Page 1 of 1

"class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near?

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:09 am
by H4ever
So Obama calls for heftier taxes on the wealthy and the right immediately brings out "class warfare" in a lame attempt to rally support against it. Ummm, hey dipshits....good luck with that considering the economy and the ongoing erosion of the middle class to working poor/barely scraping by status. I'm no Obama fan, but this kind of move is probably the very thing that's going to get him elected for another four years. People will jump on this bandwagon and that 10% won't stand a snowball's chance in hell of stemming the tide this political move will help create.

Considering the bailouts where the taxpayers were forced to prop up miserably failed banks and corporations with nothing gained jobwise, the record deficit, unemployment, people's frustration with corporate controlled politicians.....yea, class warfare is exactely what the majority wants and they don't give two shits what Fox News thinks about it. As a matter of fact, they are wising up to the fraud and corruption in Washington and especially on Wall Street where it all begins.

I think Obama is a socialist and the corporate bailouts and health ins reforms were meant to expose Wall Street and big business more than they were to create jobs or improve care. He secretly enjoys watching big business and the super-rich cry foul as his agenda advances on. The shit is working and if he gets in for another four years, I don't even want to think about what's next. When 75 percent are either struggling or have had their standards of living reduced.....the timing couldn't be any better and none of them really give two shits about the foot-stamping of corporate America and the rich. It only infuriates them more and builds their resolve that the rich, need to take a bite out of this shit sandwich (suffer along with everyone else) and they will elect the people (Obama/liberals/socialists) who will make them. Scarey shit.

Re: "class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:22 am
by Dinsdale
Makes sense to reelect the party that shipped the jobs overseas (and Obummer thinks his plan to outsource even more jobs is a "key to recovery").

Don't get me wrong, the D's had plenty of help from the R's when it came time to make sure most Americans were starving 10 years down the road (since very simple logic dictated that it was the inevitable outcome of such a moronic policy "hey! Let's all stop working hard and shuffle paoer for a living!"... thanks, Clinton... at least you got your 4 more years out of our deep suffering).

Shoot every last one of them not named Ron Paul (who actually upholds his oath... maybe the only one, with the possible exception of some other dude name Paul).

Re: "class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:26 am
by Dinsdale
BTW -- it cracks me up that no one, and I mean NO ONE in Screweysville will EVER mention the elephant in the room when it comes to the "fair share" dealio...

I'd say it's about fucking time China pays their "fair share," no?

Pretty fucking sure they made more off the backs of Americans than Buffet did last year, eh?

Re: "class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:43 am
by bradhusker
I like this thread, I like it a lot, you dont mind if I camp out here for a while do you? It is very clear that the majority of poor democrats are stupid people who make very poor choices in life. Thus, they remain poor, AND Obama and the dems can count on their votes by preying on their fears and promising them free money.

Ben Franklin knew this, he said it will mark the end of our great republic. This is why I look at dems with pure hatred and disdain, I cant stand the sight of their ugly lying rat like faces, and I will shout it from the hilltops that they are a bunch of lying cowards with zero common sense.

If you are poor, it is because you make horrible choices in this life, and you blame others for your loser self, I have no sympathy for you, except to say, GO TO WORK you loser you. Even if you must start as a clean up guy for Wendys or BK, if you bust your ass for a couple years, you WILL be the manager one day, and then you will have a sense of self worth, you piece of garbage you.
NOW get to work.

Re: "class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:50 am
by Dinsdale
Brad -- don't fire them both off in the same thread, bro.

Way too obvious.

Re: "class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:01 am
by bradhusker
88 wrote:If I'm going to take H4ever's take seriously, I need some definitions:

In your opinion, what range of income puts you in the "middle class"?

What amount of income qualifies you as "rich"?

And how much should each class pay, in order for that particular class to be paying their "fair share"?
simple,

the middle class is roughly an income range of between 49, 500 and 89,500, now, if you are a family with more than 3, then you need to have your tubes tied. Go adopt a puppy or kitten if you feel the need to nurture something, you fuckin idiot.

NOW, to qual;ify as "rich", you should be making between 175,000 and 225,000. These amounts of income put you roughly on the cusp of relative richness, provided you live a responsible life with no drugs gambling or hookers.

Finally there is comfortably rich, and FILTHY rich, and comfortably numb.

Comfortably rich puts you in the income range of roughly 350,000 to half a million, and you can do the occaisional hooker or qualude, but only very rarely and with great discreation.

Filthy rich is the ultimate plateau in life, you have power, and luxury, anything over 5 million a year coming in every year, and usually doubling and snowballing every single year. You can have the american express black card, you can have your enemies killed if you want, and yes, you can sodomize hot sluts.

comfortably numb is a classic Floyd song, one of the best rock anthems of all time.

Re: "class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:13 am
by bradhusker
you want to know what their "fair share" is? ok,

if you make less then 35,000 a year, you get an exempt, and pay zero federal income tax, ZERO.

if you fall in the middle class, and make between say 48,000 and 89,000, your bracket would be roughly 15 percent,

now, lets say you make over 115,000 a year to 225,000 a year, then your tax rate would be 21 percent,

if you make say 250,000 to half a million, your bracket goes up to 29 percent,

see my point? the more you earn, the more federal income tax you pay, but, I dont want the govt. taking any more than 35 percent, no matter how rich you are.

35 percent is a good stopping point, this way we as human beings can retain some form of dignity in life.

and, as you can see, the poor dont pay federal income tax, only the rich do, up to 35 percent.

You work hard yolur entire life, you should be allowed to keep at least 65 percent of your hard labor.

I dont want some sick democrat taking your money and blowing it. like Obama did with that solar company which went bankrupt.

Re: "class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:40 am
by Dr_Phibes
88 wrote: what range of income puts you in the "middle class"?
When you start buying optional insurance, you've truly made it, that's the yard-marker.

Re: "class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:17 am
by Van
bradhusker wrote:
88 wrote:If I'm going to take H4ever's take seriously, I need some definitions:

In your opinion, what range of income puts you in the "middle class"?

What amount of income qualifies you as "rich"?

And how much should each class pay, in order for that particular class to be paying their "fair share"?
simple,

the middle class is roughly an income range of between 49, 500 and 89,500, now, if you are a family with more than 3, then you need to have your tubes tied. Go adopt a puppy or kitten if you feel the need to nurture something, you fuckin idiot.

NOW, to qual;ify as "rich", you should be making between 175,000 and 225,000. These amounts of income put you roughly on the cusp of relative richness, provided you live a responsible life with no drugs gambling or hookers.

Finally there is comfortably rich, and FILTHY rich, and comfortably numb.

Comfortably rich puts you in the income range of roughly 350,000 to half a million, and you can do the occaisional hooker or qualude, but only very rarely and with great discreation.

Filthy rich is the ultimate plateau in life, you have power, and luxury, anything over 5 million a year coming in every year, and usually doubling and snowballing every single year. You can have the american express black card, you can have your enemies killed if you want, and yes, you can sodomize hot sluts.

comfortably numb is a classic Floyd song, one of the best rock anthems of all time.
The first bradhusker post I truly enjoyed.

Re: "class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:10 am
by H4ever
88 wrote:If I'm going to take H4ever's take seriously, I need some definitions:

In your opinion, what range of income puts you in the "middle class"?

What amount of income qualifies you as "rich"?

And how much should each class pay, in order for that particular class to be paying their "fair share"?

The answers would be relative to such things as family size and geographic location. But, I'll play along.

Middle class for a family of four would be somewhere between 50 and 100K a year. This same family of four, in my opinion, would be wealthy if they earned over 250K a year and "rich" if they grossed more than 750K a year.

As for what they should pay in taxes...I've alway been a fan of consumption type taxes with food purchases exempted or a flat tax for any income above 10K a year, per person, which would exempt the above family of four from any income taxes on the first 40K.

Re: "class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:55 am
by Bizzarofelice
Dinsdale wrote:Makes sense to reelect the party that shipped the jobs overseas
Really? You wanna rethink this one, sportsfan?

Re: "class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:20 am
by bradhusker
88 wrote:H4ever, I'll give you credit for putting out some numbers. As you probably know, it is very hard to draw any lines that make any sense. That is why the "fair share" argument is so unfair.

Here are some examples.

A family of four living in Manhattan making $250,000 per year would have a very different relative lifestyle as compared to the same family of four earning the same income in Lubbock. It simply costs less to live there. The New York family, in addition to the equivalent federal tax burden (assuming equal deductions, which is probably not the case), would bear a sizable state and local tax burden by comparison. The housing prices would not be comparable at all. Even basic living expenses, such as transportation, would be much different. Residents of Manhattan who do own automobiles generally have substantial parking expenses, bridge and tunnel tolls etc. etc. The two families, although doing well compared to many others, would have vastly different economic realities.

$250,000 is not an easy income to earn, at least in terms of wages. According to the 2009 Census (LINK) general practitioners (family doctors) earned an average yearly income of $168,550 in 2009. And to bring down that kind of income, one must invest in eleven years of education (4 years of college, 4 years of medical school and 3 years of residency) beyond high school before you can begin establishing a practice. You are at least 29 before you can hang out your shingle. And it takes several years of hard work and long hours to build a successful, profitable practice.

Lawyers, such as myself, have an easier time in terms of the number of years of education. It only takes seven years of education (four years of college and three years of law school) beyond high school before you can become an attorney. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (LINK), in May of 2008, the average yearly wage for a lawyer was $124,750.

Those who invest more in their education and specialize often do better than the average. But the number of years they have to recoup that investment is shorter. And, if they are self-employed, they have no pension or other retirement plan waiting for them aside from what they are able to squirrel away while repaying their college loans.

Employees who earn wages split the payroll tax burden with their employer, each paying 7.65% of eligible wages (most rational people would argue that the employee actually pays all of the tax, because the wage would be higher if the employer didn't bear a 7.65% tax burden). A self-employed person pays both halves, or 15.3% total. The tax is composed of a Social Security tax of 12.4% on the first $106,800 of net self-employment income (for 2009 through 2011), and a Medicare tax of 2.9% on all net self-employment income. And these are taxes in excess of income taxes.

For Tax Year 2011, a couple (married filing jointly) pays tax at the following rate on:
Taxable income between 0 and $17,000 - 10%
Taxable income between $17,000 and $69,000 - 15%
Taxable income between $69,000 and $139,350 - 25%
Taxable income between $139,350 and $212,300 - 28%
Taxable income between $212,300 and $379,159 - 33%
Taxable income above $379,159 - 35%

The above rates are on "earned" income, and not on income derived from investments, which are generally taxed at a capital gains rate of 15%.

Again, these taxes do not include state income taxes (~5% for most income levels in Ohio), local taxes (mine are 2%), real estate property taxes (depends on the value of your home and the rate charged in your tax district), school taxes etc. And I have not attempted to consider all of the new taxes imposed by Obamacare (e.g., the 3.8% tax on any gain from the sale of a home).

For me, my effective tax rate is about 40%, excluding consumption taxes (e.g., sales taxes) and government fees (automobile registration E-check fees, etc.)

While it is certainly the case that a family making $400,000 a year is miles ahead financially as compared to a family making $85,000 per year, one must also consider the investment the individuals in the family making $400,000 a year had to make in order to be able to earn that income. Most people in that income range have nice house, a decent car or two, eat well, travel on occasion and generally have a pretty comfortable lifestyle. But they also tend to work their asses off for many years to get to that station in life.

There are definitely a lot of members of the lucky sperm club, who are born into wealth accumulated by their ancestors. They have great educations, little or no personal debt and a much easier way to go. But the tax code does not seem to be able to differentiate between those who generate their wealth through sweat and those who do it by birth.

One of the proposals being bandied about these days is to lift the cap on Social Security taxes. Right now, no Social Security tax is paid on income greater than $106,800 (that number may be off by a percent or two - I'm not sure what the exact number is for 2011). The problem with this thinking, from my perspective, is that it Social Security was sold to the American People and defended in the U.S. Supreme Court as an insurance program, and not a social welfare program. The idea is that everyone would pay into the program, the Social Security Administration would invest the money collected, and then pay out a defined benefit somewhat commensurate with what had been paid in. The Social Security Adminstration invested in the U.S. Government (by loaning the money collected to the U.S. Treasury, which Congress then spent). There is no giant "lock box" of dollars sitting in a vault somewhere waiting to be paid out in claims. Until 2010, the Social Security Administration annually took in more in taxes than it paid out in benefits (there was a period in the 1980's before it was overhauled where this also occurred). When there is insufficent funds coming in to pay out current benefits, Congress must make up the difference by paying off some of the debt owed to the Social Security Administration. Some will argue that Social Security is solvent until 2037 or so. I say that is only true provided Congress can continue to collect taxes from the People and/or get others to buy its debts. But even if this holds true, after 2037 there will have to be significant benefit cuts in order to preven the program from becoming eternally insolvent. Lifting the cap on Social Security would infuse billions, if not trillions, of dollars into the Social Security system. But it would then cease to be defensible as an insurance program. It would be a pure welfare program, because there is no possible way for the high wage earners to recoup in benefits even a portion of the taxes they paid in. It would be the worst insurance program ever devised for them.

One possible way to "tax" the trust funders without nailing the hard workers would be to increase the capital gains tax rate. This targets investment income, which the uber-wealthy tend to have more of than the hard workers. But many economists argue that it would discourage investment and result in job losses. I simply do not know.

From my perspective, the problem is on the government spending side, and much less on the revenues side. Congress simply spends too goddamn much money. Jimmy McMillan had it right: The Rent* Is Too Damn High!

*Rent being the equivalent of what we are charged in taxes by Uncle Sam to reside here.
WOW!!!
88, after reading your last post, I have a great respect for you. You have clearly shown why Barak Obama is a clueless clown with zero leadership ability.

Dems want to aggressively tax tax tax, and there is no end in sight. THEN, they lie and say that the rich pay a less tax rate than your average middle class and poor worker. FALSE.

As you have clearly shown in your brilliant post, the rich pay a higher rate, 35 percent, while the average worker is paying a rate of 15 percent, while the poor DONT pay federal income tax.
Capital gains tax rate being at 15 percent is perfect right where its at. THINK ABOUT IT? Investors take all the risks with their money, so the govt. should not steal their rewards, ALSO, you paid taxes your entire life, THEN, when you die, the filthy faggott democrats want to take HALF of your entire fortune?
FUCK THE LEFT in this country, I agree with 88 on this, the problem is SPENDING, they spend too much fuckin money for it to ever matter anyway.

The reason the dems love to raise taxes is simple, its class warfare, and they get votes from the poor,
It is devious and sick, Ben Franklin said it best, "the minute the people find out that they can vote themselves free money, will bring about the end of the republic.
And this is what the democrat liberals are doing, take from the evil rich, and give to the saintly poor,'
which is bullshit and keeps the poor voting for them. their are plenty of poor who are evil and sick.
making bad choices all their life, and blaming others for their lot in life.

THE ANSWER to all this is really quite simple, put people to work, when everyone carries their own weight, the country has far less problems.

Re: "class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:44 pm
by Bizzarofelice
bradhusker wrote:
88 wrote:H4ever, I'll give you credit for putting out some numbers. As you probably know, it is very hard to draw any lines that make any sense. That is why the "fair share" argument is so unfair.

Here are some examples.

A family of four living in Manhattan making $250,000 per year would have a very different relative lifestyle as compared to the same family of four earning the same income in Lubbock. It simply costs less to live there. The New York family, in addition to the equivalent federal tax burden (assuming equal deductions, which is probably not the case), would bear a sizable state and local tax burden by comparison. The housing prices would not be comparable at all. Even basic living expenses, such as transportation, would be much different. Residents of Manhattan who do own automobiles generally have substantial parking expenses, bridge and tunnel tolls etc. etc. The two families, although doing well compared to many others, would have vastly different economic realities.

$250,000 is not an easy income to earn, at least in terms of wages. According to the 2009 Census (LINK) general practitioners (family doctors) earned an average yearly income of $168,550 in 2009. And to bring down that kind of income, one must invest in eleven years of education (4 years of college, 4 years of medical school and 3 years of residency) beyond high school before you can begin establishing a practice. You are at least 29 before you can hang out your shingle. And it takes several years of hard work and long hours to build a successful, profitable practice.

Lawyers, such as myself, have an easier time in terms of the number of years of education. It only takes seven years of education (four years of college and three years of law school) beyond high school before you can become an attorney. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (LINK), in May of 2008, the average yearly wage for a lawyer was $124,750.

Those who invest more in their education and specialize often do better than the average. But the number of years they have to recoup that investment is shorter. And, if they are self-employed, they have no pension or other retirement plan waiting for them aside from what they are able to squirrel away while repaying their college loans.

Employees who earn wages split the payroll tax burden with their employer, each paying 7.65% of eligible wages (most rational people would argue that the employee actually pays all of the tax, because the wage would be higher if the employer didn't bear a 7.65% tax burden). A self-employed person pays both halves, or 15.3% total. The tax is composed of a Social Security tax of 12.4% on the first $106,800 of net self-employment income (for 2009 through 2011), and a Medicare tax of 2.9% on all net self-employment income. And these are taxes in excess of income taxes.

For Tax Year 2011, a couple (married filing jointly) pays tax at the following rate on:
Taxable income between 0 and $17,000 - 10%
Taxable income between $17,000 and $69,000 - 15%
Taxable income between $69,000 and $139,350 - 25%
Taxable income between $139,350 and $212,300 - 28%
Taxable income between $212,300 and $379,159 - 33%
Taxable income above $379,159 - 35%

The above rates are on "earned" income, and not on income derived from investments, which are generally taxed at a capital gains rate of 15%.

Again, these taxes do not include state income taxes (~5% for most income levels in Ohio), local taxes (mine are 2%), real estate property taxes (depends on the value of your home and the rate charged in your tax district), school taxes etc. And I have not attempted to consider all of the new taxes imposed by Obamacare (e.g., the 3.8% tax on any gain from the sale of a home).

For me, my effective tax rate is about 40%, excluding consumption taxes (e.g., sales taxes) and government fees (automobile registration E-check fees, etc.)

While it is certainly the case that a family making $400,000 a year is miles ahead financially as compared to a family making $85,000 per year, one must also consider the investment the individuals in the family making $400,000 a year had to make in order to be able to earn that income. Most people in that income range have nice house, a decent car or two, eat well, travel on occasion and generally have a pretty comfortable lifestyle. But they also tend to work their asses off for many years to get to that station in life.

There are definitely a lot of members of the lucky sperm club, who are born into wealth accumulated by their ancestors. They have great educations, little or no personal debt and a much easier way to go. But the tax code does not seem to be able to differentiate between those who generate their wealth through sweat and those who do it by birth.

One of the proposals being bandied about these days is to lift the cap on Social Security taxes. Right now, no Social Security tax is paid on income greater than $106,800 (that number may be off by a percent or two - I'm not sure what the exact number is for 2011). The problem with this thinking, from my perspective, is that it Social Security was sold to the American People and defended in the U.S. Supreme Court as an insurance program, and not a social welfare program. The idea is that everyone would pay into the program, the Social Security Administration would invest the money collected, and then pay out a defined benefit somewhat commensurate with what had been paid in. The Social Security Adminstration invested in the U.S. Government (by loaning the money collected to the U.S. Treasury, which Congress then spent). There is no giant "lock box" of dollars sitting in a vault somewhere waiting to be paid out in claims. Until 2010, the Social Security Administration annually took in more in taxes than it paid out in benefits (there was a period in the 1980's before it was overhauled where this also occurred). When there is insufficent funds coming in to pay out current benefits, Congress must make up the difference by paying off some of the debt owed to the Social Security Administration. Some will argue that Social Security is solvent until 2037 or so. I say that is only true provided Congress can continue to collect taxes from the People and/or get others to buy its debts. But even if this holds true, after 2037 there will have to be significant benefit cuts in order to preven the program from becoming eternally insolvent. Lifting the cap on Social Security would infuse billions, if not trillions, of dollars into the Social Security system. But it would then cease to be defensible as an insurance program. It would be a pure welfare program, because there is no possible way for the high wage earners to recoup in benefits even a portion of the taxes they paid in. It would be the worst insurance program ever devised for them.

One possible way to "tax" the trust funders without nailing the hard workers would be to increase the capital gains tax rate. This targets investment income, which the uber-wealthy tend to have more of than the hard workers. But many economists argue that it would discourage investment and result in job losses. I simply do not know.

From my perspective, the problem is on the government spending side, and much less on the revenues side. Congress simply spends too goddamn much money. Jimmy McMillan had it right: The Rent* Is Too Damn High!

*Rent being the equivalent of what we are charged in taxes by Uncle Sam to reside here.
WOW!!!
88, after reading your last post, I have a great respect for you. You have clearly shown why Barak Obama is a clueless clown with zero leadership ability.

Dems want to aggressively tax tax tax, and there is no end in sight. THEN, they lie and say that the rich pay a less tax rate than your average middle class and poor worker. FALSE.

As you have clearly shown in your brilliant post, the rich pay a higher rate, 35 percent, while the average worker is paying a rate of 15 percent, while the poor DONT pay federal income tax.
Capital gains tax rate being at 15 percent is perfect right where its at. THINK ABOUT IT? Investors take all the risks with their money, so the govt. should not steal their rewards, ALSO, you paid taxes your entire life, THEN, when you die, the filthy faggott democrats want to take HALF of your entire fortune?
FUCK THE LEFT in this country, I agree with 88 on this, the problem is SPENDING, they spend too much fuckin money for it to ever matter anyway.

The reason the dems love to raise taxes is simple, its class warfare, and they get votes from the poor,
It is devious and sick, Ben Franklin said it best, "the minute the people find out that they can vote themselves free money, will bring about the end of the republic.
And this is what the democrat liberals are doing, take from the evil rich, and give to the saintly poor,'
which is bullshit and keeps the poor voting for them. their are plenty of poor who are evil and sick.
making bad choices all their life, and blaming others for their lot in life.

THE ANSWER to all this is really quite simple, put people to work, when everyone carries their own weight, the country has far less problems.





In summary, you guys are unemployed.

Re: "class warfare", protest on Wall Street, is the end near

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:49 am
by Rooster
The solution? A flat tax for everyone, every entity, every purchase barring food stuffs. What that number should be is open to negotiation, but everyone from the rich (whatever that nebulous term means) to the poor-- even below the poverty line --pays an amount for the common good. No exceptions.

This ensures that even the poor have a vested interest in where their money is going and everyone pays their fair share, including corporations, companies, and purchasers of goods. I'd be inclined to say somewhere around 10% for income tax and 5% for purchases, but again, that would be negotiated.

Finally, Tax Day is also election Day.