would this be using class warfare

[888888]

Using the fact that the poor need food stamps to rile up your voters?

Getting non union voters riled up about union voters wage and benefits


Getting non home owners riled up over those who own homes and get govt help

but if we mention that people are upset with what the rich are getting in the tax code vs the rest of us and it's class warfare.

WHY IS THAT?

 

[Days]

because you are fighting back.

bad poor people. sit down and shut up. that's better.

 

[Lukey]

Well it looks more like bashing big government than class warfare if you ask me (and polls show a strong majority fear big government, btw). As for what the "rich" are "getting" in the tax code, as I have repeatedly shown, what they are really getting is double taxation (and btw they BY FAR pay the bulk of income taxes). And that "favorable" tax treatment on investment income to alleviate the level of double taxation came into being during the early sixties (when Democrats running the country were capitalists and the double taxation argument made sense to them) and it more recently survived the Clinton Administration, when the Democrats were STILL capitalists, and was, in fact lowered by Clinton. So now, after 50 years the Democrats have suddenly decided to reject the double taxation argument for tax favored treatment of dividends and capital gains in the pursuit of wealth re-distribution. And yet we can't call you guys Marxists? LOL!

 

[OldGaffer]

Well it looks more like bashing big government to class warfare if you ask me (and polls show a strong majority fear big government, btw). As for what the "rich" are "getting" in the tax code, as I have repeatedly shown, what they are really getting is double taxation (and btw they BY FAR pay the bulk of income taxes). And that "favorable" tax treatment on investment income to alleviate the level of double taxation came into being during the early sixties (when Democrats running the country were capitalists and the double taxation argument made sense to them) and it more recently survived the Clinton Administration, when the Democrats were STILL capitalists, and was, in fact lowered by Clinton. So now, after 50 years the Democrats have suddenly decided to reject the double taxation argument for tax favored treatment of dividends and capital gains in the pursuit of wealth re-distribution. And yet we can't call you guys Marxists? LOL!

You can call us anything you want, after all we have free speech, your double taxation ploy is bullshit and you know it. In fact, corporate person-hood is bullshit. If I buy piece of property for one million, and sell it a year later for two million, where was that money taxed twice? And yet, I pay 15% tax on the profit. If I buy stock for 1 million, and sell it a year later for two million, where was that income taxed twice? And yet I pay 15% on the profit. Keep weaseling around on this and you will wind up having all cap gains treated as ordinary income, the voters are not on your side.

 

[gigi]

Using the fact that the poor need food stamps to rile up your voters?

Getting non union voters riled up about union voters wage and benefits


Getting non home owners riled up over those who own homes and get govt help

but if we mention that people are upset with what the rich are getting in the tax code vs the rest of us and it's class warfare.

WHY IS THAT?

I've heard some candidates talk about the fact that more and more people are requiring food stamps. That's not damning the poor and it's not an effort to incite resentment for the poor. That's just discussion about the state of our economy. Candidates do talk about that.

In NJ, it was a democrat state rep that brought legislation to require state union employees to contribute more to their 19K per year medical benefits package because his constituents were asking for that. Employees earning 60K per year were paying 1900 dollars a YEAR for their top notch insurance plans. The increase in cost to them was about 1500 a year and it was the union employees, not the non-union private sector voters, who got "riled up". I think it's just a fact that in some situations, citizens can barely afford to keep their own heads above water and they're being made to pay more and more for services through unions. Unions are wonderful. But there are situations out there where the people supporting those employees' benefits are really struggling to provide bare bones stuff for their own families.
That's something that's got to be talked about, too.

On the flip side, I heard candidate Obama back in 2008 call anyone making over 250K "greedy" if they weren't on board with a tax increase. He used that word specifically.
Look at OWS. That's an attempt at class warfare.

I would guess that there are as many super wealthy people on the left as on the right. Somebody's paying $38,000 a plate at Obama fundraisers and I doubt it's the rightwing doing it. Granted, hearing Springsteen live is priceless, but that's alot of money. When you've got 38K to spend on dinner, consider yourself blessed, but maybe you shouldn't voice an opinion on who else has too much money. And when you depend on people to spend that kind of money on one of your fundraisers, same deal....recognize that you depend on that one percent yourself.

It seems from the rhetoric the idea being shoved around is that anyone who's leaning right is well off and has no empathy for people who struggle. But the truth is, most of us, both right and left, are scratching our heads a bit these days trying to figure out how to make 2 and 2 equal 5 at the end of the month.

 

[Lukey]

You can call us anything you want, after all we have free speech, your double taxation ploy is bullshit and you know it. In fact, corporate person-hood is bullshit. If I buy piece of property for one million, and sell it a year later for two million, where was that money taxed twice? And yet, I pay 15% tax on the profit. If I buy stock for 1 million, and sell it a year later for two million, where was that income taxed twice? And yet I pay 15% on the profit. Keep weaseling around on this and you will wind up having all cap gains treated as ordinary income, the voters are not on your side.

If you sell this piece of property one year later you pay ordinary income tax rates on the capital gains. If it was rental property you paid tax on the rental income while you owned it. If you held it for a longer period, much of your gain was inflation and not "earnings." In your second example, again, if you sell it a year later you owe ordinary income tax on the gain. And you have paid the corporate taxes for that year on any earnings. Looks like you've been doing the "weaseling around here on this." Can you devise an extreme example where someone might have escaped the double taxation? Of course. But those are the exceptions rather than the rule (and the reason we treat short term capital gains as ordinary income - to mitigate the windfall situations). And in order to make sure no one slips one of those exceptions by us you are willing to increase the double taxation on millions of small businesses that create almost all the new jobs in our economy. And then you guys wonder why there's no job creation going on around here these days.

It is exactly as Obama laid it out during his campaign. As the WSJ pointed out yesterday:

Remember the moment in 2008 when Charlie Gibson of ABC News asked Senator Barack Obama why he would support raising the capital gains tax even though "revenues from the tax increased" when the rate fell? Mr. Obama's famous reply: "I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." Well, we were warned.

The left has revealed itself as more interested in wealth redistribution than in creating economic growth that produces jobs. And we were warned. The results are in and the Obama promise to do this has become the bad economy we live with each day, as our friends and our neighbors and our children suffer in the economic stagnation. And we were warned. Now it's time to put an end to it!

 

[OldGaffer]

With 72% of the voters wanting taxes on the 1% raised, it is going to happen, whether you like it or not.

 

[OldGaffer]

If you sell this piece of property one year later you pay ordinary income tax rates on the capital gains. If it was rental property you paid tax on the rental income while you owned it. If you held it for a longer period, much of your gain was inflation and not "earnings." In your second example, again, if you sell it a year later you owe ordinary income tax on the gain. And you have paid the corporate taxes for that year on any earnings. Looks like you've been doing the "weaseling around here on this." Can you devise an extreme example where someone might have escaped the double taxation? Of course. But those are the exceptions rather than the rule (and the reason we treat short term capital gains as ordinary income - to mitigate the windfall situations). And in order to make sure no one slips one of those exceptions by us you are willing to increase the double taxation on millions of small businesses that create almost all the new jobs in our economy. And then you guys wonder why there's no job creation going on around here these days.

It is exactly as Obama laid it out during his campaign. As the WSJ pointed out yesterday:

Remember the moment in 2008 when Charlie Gibson of ABC News asked Senator Barack Obama why he would support raising the capital gains tax even though "revenues from the tax increased" when the rate fell? Mr. Obama's famous reply: "I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." Well, we were warned.

The left has revealed itself as more interested in wealth redistribution than in creating economic growth that produces jobs. And we were warned. The results are in and the Obama promise to do this has become the bad economy we live with each day, as our friends and our neighbors and our children suffer in the economic stagnation. And we were warned. Now it's time to put an end to it!

Excuse me, I should have said one year plus a day. Who are you trying to bullshit? You well know that the vast majority of cap gains is created by the stock market, and the real estate market, not dividends. And none of that money is "double taxed" even by your lame definition of double taxation.

 

[Lukey]

With 72% of the voters wanting taxes on the 1% raised, it is going to happen, whether you like it or not.

Sure they do! Everyone wants to raise someone else's taxes. And when the economy continues to stagnate? Well, we were warned.

 

[gigi]

With 72% of the voters wanting taxes on the 1% raised, it is going to happen, whether you like it or not.

That's fine. Raising their taxes is one thing.

Villianizing them for paying what the tax code said they had to pay is another story, though. And that's the message that's coming across lately.

 

[Lukey]

Excuse me, I should have said one year plus a day. Who are you trying to bullshit? You well know that the vast majority of cap gains is created by the stock market, and the real estate market, not dividends. And none of that money is "double taxed" even by your lame definition of double taxation.

And even though the data shows lower taxes on investments means more investment and more jobs and more revenue to the government, you insist that raising these taxes is a "must do" in the interest of "fairness." Well, we were warned this was coming. At least now we know who to blame for the crappy economy and the lack of jobs (and just who the Marxists are around here)...

 

[Greenridgeman]

The first million was taxed before you spent it, assuming you earned it.

If you inherited it, somebody paid taxes on it too.

 

[OldGaffer]

And even though the data shows lower taxes on investments means more investment and more jobs and more revenue to the government, you insist that raising these taxes is a "must do" in the interest of "fairness." Well, we were warned this was coming. At least now we know who to blame for the crappy economy and the lack of jobs (and just who the Marxists are around here)...

More bullshit, we have had these low taxes for years, and they have not created butkus except tax havens in the Caymens and Switzerland. Time to go back to the tax rates from the 60's as far as I am concerned.

 

[OldGaffer]

And even though the data shows lower taxes on investments means more investment and more jobs and more revenue to the government, you insist that raising these taxes is a "must do" in the interest of "fairness." Well, we were warned this was coming. At least now we know who to blame for the crappy economy and the lack of jobs (and just who the Marxists are around here)...

More bullshit, we have had these low taxes for years, and they have not created butkus except tax havens in the Caymens and Switzerland. Time to go back to the tax rates from the 60's as far as I am concerned.

 

[Lukey]

More bullshit, we have had these low taxes for years, and they have not created butkus except tax havens in the Caymens and Switzerland. Time to go back to the tax rates from the 60's as far as I am concerned.

They did us pretty good during the 90's when Clinton was practicing good sound supply side economics...

 

[OldGaffer]

The first million was taxed before you spent it, assuming you earned it.

If you inherited it, somebody paid taxes on it too.

So since your first million had been taxed, the second million you earned should have been tax free? No wonder Republican administrations run massive deficits.

 

[GordonGecko]

On the flip side, I heard candidate Obama back in 2008 call anyone making over 250K "greedy" if they weren't on board with a tax increase.

Quote him...and cite your news source.

 

[GordonGecko]

They did us pretty good during the 90's when Clinton was practicing good sound supply side economics...

So you supported the 1993 Clinton tax hike, huh?

 

[Lukey]

So you supported the 1993 Clinton tax hike, huh?

As I have repeatedly pointed out, as long as we are running deficits it matters less what tax rates we impose and more how big the deficit is. IOW it's always more about the level of spending rather than the level of taxation. Do higher tax rates increase economic activity? Not in the reality based community. But you can raise rates and cut spending and still be lowering (overall) taxation.

 

[Mytzlplk]

of course. As noted long ago when the first repub -- Ryan as I recall -- first made the case for the dems being guilty of it, it was clear it was just another example of them charging the dems with what in this case, they are exclusively guilty of, as a opposed to mostly.

Offensive offense of that kind is one of their mainstays used to deflect their guilt.