NCAAbbs

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbur...74585.html

Wow... just, wow...

That guy pulls no punches. I like him.

Obama just got schooled. If I was him I don't think I could show my face in public after that thrashing.

Not a lot of evidence provided. Without proof, they're just claims.

Oh, and whoever wrote this would actually be a columnist and not a journalist. I can see how reading NewsMax would steer you wrong, though.

You obviously walk around w/ your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed if you haven't seen the sources of evidence for this guys problems. Hell, being an Obama supporter you should at least know about his plan to tax above $250k. As usual, you do nothing to counter the article and instead attack the source. That's what most liberals do when they are confronted with facts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12186720...mmentaries

"Overall, in an Obama administration, the top 1% of households -- people with an average income of $1.6 million per year -- would see their average federal income and payroll tax rate increase from 21% today to 24%, less than the 25% these households would have paid under the tax laws of the late 1990s.

Sen. Obama believes that one of the principal problems facing the economy today is the lack of discretionary income for middle-class wage earners. That's why his plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000 -- not income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend or payroll taxes.

In contrast, Sen. McCain's tax plan largely leaves the middle class behind. His one and only middle-class tax cut -- a slow phase-in of a bigger dependent exemption -- would provide no benefit whatsoever to 101 million families who do not have children or other dependents, or who have a low income.

But Sen. McCain's plan does include one new proposal that would result in higher taxes on the middle class. As even Sen. McCain's advisers have acknowledged, his health-care plan would impose a $3.6 trillion tax increase over 10 years on workers. Sen. McCain's plan will count the health care you get from your employer as if it were taxable cash income. Even after accounting for Sen. McCain's proposed health-care tax credits, this plan would eventually leave tens of millions of middle-class families paying higher taxes. In addition, as the Congressional Budget Office has shown, this kind of plan would push people into higher tax brackets and increase the taxes people pay as their compensation rises, raising marginal tax rates by even more than if we let the entire Bush tax-cut plan expire tomorrow.

The McCain plan represents Bush economics on steroids. It has $3.4 trillion more in tax cuts than President Bush is proposing, largely directed at corporations and the most affluent. Sen. McCain would implement these cuts without proposing any meaningful steps to simplify taxes or eliminate distortions and loopholes. In addition, Sen. McCain has floated over $1 trillion in new spending increases but barely any specific spending cuts."

I know of his plan to tax household incomes above $250k. I don't know of any source (real or imagined) that explains how this would lead to double taxation in one household. Help a brother out!

I also know of his plan to put extra taxes on the windfall profits of the oil companies to fund alternative energy uses. In fact, I know that the oil industry's actual profit margins are much greater than the 5-6% that conservative talking points espouse, and they have been for years, BEFORE the recent oil price spike.

And tying a return of these windfall taxes to the rising dependence on foreign oil would be an effective point, but only to someone who doesn't know better. I know that environmental lobbying was a great scapegoat for the decline in domestic oil refineries--it worked great to mask the skyrocketing cost of building, staffing, and maintaining these proposed refineries. Well, I should actually call them increasingly unneeded refineries, as domestic oil production has been on a steady decline in spite of corporate taxes.

Anyway, that now makes two people I'm waiting on for sources and proof to credentialize specious claims. And I'm pretty sure one of them (the column's writer) ain't comin'.

You [apparently] missed our thread on this.
Don't give us the rhetoric. Post your facts. Show us what you know.
ExxonMobil's profit margin is 8-10% this year, so far.
Is this too much, and why?

How does increasing the tax rate on income above $250K help anyone?
How will this have an affect on YOU?
Will this increase your ability to earn?
Will it enable you to snag a better job?
Will it make you more financially secure?
Will it give you more off time, or longer vacation periods?
Will it increase your level of education?
or
Will it just make you feel better?
What % level of taxation will BlazerUnit say is fair, and why?

Well, you partially did my job by stating Exxon's profit margin--still higher than the 5 or 6% cited. But that tells only part of the story. A better gauge of their profitablity is their return on equity, a figure the industry loves to tout to investors (to get them to invest, obviously). I've seen figures from 24% to as high as 33%.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/...dfall.html
http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financials&symbol=xom

Bookoo $$$ from pure sales, bookoo $$$ from investors and capitalists, and let's not forget the bookoo $$$ in government subsidies. Exxon and other oil companies will be profiting heavily from the world's oil appetite for a while. They won't be going broke from actually having to PAY the taxes they've escaped through loopholes.

You didn't actually answer my question, which asked for proof that the tax increase on richer households would result in double taxation. But I'll indulge you anyway by correcting you; you're asking the wrong questions. What you should be asking is, how will these moves help everyone?

These irresponsible tax cuts went mostly to wealthy folks who didn't need them, and not to the real middle class and lower income families that needed it most. Combined with an increase in spending, these cuts have grossly increased our national debt and our international borrowing. We need that money back to balance our budget (something conservatives used to care about) and to make well needed investments in replacing an aging infrastructure, revamping our military's supplies, and boosting the renewable energy sector.

The poor-to-middle class folks who got tax relief won't see their taxes increase at all. And let's stop pretending the rich are going to get hosed by seeing their tax obligations rise a bit. We're talking about a 35% maximum tax rate that would kick in at $350,000. The tax 'hike' might go up a few percentage points at the worst. But that's a helluva lot better than what it was sixteen years ago when President Clinton was running for office:
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/08/...m_92/6.htm

No, the best way to gauge profitability is by pure profit margin. Oil companies put huge amounts of money into their operations, and they get huge amounts of money back. The problem is that the profits that they actually get back look absolutely huge, but when compared the their investment really aren't that big.

Besides, who gets to decide when a company makes "too much" money? The idea that the government can punish a company for being too profitable is seriously scary. If find it funny that the Dems are the ones proposing such an idea since they're supposed to be the party of protecting individual freedoms, and some of our Dem board members harp on endlessly about Bush "taking away" their freedoms. Well this is no different than taking away a company's freedom to make more money than the government wants them to make.

On the second point, who cares if they help everyone? They didn't help me when they started. The idea was to cut taxes for the higher brackets so that they actually paid more in taxes. That's what the Laffer Curve is about. Traditionally the highest bracket usually pays taxes on about 21% of their income in reality, regardless of the actual rate. They can afford to pay CPAs to shelter their income, etc. The Bush cuts worked. More money came into the IRS than ever before. Too bad he didn't cut any spending, but that's a different debate for a different time.

Now you're point about the cuts going to people who didn't need them instead of the middle and lower class is pure class warfare. First, the lower class doesn't pay taxes, so you can't cut what's not there. I didn't pay any taxes last year because I made squat for money, so why would I get a tax cut? Second, the wealthiest 10% pay 90% of the taxes, so naturally any cuts should go to those who pay the most in taxes. Also the tax cuts affected a lot of small business owners who were able to save more money to invest into their companies. Just ask Bates how his dad was able to hire more people thanks to the tax cuts.

I own ExxonMobil stock.

It's a quality, well run company. A company that helps you get to work, to church, and over to grandma's house on Sunday. A company which surprisingly remembers its mandate to shareholders among all the noise coming at it from leftists who would presumably have the Pelosi government assume control of it as punishment for its "crimes".

Every time someone whinges about whatever profit they manage to turn (Where were you people 10 years ago when gas was...wait for it... UNDER $.90 a gallon for 87 octane? Conveniently forgot that part, didn't you?) it's like some sorry thief has his grubby hand in MY POCKET fumbling for MY WALLET.

So if I have no kind words for you, that's why. You are like a thief who would (if he only could) get your hands on my money.

Beat it before I call the police!

nice
but the only real measure of profitablility is the bottom line.
I posted ExxonMobil's 2nd quarter report elsewhere. 8.46%

What is the definition of rich, and who decides whether anyone needs the money they earned?

As for the middle and lower class not receiving the tax cuts,
the rhetoric doesn't match the facts.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
from table 4
TOTAL INCOME TAX AFTER CREDITS (millions of $DOLLARS$) this would be your REAL DOLLARS
bracket*******2001******2005***DIFFERENCE (millions of $DOLLARS$)
TOP 1%*****300,898****368,132***+22.34% (+$67,234 million) greatest dollar amount ever yes, this does include the Klinton years
TOP 5%*****472,823****557,759***+17.96% (+$84,936 million) greatest dollar amount ever includes the great Klinton years, as well
TOP 10%****576,163****657,085***+14.04% (+$80,922 million) only year since 1980 bracket paid more real $$$ was 2000
TOP 25%****736,053****803,772***+09.20% (+$67,719 million) only year since 1980 bracket paid more real $$$ was 2000
TOP 50%****852,642****906,028***+06.26% (+$53,386 million) only year since 1980 bracket paid more real $$$ was 2000
BOTTOM 50% 35,240*****28,675***<18.63%> (minus $6,565 million)
The real dollar amount paid [in 2005] by the bottom 50% was less than in 5 years (97, 98, 99, 2000, 2001)
under a Klinton budget, and roughly equiv. to a sixth year, 1996 ($28,675 million v. $28,440 million)
Klinton really 'felt your pain.'
This must be the 'tax cut for the rich' to which you refer.

from table 6
TOTAL INCOME TAX SHARES (% FEDERAL INCOME TAX PAID BY EACH GROUP)
bracket*********2001*****2005****DIFFERENCE
TOP 1%********33.89%***39.38%***+16.20% highest pct. of Federal Income tax since at least 1980 table doesn't show years earlier than 1980
TOP 5%********53.25%***59.67%***+12.06% highest pct. of Federal Income tax since at least 1980 table doesn't show years earlier than 1980
TOP 10%*******64.89%***70.30%***+08.34% highest pct. of Federal Income tax since at least 1980 table doesn't show years earlier than 1980
TOP 25%*******82.90%***85.99%***+03.73% highest pct. of Federal Income tax since at least 1980 table doesn't show years earlier than 1980
TOP 50%*******96.03%***96.93%***+00.93% highest pct. of Federal Income tax since at least 1980 table doesn't show years earlier than 1980
BOTTOM 50%**03.97%***03.07%*** lowest pct. of Federal Income tax since at least 1980 table doesn't show years earlier than 1980
The average tax rate for the bottom 50% in 2005 is less than during ANY year under Klinton.
The rate is lower than ANY year of the past 25 with the exception of a 2.97% rate in 2004 and a 2.95% rate in 2003 (both Bush tax cut years).

It's up to you to have the courage to face the truth.

The purpose of our tax code should be to raise revenue, not punish financial achievement.
Revenues [and expenditures] are at an ALL TIME HIGH.
ALL taxpayers had a decrease in their income taxes [in terms of real $$$ as well as pct. Federal Income taxes paid]
from tax cut enactment through 2003.
The bottom 50% was the only bracket paying less (in terms of real $$$ and as a pct. of federal income taxes paid) in 2005 v. 2001.

It's up to you to have the courage to face the truth.

The cuts didn't contribute to the deficit. Federal revenues are at an all time high.
Congress spent like drunken sailors and Bush never saw a spending proposal he didn't like, until the past few months.

now you're back to who decides how much of someone else's money congress should confiscate.
why is it OK for the 'rich' to do without more of what they earned, but congress can never do without more?

I'm not pretending anything.
Why is any group OBLIGATED to pay a larger % of their income in taxes than another group?
If you're OK with paying 35%, then do so. Your government will love you.
I think 35% is too much for anyone. I like spending my money in a manner suitable to me.

Stop confusing him with all these facts and stuff. It makes him look wrong.

I've already responded to this obvious lie in a previous thread, so I'm not wasting keystrokes doing it again.

No, its because that's how our progressive tax system was supposed to work. It was never intended for our government to be exclusively funded on the backs of its working people. That's why it has always sought to take proportionally more (even with Bush's dumb cuts) from those it would hurt the least, the wealthy.

It had been an acceptable and effortless consequence to doing ones civic duty (amongst wealthy citizens and families) before greed-is-good conservatism took over 30 years ago.

You still have yet to realize the point that the poor don't pay taxes, so how could they get a tax cut? I should know because I haven't had to pay any federal taxes the past few years.

Why do you want to punish the most productive people in society? You do realize that most people in the upper bracket are small business owner, right? Oh wait, you're of the same party who wants to limit how much profit a company can make. Nice to meet you, comrad.

I made specific mention of ROE figures because it combined with profit margins is what they use tout to Wall Street and new investors.

You're grossly oversimplifying measures like Earned Income Credit and others. But if it makes the lie sound good, I guess you'll keep telling it.

The American worker? You obviously haven't been reading what I've been typing. A better question is, why are you worried about progressive taxes that you would likely never pay in the first place?

And no, I didn't just subscribe to your lie about low to middle income workers being tax free--I'm talking about capital gains taxes (what MOST of the wealthy pay, not taxes on earned income) and the so called 'death tax'. I know that last one made you shiver a bit, but why? You would have to have become one of the platinum 1 to 2% of Americans who are fortunate enough to gain (but not necessarily earn) a ginormous amount of money.

You don't deserve tax breaks because you're wealthy. You aren't. You deserve a tax cut because you're working two jobs (IIRC, you were at one time). You need more of your money to pay for basic needs now and to fund your savings you hope to enjoy in the future. Your government agrees to an extent. Barack Obama agrees. I guess the most important question is, why don't YOU?

Return on equity should only be used as a measure of comparison between companies within a given industry.

Narrowing the definition...now that's just dishonest.

http://beginnersinvest.about.com/cs/inve...equity.htm

STOP! It's 'hammertime' for your Tax Foundation figures:
http://www.cbpp.org/4-23-08tax.htm
http://www.cbpp.org/8-8-08sfp.htm

Not true. Several reports from Citizens for Tax Justice and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office confirm the shifting tax burden:
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/1...6398.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art...Aug12.html
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/08/pf/taxes.../index.htm
It's up to you to have the courage to face the truth.

That goes against what the Treasury Department noted in its own recent study:
http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm

With your second statement already rebutted...
http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

It's up to you to have the courage to face the truth.

Because they weren't Bush "Pioneer" donors? That might explain why middle class taxpayers are losing more of their money thanks to the cuts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/busine...QpWUROC1MQ

Except that 1) it's our government that we must fund, not some random individual's and 2) that 35% figure (which is the maximum rate, and not necessarily your rate) is a vastly more progressive figure than it was less than 20 years ago. Was it 'Klinton' or was it the GOP controlled Congress responsible for that change in the 1990s? Find out and give them a hug, they already did you a favor.

Now, it's up to who to have the courage to face the truth?

You cited a source which is blatantly biased against the people who actually pay the taxes. Why not try something which just posts the numbers instead of massaging the stats to suit their agenda?

The basic fact is this: poor people don't pay taxes, so they don't get any tax cuts. You can't cut what's not there. Middle income people pay like 10% of the taxes, so any tax cuts wouldn't benefit them as much because they pay substantially less than the top brackets. This is nothing but Democrats redistribution of wealth philosophy. Punish production by taxation and reward inefficiency and buy votes by giving the "working poor" their money. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Hmmm, where does that sound familiar?

pretty small hammer. did you get it with a toy carpentry kit?

I think I'll believe Tax Foundation figures
http://www.taxfoundation.org/about/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation
over a left wing think tank (cpbb) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_B...Priorities
funded by Democracy Alliance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Alliance
does the name George Soros (sorryazz) ring a bell?

TRUE
did you bother to read your links, or were you just searching for headlines?
ctj's reputation http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm586.cfm
ctj link CONFIRMS all brackets received tax cuts through 2003.
Taxes bagan to rise for the top 50% after 2003. Either you didn't read my figures from Tax Foundation, or you didn't/couldn't/wouldn't comprehend.
You can't cut large sums of real tax dollars from brackets where large sums of real tax dollars aren't being confiscated.
The bottom 50% was the only bracket paying less (in terms of real $$$ and as a pct. of federal income taxes paid) in 2005 v. 2001.

cbs link qoutes [of all people] John Kerry and a Kerry spokesman. Nothing more than political rhetoric.
from the link, and the reason the figures are misleading at best.
"The study is based on figures in 2001 and assumes no changes in wealth distribution from increases in income, dividends or capital gains".
Our economy is not static.

washington post link is more of the Kerry election rhetoric.
The tax burden HAS shifted, and guess where it shifted.
I'll refer you to Tax Foundation figures.

cnn link. AGAIN, did you bother to read the link? It CONFIRMS Tax Foundation figures.
You can't cut large sums of real tax dollars from brackets where large sums of real tax dollars aren't being confiscated.

to be more specific, it goes against what cbpp interprets from the Treasury Dept.
cbpp, 'nuff said.
But I'll play along.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/hist.html
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/...?Docid=200
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php

Year Total Revenue-total
1993 2379.5
1994 2532.8
1995 2713.0
1996 2906.2
1997 3129.6
1998 3358.9
1999 3528.5
2000 3858.8
2001 3756.3
2002 3509.7
2003 3671.4
2004 4140.1
2005 4495.7
2006 4438.7
2007 5101.8
2008 5158.2

and don't tell cbo
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/...venues.pdf

rubutted, but not factually rebutted
cbpp
since revenues and expenditures are at an ALL TIME HIGH, why can't congress cut spending?

did you bother to read the entire report?
lifted from the link
"Much of the increase at the top reflected the rebound of the stock market after its sharp drop in 2000, economists from across the political spectrum said. About half of the income going to the top 1 percent comes from investments and business.

In addition, Congress in 2003 cut taxes on long-term capital gains and most dividends, which advocates said would encourage people to turn untaxed wealth into taxable income. Some economists have said that the increase in incomes at the top is illusory and is in good part simply converting untaxed assets into taxed income to take advantage of reduced tax rates.

The Congressional Budget Office report made no attempt to explain the increases in income in its annual report on effective federal tax rates paid by people at different income levels".

Could it be those that earn more money KNOW HOW to earn money, instead of waiting for government to redistribute wealth?

dude, you gotta read your own sources thoroughly.
But, since your other ?rebuttal? was full of contradictions [to your contentions], [as I expected] this one disagrees as well.

AGAIN, from your own link
"A business that has a high return on equity is more likely to be one that is capable of generating cash internally. For the most part, the higher a company’s return on equity compared to its industry, the better.

now,
who's being dishonest?

if you insist on engaging in a battle of wits, don't be unarmed.

Your tax argument boils down to not liking my sources (or who paid for them), when they used the same IRS and CBO information you did. Contrary to your belief, I read them quite thoroughly and chose them accordingly. You painted a way too rosy picture of the Bush tax cuts, and I proved it. But to play along with your complaints:

Your Tax Foundation figures come from a 'nonpartisan' group funded by the very partisan Koch Family Foundation (of Koch Industries, the one of the largest privately held energy companies) and the Earhart Foundation (a frequent contributor the conservative American Enterprise Institute). Your 'Tax Policy Center' figures come from an extension of the Brookings Institution, funded by conservative foundations that favor pro-business interests and corporations themselves, such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BPAmerica, and others. Heritage Foundation? Jigga please, you know the script by now. Your sources are hardly the non-partisan center interests you pass them off as.

Now, in my complaint of your intentionally narrowed definition of 'return on equity', I showed you a page that thoroughly defined what the figure did and how it was used. You even highlighted a quote from it, but chose to highlight certain words and adorn them with needless smilies: "Compared to its industry", notably ignoring the "For the most part" it started out with.

Now, I know it's been a few moons since your grammar or reading teacher has talked extensively about context clues, but "for the most part" implies "not quite everything"--which was precisely my point. Which was, to remind you again: ROE and incoming pure profit served as great indicators of the riches of oil companies, riches that they aren't shy banking upon through increasing barrel prices. If they're going to make more money anyway, they can certainly afford a few extra taxes to help fund the domestic renewable energy we really need. We know they have the money, AND we know they can afford it, because we know where they're spending it.

BTW, still waiting for proof of the original claim that the Obama tax plan double taxes the rich. Until then, I've got a hurricane party to stock up for. And like the credibility of the Republican party...I'm gone

take out the Tax Policy Center figures, and you still have revenues at an all time high.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/hist.html
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/...venues.pdf
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php

Year Total Revenue-total
1993 2379.5
1994 2532.8
1995 2713.0
1996 2906.2
1997 3129.6
1998 3358.9
1999 3528.5
2000 3858.8
2001 3756.3
2002 3509.7
2003 3671.4
2004 4140.1
2005 4495.7
2006 4438.7
2007 5101.8
2008 5158.2

as for you proving Tax Foundation numbers are incorrect, you certainly didn't do so with cbpp statistics.
Oh wait, cbpp didn't present statistics.
cbpp only stated their reasoning as to why they disagree with Tax Foundation numbers.
Just for sh*ts and giggles, I reviewed my 2005 & '06 tax returns and guess what,
Tax Foundation figures (avg. rate) for my quintile were nearly spot on.
TF overstated my tax burden by 0.89%, but I barely crept into the quintile (bottom 10% of quintile).
You [and cbpp] may not agree with Tax Foundation statistics, but organizations such as ABA Journal, CNN, Reuters, AP, Wall St Journal,
Investors Business Daily, USNews & World Report, as well as most national and local print media can't all be part
of a 'vast right wing conspiracy' to distribute false and misleading information in regards to income tax stats.
Your attempt to depict Tax Foundation as somehow less than credible because they have received a small portion
of funding from The Koch Family Foundation and Earhart Foundation is.......I'll let others decide.

Tax Foundation has received a total of $160,000(1995-2005) from Earhart Foundation, which has donated more than $52million (1995-2005)
to nearly 400 organizations and institutes of education, including UAB, uat and au http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipie...underID=13
I love my alma mater EVEN MORE since, by extension of Blazerunits' definition, UAB should be considered
a 'right wing' institution of higher education.
Tax Foundation has received a total of $100,000(1985-2005) from KFF, which has donated more than $39million (1985-2005)
to nearly 150 organizations and individuals http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipie...funderID=9

ROE, per the following, is a useful tool to compare companies within the same industry
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnonequity.asp
http://financial-dictionary.thefreedicti...uity+-+ROE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_equity
and then, your link including 'for the most part' reminds me of 'it depends on what the meaning of is, is'. Bill Clinton.
http://beginnersinvest.about.com/cs/inve...equity.htm now, remind me again why you used this