到】
: 就是说GOP只是去掉豪宅的MORGAEGE INTREST DEDUCTION？ 自由派好像有意不提这一点？
:
: 440B
| m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 36 It is not big enough. Then why are you fighting for this "small" pile of
money if it is nothing to you.
But $44 billions is a lot of money to me. It will pay more than half of the
FOOD Stamps, which is $71.8 billion this year.
the
【在 C****n 的大作中提到】
: Yes.
: And Raising the tax for $200K+ income will only eaise $44b per year. It's
: nothing! Obama is just trying to prove to his voters that he WILL punish the
: $200K+ folks for sure.
:
: 点？
| C****n
发帖数: 2324 | 37 It's nothing to the country's budget deficit.
But it's a lot to individuals. Because it's paid by only 2% of its citizens!
Closing the loophole will raise a lot more money, and Obama does not want to
do it? Why?
It's a pure political show! Obama wants to prove to its voters that he will
punish Hardworking people! It's OK to be on food stamp! Nothing to be shamed
off. Relax, enjoy your life.
And you are still fighting for the FoodStamps!
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: It is not big enough. Then why are you fighting for this "small" pile of
: money if it is nothing to you.
: But $44 billions is a lot of money to me. It will pay more than half of the
: FOOD Stamps, which is $71.8 billion this year.
:
: the
| m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 38 How do you define a lot? Is it a 10% tax increase or 50% or 100%?
The top 2% was doing just fine under the EXACTLY same tax rate under
president Clinton. I am sure that they will be fine under Obama's tax rate.
For the deficit, why is the $50 billion cut to defense considered to be
severe for the program that the GOP likes?
citizens!
【在 C****n 的大作中提到】
: It's nothing to the country's budget deficit.
: But it's a lot to individuals. Because it's paid by only 2% of its citizens!
: Closing the loophole will raise a lot more money, and Obama does not want to
: do it? Why?
: It's a pure political show! Obama wants to prove to its voters that he will
: punish Hardworking people! It's OK to be on food stamp! Nothing to be shamed
: off. Relax, enjoy your life.
: And you are still fighting for the FoodStamps!
| m******e
发帖数: 2515 | 39 我很吃惊为什么不是80%反对给收入top 2%的人加税。首先这加税影响不到主要靠
capital gain赚钱的真正富人，其次这钱80%以上的人感受不到，最终不过大部分被日
益膨胀的官僚政府给消耗掉了，剩下一点残渣剩饭，给了10%寄生社会的懒人。
然后这top 2% 扩展到4%，8%，10%，20%。。。最后的结果是官僚政府越来越膨胀，懒
人越来越多。
美国的问题是，被越来越多不劳而获的最富的人和最懒的人插管吸血。而给收入top 2%
的人加税，是让这个趋势更恶化了？还是更缓解了？
【在 C****n 的大作中提到】
: I was surprised. Man, why 60%? Why not 98%?
: This makes me feel that, maybe, American still has hope. At least 38%
: Americans knows what they are doing.
| C****n
发帖数: 2324 | 40 Because Obama defined them as the "RICH".
$200k+ income is evil rich, that's the message.
2%
【在 m******e 的大作中提到】
: 我很吃惊为什么不是80%反对给收入top 2%的人加税。首先这加税影响不到主要靠
: capital gain赚钱的真正富人，其次这钱80%以上的人感受不到，最终不过大部分被日
: 益膨胀的官僚政府给消耗掉了，剩下一点残渣剩饭，给了10%寄生社会的懒人。
: 然后这top 2% 扩展到4%，8%，10%，20%。。。最后的结果是官僚政府越来越膨胀，懒
: 人越来越多。
: 美国的问题是，被越来越多不劳而获的最富的人和最懒的人插管吸血。而给收入top 2%
: 的人加税，是让这个趋势更恶化了？还是更缓解了？
| | | d******a
发帖数: 178 | 41 md,
First to answer your claim that I quoted liar again and again. The tax rate
for rich is already higher, compared to the 98%, not compared to post-ww2. I
still do not understand why you pay $10 for the first $100 earned then you
need to pay $20 for the additional $100 earned. Also, have you checked the
income threshold for the 90% post-ww2 rate? What is it in today's dollars?
How many people paid how much on the 90% rate? Do you really think
government can receive any money on 90% fed rate plus 10% state rate? Even
Reagan admitted he used to stop working every year once he earned enough to
enter the 90% category.
Second, to comment on your claim that rich will be fine under Obama's rate,
which by the way is Clinton rate plus 3.8% for OCare. Yes, they will be fine
. But it does not give your right to rob them. They will most likely be fine
even you raise their rate further to 90%. Per your logic, since they will
be fine, you should do it. You probably forget that some people work hard
and earn more money in order to do finer, to be happier, to enjoy life more,
to reward themselves more. Not just to do "fine" which is defined by
someone else, not to start rewarding other people once they reach the "fine"
line.
Finally, if you think they made the money wrongly, go fix the system so they
only make money in the way the public think is right. Do not authorize the
legality of their income then rob them.
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: How do you define a lot? Is it a 10% tax increase or 50% or 100%?
: The top 2% was doing just fine under the EXACTLY same tax rate under
: president Clinton. I am sure that they will be fine under Obama's tax rate.
: For the deficit, why is the $50 billion cut to defense considered to be
: severe for the program that the GOP likes?
:
: citizens!
| d*****y
发帖数: 1365 | 42 It is a myth that those rich gets rich because they work hard. I donot
disagree that some of them do work hard. But i would say most of them do not
work as hard as engineers.
They got rich because 1) they are lucky to have a rich data (like G. Bush).
2) they have money to buy lobbist and congress to gain advantage.
3) they lay off american workers and ship job overseas to pay less.
4) some of them are just happen to be smart and work hard, such as Bill
Gates, Larry Page. but most of people in this category are democrates,
because they are just too smart to be brainwashed buy foxnews and Rush Limbo.
rate
I
you
to
【在 d******a 的大作中提到】
: md,
: First to answer your claim that I quoted liar again and again. The tax rate
: for rich is already higher, compared to the 98%, not compared to post-ww2. I
: still do not understand why you pay $10 for the first $100 earned then you
: need to pay $20 for the additional $100 earned. Also, have you checked the
: income threshold for the 90% post-ww2 rate? What is it in today's dollars?
: How many people paid how much on the 90% rate? Do you really think
: government can receive any money on 90% fed rate plus 10% state rate? Even
: Reagan admitted he used to stop working every year once he earned enough to
: enter the 90% category.
| l******g
发帖数: 6771 | 43 +1
not
Limbo.
【在 d*****y 的大作中提到】
: It is a myth that those rich gets rich because they work hard. I donot
: disagree that some of them do work hard. But i would say most of them do not
: work as hard as engineers.
: They got rich because 1) they are lucky to have a rich data (like G. Bush).
: 2) they have money to buy lobbist and congress to gain advantage.
: 3) they lay off american workers and ship job overseas to pay less.
: 4) some of them are just happen to be smart and work hard, such as Bill
: Gates, Larry Page. but most of people in this category are democrates,
: because they are just too smart to be brainwashed buy foxnews and Rush Limbo.
:
| C****n
发帖数: 2324 | 44 If you tax the $200k+, you are taxing the working hard, not taxing the "rich"
not
Limbo.
【在 d*****y 的大作中提到】
: It is a myth that those rich gets rich because they work hard. I donot
: disagree that some of them do work hard. But i would say most of them do not
: work as hard as engineers.
: They got rich because 1) they are lucky to have a rich data (like G. Bush).
: 2) they have money to buy lobbist and congress to gain advantage.
: 3) they lay off american workers and ship job overseas to pay less.
: 4) some of them are just happen to be smart and work hard, such as Bill
: Gates, Larry Page. but most of people in this category are democrates,
: because they are just too smart to be brainwashed buy foxnews and Rush Limbo.
:
| l******g
发帖数: 6771 | 45 To some degree, that's true, too.
rich"
【在 C****n 的大作中提到】
: If you tax the $200k+, you are taxing the working hard, not taxing the "rich"
:
: not
: Limbo.
| d******a
发帖数: 178 | 46 I heard Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are donating most of their fortune into
a charitable foundation. I hope they support capping charitable donation
deductions. I hope they are not donating stocks so future gains will not be
taxed. I hope the foundation is not and will not being run by their families
, children and children's children. I hope the foundation will not pay big
bucks to its runners. I hope all their houses, vacations, boats and
airplanes will not be the foundation's offices, conferences, transportation
units.
I heard Warren Buffet begs the government to raise his tax rates. I hope he
still have the same taxable income as before. I hope he pays taxes first
then donate to his foundation. I hope he has not been fighting with IRS for
back owed taxes. I hope he does not just want other rich people to pay more
taxes. I hope Berkshire Hathaway's portfolio does not include any company
that layoff American workers, outsource the jobs to make more money.
not
Limbo.
【在 d*****y 的大作中提到】
: It is a myth that those rich gets rich because they work hard. I donot
: disagree that some of them do work hard. But i would say most of them do not
: work as hard as engineers.
: They got rich because 1) they are lucky to have a rich data (like G. Bush).
: 2) they have money to buy lobbist and congress to gain advantage.
: 3) they lay off american workers and ship job overseas to pay less.
: 4) some of them are just happen to be smart and work hard, such as Bill
: Gates, Larry Page. but most of people in this category are democrates,
: because they are just too smart to be brainwashed buy foxnews and Rush Limbo.
:
|
|
