- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Apple shields most of its profits overseas, and therefore it is not taxed in the US the first time, let alone twice. If we are not taxing it at the corporate level, then we need to be taxing it at the stockholder level. My preference would be to reign in corporate largesse and tax them more heavily and not tax cap gains at all, but since the both parties are bought and paid for by the corporations, one of which having convinced many of its poor voters that it is in their best interest that rich people pay no taxes, it will never happen.
The good fight must be fought.I just don't think there's any question that the timing of these "proposals" has everything to do with the fact that his approval numbers absolutely suck. He's begging to regain the love that he lost from his pinko base. He's just trying to reignite the romance with the freestuffers that once thought of him as "The Messiah".
There you go again worried about how much Apple Pays in taxes, why? You don't think the govt. has enough tax revenue for what it truly needs? Why do we need a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt?
Why is it people like you never address spending and always focus on taking money from those who earn it? How did some rich person or company prevent you from joining them?
Careful, I don't think you're aware of the context of his approval #'s at this point of his presidency.
:lamo..
taxing , at the federal level, removes the money from the economy.
There you go again worried about how much Apple Pays in taxes, why? You don't think the govt. has enough tax revenue for what it truly needs? Why do we need a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt?
Why is it people like you never address spending and always focus on taking money from those who earn it? How did some rich person or company prevent you from joining them?
Where does it then go? Does it vanish or vaporize or simply disappear?
I'm aware that the democratic party's 2016 chances hinge heavily on just how popular or unpopular Obama is.
Where does it then go? Does it vanish or vaporize or simply disappear?
Maybe it goes to the same place liberals think the rich take it to.
This man just keeps coming up with one crappier idea after the next...
Obama and I share many goals on the economic front but it is the way he attempts to achieve them which has me unsettled.
Unsettled to the point of opposing the end result due specifically to the means in which he attempts to get us there. (which it won't get us there, but that's a different point)
I don't know how one man can have so many horrendous ideas.
I suspect that he is looking for bargaining chips.
No, our government is prohibited from investing in the black hole that most people call the "stock market".
I would be more than happy to cut our military in half, but that is not the issue of the thread, taxes are. Put a flat corporate tax in place sufficient to cover the government budgetary needs, and eliminate the personal tax system altogether, including the EIT, for all I care. I am more than capable of becoming significantly wealthier than I am. My bills get paid and will realistically always be paid on my current trajectory. I just prefer the free time over the money. I am bohemian like that.
So you're unaware that within the margin of polling error, he is right now equal with Reagan and LBJ, better than Bush2, better than Truman, and worse than only Ike and Bill Clinton among modern Presidents?
Also, you're unaware that popularity =/= approval?
:lamo..
taxing , at the federal level, removes the money from the economy.
Tax revenues from the rich are not transferred to the poor or middle class in any shape ,form ,or fashion.
If Obamas desire is for the middle class to keep more of their money in the economy, he simply needs to cut their taxes...
cutting the tax on the middle class I get...but I'm not understanding what he thinks the benefit of raising the taxes on the rich is supposed to be....economically speaking, his actions make no sense.
Politically speaking, I get it...but econonically?...nope..no sense at all.
why is it people like you use (oooh scary) big #'s like "3.9 Trillion" without putting them in context? Do you have a 35 year history of decrying that federal spending at 20% of GDP? Or, is this pseudo-outrage somehow timed magically to a convenient say... the last 6 years only?
For what reason? Boehner bends over for him at will...
Good post. Those who complain about the super rich are almost always those who have not exhibited the single-minded drive to become super-rich themselves. They are usually people with mediocre grades, who don't try to excel, maybe even smoke a doobie every now and then, and then snivel when purpose-driven success-oriented people get rich. Its sheer envy and sniveling.
Then idiots like Obama come along and want to punish such single-minded, driven, success-oriented people so he can give free phones to bums and buy the votes of the lazy and the mediocre. It is decidedly UN-American
You spelled Reagan wrong
. . . . Yet job growth seemed to be picking up, the closer we got to the employer mandate. . . . .
1.)the income tax is not the only way to "redistribute wealth"That is not an income tax, nor was it far reaching and abused on daily bias.
You want context? In 1965 our budget was 250 billion dollars with 175 million people, today Obama is proposing a 3.9 trillion dollar budget for 312 million Americans. You don't seem to comprehend context or the true role of the Federal Govt. You want Federal Spending to be 20% of the GDP, Why? Do you realize that the GDP of this country includes federal spending? Most of the GDP however is generated by the private sector and the states so why should the Federal Govt. even spend close to 20%?
Of course you would because you believe it is the role of the FEDERAL GOVT. to provide for those social problems in your community. If you cut the military in half down to 400 billion dollars you would still have a deficit. What next?
Govt. budgetary needs? What exactly would those be? Do you have any idea what the line items in the budget are? Did you know that we have an 18.2 trillion dollar debt today and debt service is the fourth largest budget item? Do you even know what your taxes fund? You want to eliminate the payroll taxes which fund SS and Medicare? Ok, think that will pass?
You don't seem to truly understand the role of the Federal Govt or what your taxes fund. Suggest you do some better research
I'm very well aware of the fact that he's about as unpopular as it is possible for him to be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?