Taxes On Rich...High

[PICSIX]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-bills-rich-families-approach-123819883.html

"My sense is that high-income people feel abused by being targeted always for more taxes," Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said. "You can understand why they feel that way."

[PICSIX]

I'm amazed at how many people don't know the difference between ordinary income and investment income. Investment income should be taxed at a lower rate....It's a second bite into that income by the government! :bang: :bang: :mad: :mad:

"It's fairness," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "We're not raising taxes with the Buffett rule as much as we are correcting an inequity in terms of, one guy can be working at one end of the hall and because he's working with hedge funds, he gets taxed at 20 percent. Another guy at the other end of the hall is on a salary at an insurance company and he has to pay (39.6 percent). That's just not fair."

It's not fair, it's not fair...... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ArlJim78]

Its one of the most harmful things to have happened to this country, the idea that being fair means socking it to some and letting others pass. like almost everything government does it's entirely unfair and counterproductive.

[Robert Goren]

The guys who actually work pay higher taxes that those living off interest from an inheritance from their great grandfather. Tell me why those lazy bums should get a tax break.

[Tom]

Because you no clue who anyone is or how they make their money - it sounds nice to your ears to be able to label those who do better than you do as some kind on villain. What about those who inherit a farm, or a business, and work their butts off to keep it running after they take over, so they can pass it to their kids? What about those small guys who put in 18 hours a day, 7 days a week?

If you want to name names, I'll start your list for your - the sleeze bags you refer to:

Ted Kennedy
John Kerry


Need a few more?

[horses4courses]

Because you no clue who anyone is or how they make their money - it sounds nice to your ears to be able to label those who do better than you do as some kind on villain. What about those who inherit a farm, or a business, and work their butts off to keep it running after they take over, so they can pass it to their kids? What about those small guys who put in 18 hours a day, 7 days a week?

If you want to name names, I'll start your list for your - the sleeze bags you refer to:

Ted Kennedy
John Kerry


Need a few more?

FTFY:

Mitt Romney
Dick Cheney
Newt Gingrich

[TJDave]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-bills-rich-families-approach-123819883.html

"My sense is that high-income people feel abused by being targeted always for more taxes," Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said. "You can understand why they feel that way."


I hang with rich people. Not once have I ever heard them complain about taxes.

[mostpost]

I'm amazed at how many people don't know the difference between ordinary income and investment income. Investment income should be taxed at a lower rate....It's a second bite into that income by the government!
Completely false. You pay taxes on the money you earn on your investment. You do not pay taxes on the money you have invested. Let's say you work at an honest job-like being a mailman. You get paid $50K a year on which you pay the standard taxes. You invest $10,000 in the stock market and after a year you cash out and have $12,000. You're telling me that you pay tax on that $12,000. I think you pay tax on the $2,000 profit. Therefore, you are not taxed twice on the same money.

[Striker]

I hang with rich people. Not once have I ever heard them complain about taxes.
Bingo. The ones that I know complain about the lawyers and accountants that they have to pay high fees to, in order to make sure that they pay a very little percentage of their income in taxes.

[newtothegame]

Not too mention, the good business people understand that complaining gets you no where.....just use the loopholes like GE does!

[newtothegame]

And, if you chose not to pay it or disclose it, I am sure DHS will send one of their 2700 retrofitted tanks to come collect. P.S., they will probably also bring many of the billions of rounds they recently purchased.....
Hey wait, I thought guns were a bad thing??? :mad:

[NJ Stinks]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-bills-rich-families-approach-123819883.html

"My sense is that high-income people feel abused by being targeted always for more taxes," Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said. "You can understand why they feel that way."

I can't understand the way this guy says they feel. At all. 35.5% sounds like their dreams came true. :sleeping:

[dartman51]

FTFY:

Mitt Romney Inherited 1 million from his father, and gave all of it to BYU scholarship fund.
Dick Cheney His father was a soil conservation agent, don't think he left Dick, a lot of money.
Newt Gingrich His father was a career Army officer, don't think he left Newt a lot of money.

Point being, the 3 you named, actually worked for their money, unlike Kerry and Kennedy.

[tbwinner]

Completely false. You pay taxes on the money you earn on your investment. You do not pay taxes on the money you have invested. Let's say you work at an honest job-like being a mailman. You get paid $50K a year on which you pay the standard taxes. You invest $10,000 in the stock market and after a year you cash out and have $12,000. You're telling me that you pay tax on that $12,000. I think you pay tax on the $2,000 profit. Therefore, you are not taxed twice on the same money.

The $2,000 profit likely came from an increase in the stock price, right? Assumed no dividends. The company's growth in stock price likely came from profit. That profit has already been taxed. That is why it is being taxed twice. If there was no corporate tax, the growth in the stock price would have been greater...so there IS indeed an effect.

Wages are deductible for a business so wage amounts paid are not double taxed.

You get that, right??

There are other cases of double taxation too:
http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/06/why-double-taxation-must-cease

[NJ Stinks]

The $2,000 profit likely came from an increase in the stock price, right? Assumed no dividends. The company's growth in stock price likely came from profit. That profit has already been taxed. That is why it is being taxed twice. If there was no corporate tax, the growth in the stock price would have been greater...so there IS indeed an effect.



A GAO study found that in every year from 1998 to 2005, approximately 55 percent of large corporations paid no corporate income tax.

Source: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

A company's stock value can go up without regard as to whether or not the corporation actually had a profit. No?

[tbwinner]

A GAO study found that in every year from 1998 to 2005, approximately 55 percent of large corporations paid no corporate income tax.

Source: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

That's a loaded statement, needs to be included with this from the very next sentence of your same source:
"But just 2.7 percent of large corporations reported no net tax liability in all eight of those eight years. This reflects a similar pattern as applies to families and individuals — those who do not pay income tax in a given year often do pay income tax over time."



A company's stock value can go up without regard as to whether or not the corporation actually had a profit. No?

Of course, but the main driver in mid-, large-cap stocks are usually earnings. Small-caps/new companies being speculatively driven aside.

[hcap]

/QPKKQnijnsM?

[HUSKER55]

tell me h'cap, what is the ceo of a fortune 500 company supposed to be paid.

a lot of them work on points and income generated for their stockholders.

[horses4courses]

Point being, the 3 you named, actually worked for their money, unlike Kerry and Kennedy.

Well, that's highly commendable.
So, where did they all go so very wrong?

[Tom]

Well, that's highly commendable.
So, where did they all go so very wrong?


Who says they did?
Trying to change the subject now that your point is exposed?
Not conforming to your political persuasion has really nothing to do with Goren's point of this thread.

I suspect the three of them together did more for this country than, oh, say 47% of the country. Maybe more. I'm sure they paid more taxes than most who voted for Obama. And none of them have Obama-phones.


Conservatively speaking, of course.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Goren's point...

Dammit, you solved the puzzle?

Last I read he was calling those that didn't work for their income lazy bums and suggesting that they should pay the same rate of taxation as everyone else. I thought it was you posting at first.

[JustRalph]

The guys who actually work pay higher taxes that those living off interest from an inheritance from their great grandfather. Tell me why those lazy bums should get a tax break.

Wow! This says so much more about you than it does any tax problem. You never heard of estate taxes ?

How about the fact that the money they inherit has probably been taxed 3 times before even get it?

[JustRalph]

FTFY:

Mitt Romney
Dick Cheney
Newt Gingrich

Mitt Romney gave his inheritence away.......

[NJ Stinks]

/QPKKQnijnsM?

This clip reveals Republicans potecting the 1% no matter what when it comes to tax increases for the sad joke that it really is. On top of that it shows how pathetic it is to ridicule the 47% as "takers" because they pay little or no income tax.

[newtothegame]

Here's an honest question NJ.
When this last fiasco went by and the rethugs caved to the additional taxes, what was that about if you on the left are only going to come back a few short months and now ask for more? Let me guess, you all didnt get enough of the fair share right???
Question 2. and I trust you somewhat being a tax guy.....
let's assume for a minute you have several tax brackets....
Tax bracket 1 1,000,000
tax bracket 2 900,000
tax bracket 3 800,000...
you get the idea.....
Well you tax the top bracket an additional amount as they need to pay their fair share.....what say you? 10%? I mean c'mon, they can afford it right?
Now the once tax bracket at the top is gone and the "new" tax bracket at the top is 900,000. Well those top earning bastards haven't paid their fair share...
(And you know this is reality as it has been proven that you can tax the top 1% EVERYTHING THEY MAKE) and still not have the revenue needed (because it isn't a damn revenue problem). Then what? Tax those making 900,000 right?
Do you not see that at some point, you continue to bring the top earners back to the rest of us yet you do NOTHING to bring the bottom level up???
You can feed a man a fish everyday and all that happens is he becomes dependent on you bringing him fish. Why is it so hard to see you need to teach the man to fish???

[hcap]

This clip reveals Republicans potecting the 1% no matter what when it comes to tax increases for the sad joke that it really is. On top of that it shows how pathetic it is to ridicule the 47% as "takers" because they pay little or no income tax.A broader look on the overall trend before the recession and after.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202013-03-04%20at%2012.37.51%20PM.png

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/corporate-profits-are-eating-the-economy/273687/


Here are two things that are true about the economy today.

(1) The Dow Jones industrial average is poised to set a new record as corporate profits stretch to all-time highs.

(2) There are still fewer working Americans today than there were before the start of the Great Recession.

The fact that these two things can be true at the same time might outrage you. But it shouldn't surprise you. In the last 30 years, there has been a great divergence between growth and workers' incomes, as the New York Times reminds us today. Corporate profits have soared, in the last decade especially, particularly because of three things: Globalization has pushed down the cost of labor available to multinational corporations; technology has allowed companies to make more with fewer workers, in general; and Big Finance has gobbled up the economy, as the banks' share of total corporate profits has tripled to about one-third since the middle of the last century, according to Evan Soltas.

For another look at the long story, here's a graph that compares labor's share of the economy (BLUE) to corporate profits' share of the economy (RED). There has been a steady shift away from workers toward capital since the early 1970s but the real action comes around 2000. Corporate profits double their bite of the economy and labor's share, already at a post-WWII low, falls another four percentage points steeply.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2013/03/Screen%20Shot%202013-03-04%20at%2010.20.13%20AM-thumb-615x374-114837.png

[newtothegame]

You know Harry, If I didn't know any better, you just made one hell of a case for why we should of elected a business man to fix our economy versus a community organizer for a second term!!!! :lol:

[hcap]

They tried that in Europe circa the 1930' and 40's. It was called Fascism
Remember Mussolini got the lazy poor Italian citizens to keep them trains running on time. I mean Italy could use a Mussolini type right now :lol: :)

Hey don't feel to much compassion or empathy for all them ungrateful "takers, moochers and anchors". One of your best repug spokesmen reports that all them poor folk are living high on the hog.

http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=7ce1a64b-5598-4075-a886-304b0b8525cf

"Including state contributions, we already spend a trillion dollars a year on federal means-tested poverty programs—more than any other program in the federal budget. Converted to cash, we spend enough on federal welfare to mail every household living beneath the poverty line a check for $60,000 each year. Can anyone honestly say this huge sum of money is being wisely and effectively spent, that no improvements are needed?".........Mr Jeff Sessions

Well, gee wiz, repugs were right all the time we libs were bitchin' for no reason. And I GUESS OBAMA COULD HAVE SAVED A LOT OF BUCKS GIVING OUT THEM FREE OBAMAPHONES and two fried chickens per poor folks each Sunday :cool: :cool: ...Sessions sez so!

[hcap]

PS: More than four years after the financial crisis, not a single Wall Street executive has been jailed for playing a role in the creation of the toxic financial products that fueled the real-estate bubble, which were in some cases designed simply to fail. Maybe we can forget Mussolini and chose a homegrown Fascist?? :)

[ArlJim78]

real competition in a real market, a flat tax with no loopholes, no more too-big-to- fail corporate charity cases, these are the only solutions. Robin Hood crony-style government is not. It only creates legions of wards of the state and a few giant protected corporations connected with the right politicians and lobbyists and in cahoots with the government. no thanks.

[Tom]

PS: More than four years after the financial crisis, not a single Wall Street executive has been jailed for playing a role in the creation of the toxic financial products that fueled the real-estate bubble, which were in some cases designed simply to fail. Maybe we can forget Mussolini and chose a homegrown Fascist?? :)

Gee, who has been in charge of the Justice Department for the last 4+ years?
Yes, our very own homegrown fascist! :lol:

[hcap]

Let's see now...

Commie/Socialist/Community organizer/Kenyan/College Record-hider/ Affirmative action Abuser/Non-businessman/Fascist. :lol:

Did I leave anything out? Feel free to add more descriptive terms ad infinitum

Spelling counts Tom .

Remember to add a forward slash after each insult.

Play quietly among yourselves. Try not to rant excessively :)

[Tom]

You ignore the content - once again.
No justification for Obama failing to make sure justice was served?
Remember, use a forward slash between each excuse.

[PaceAdvantage]

PS: More than four years after the financial crisis, not a single Wall Street executive has been jailed for playing a role in the creation of the toxic financial products that fueled the real-estate bubble, which were in some cases designed simply to fail. Maybe we can forget Mussolini and chose a homegrown Fascist?? :)Last I heard, Barney Frank and a bunch of his clueless (or was it willful) colleagues are still walking around free, so I guess that kind of evens out the score...

[JustRalph]

Holder is too busy selling assault rifles to Mexican drug lords and trying figure out a way to stop all gun sales in the United States

[fast4522]

Well then. . . . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtONERFq5U0

[Actor]

Look at the 2012 instructions for Form 1040. The top marginal tax rate is 35%. That's far below the top marginal rate of 90% plus that prevailed from 1945 to 1963. I remember that as a time of great prosperity.


http://blackburn.house.gov/uploadedfiles/jec_republican_staff_analysis_historical_tax_rates _rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf

[badcompany]

They tried that in Europe circa the 1930' and 40's. It was called Fascism
Remember Mussolini got the lazy poor Italian citizens to keep them trains running on time. I mean Italy could use a Mussolini type right now :lol: :)

Hey don't feel to much compassion or empathy for all them ungrateful "takers, moochers and anchors". One of your best repug spokesmen reports that all them poor folk are living high on the hog.

http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=7ce1a64b-5598-4075-a886-304b0b8525cf

"Including state contributions, we already spend a trillion dollars a year on federal means-tested poverty programs—more than any other program in the federal budget. Converted to cash, we spend enough on federal welfare to mail every household living beneath the poverty line a check for $60,000 each year. Can anyone honestly say this huge sum of money is being wisely and effectively spent, that no improvements are needed?".........Mr Jeff Sessions

Well, gee wiz, repugs were right all the time we libs were bitchin' for no reason. And I GUESS OBAMA COULD HAVE SAVED A LOT OF BUCKS GIVING OUT THEM FREE OBAMAPHONES and two fried chickens per poor folks each Sunday :cool: :cool: ...Sessions sez so!

So, I guess government should seize those corporate profits and redistribute them to labor?

Your late buddy Chavez tried that and ended up killing the golden goose:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/world/story/2012-05-28/venezuela-oil/55248628/1

Venezuela's PDVSA oil company is bloated, 'falling apart'

La VICTORIA, Venezuela — Beatriz Rodriguez sits in a long line under a sweltering sun, waiting for state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela to deliver cylinders of natural gas she uses to cook her family's meals.

She and her neighbors haven't had gas for two weeks, and her patience is running out.

"I complained, and they told me I should use firewood," Rodriguez, a mother of three, fumes. "Firewood, they told me. And we're supposedly an oil power."

Critics charge that the president is destroying the company by packing it with loyalists rather than qualified personnel. PDVSA's payroll has more than doubled to 115,000 employees since Chávez took office in 1999, and debt has risen 10-fold since 2006 to $34 billion.

Those increases have seemingly accomplished little: Venezuela's oil production has dropped more than 25% since 1998 to its current 2.4 million barrels a day, according to OPEC.

[PaceAdvantage]

Look at the 2012 instructions for Form 1040. The top marginal tax rate is 35%. That's far below the top marginal rate of 90% plus that prevailed from 1945 to 1963. I remember that as a time of great prosperity.


http://blackburn.house.gov/uploadedfiles/jec_republican_staff_analysis_historical_tax_rates _rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdfOh, so you want to go back to those times eh? I suppose you want to repeal the Civil Rights Act as well and go back to separate schools and drinking fountains too...typical racist. :rolleyes:

(After all, that's the kind of snide comment that gets thrown at conservatives when they lament the past...so I have to assume that as a card carrying anti-righty, you want to strip minorities of their civil rights as a bonus.)

[hcap]

So, I guess government should seize those corporate profits and redistribute them to labor?
The poor are living the life of Riley. Why bother, they are pulling in over 60 grand a year according to your buddy J. Sessions. I guess you think we should tax 'em based on republican ass backwards math?.

[Actor]

Oh, so you want to go back to those times eh?I'm not saying that at all. I'm just pointing out that today's tax rates on the rich are far from being an all time high.

[NJ Stinks]

Here's an honest question NJ.
When this last fiasco went by and the rethugs caved to the additional taxes, what was that about if you on the left are only going to come back a few short months and now ask for more? Let me guess, you all didnt get enough of the fair share right???
Question 2. and I trust you somewhat being a tax guy.....
let's assume for a minute you have several tax brackets....
Tax bracket 1 1,000,000
tax bracket 2 900,000
tax bracket 3 800,000...
you get the idea.....
Well you tax the top bracket an additional amount as they need to pay their fair share.....what say you? 10%? I mean c'mon, they can afford it right?
Now the once tax bracket at the top is gone and the "new" tax bracket at the top is 900,000. Well those top earning bastards haven't paid their fair share...
(And you know this is reality as it has been proven that you can tax the top 1% EVERYTHING THEY MAKE) and still not have the revenue needed (because it isn't a damn revenue problem). Then what? Tax those making 900,000 right?
Do you not see that at some point, you continue to bring the top earners back to the rest of us yet you do NOTHING to bring the bottom level up???
You can feed a man a fish everyday and all that happens is he becomes dependent on you bringing him fish. Why is it so hard to see you need to teach the man to fish???

Question 1: The Obama plan to avert squester was to eliminate tax loopholes - not raise tax rates.

The President has put forward a specific plan that will avoid sequestration's harmful budget cuts and reduce the deficit in a balanced way — by cutting spending, finding savings in entitlement programs and closing tax loopholes.

link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequester/the-presidents-plan

Question 2: You claim that the rich will never pay enough for the left until they are no longer better off than anybody else. That is not true. What the left wants is the super-rich to pay is something porportionate to their share of nation's wealth. Not because we want to punish the rich. Rather because we believe it is better for the majority to benefit from Medicare, food stamps, other healthcare, Pell Grants, and other stuff needed to live somewhat well. Nobody is proposing anything that will relegate the super-rich to the land of the just plain rich.

Actually, in a country where the highest tax rate is 39.%, to insinuate that those in that tax bracket are somehow the victims here leaves me speechless.

(But not for long. :) )

[elysiantraveller]

Question 1: The Obama plan to avert squester was to eliminate tax loopholes - not raise tax rates.

The President has put forward a specific plan that will avoid sequestration's harmful budget cuts and reduce the deficit in a balanced way — by cutting spending, finding savings in entitlement programs and closing tax loopholes.

link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequester/the-presidents-plan

That plan was DOA in the Senate... hardly a solution.

[Tom]

Look at the 2012 instructions for Form 1040. The top marginal tax rate is 35%. That's far below the top marginal rate of 90% plus that prevailed from 1945 to 1963. I remember that as a time of great prosperity.


http://blackburn.house.gov/uploadedfiles/jec_republican_staff_analysis_historical_tax_rates _rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf

And of course, nothing else has changed since then.

[newtothegame]

Question 1: The Obama plan to avert squester was to eliminate tax loopholes - not raise tax rates.

The President has put forward a specific plan that will avoid sequestration's harmful budget cuts and reduce the deficit in a balanced way — by cutting spending, finding savings in entitlement programs and closing tax loopholes.

link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequester/the-presidents-plan

Question 2: You claim that the rich will never pay enough for the left until they are no longer better off than anybody else. That is not true. What the left wants is the super-rich to pay is something porportionate to their share of nation's wealth. Not because we want to punish the rich. Rather because we believe it is better for the majority to benefit from Medicare, food stamps, other healthcare, Pell Grants, and other stuff needed to live somewhat well. Nobody is proposing anything that will relegate the super-rich to the land of the just plain rich.

Actually, in a country where the highest tax rate is 39.%, to insinuate that those in that tax bracket are somehow the victims here leaves me speechless.

(But not for long. :) )
But, NJ, (and I do appreciate your response), it was the president who WANTED sequester to start. Then, once it become a reality, he whined and blamed the rethugs trying to avert it. If I am not mistaken, the left claimed the end of the world would happen with sequester....
As I have said before, I have no problem what so ever taking care of those people who actually need it. My problem is and always will be with the huge amounts of fraud in the system. If we can hire thousands of IRS agents to ensure the implementation of Obamacare, why cant we get people to ensure the legitamacy of our government aid programs?
Instead we talk about how sequester will kill us and then extend millions and millions to Egypt only days later.
And, lastly, to my hypothetical, you may say we are not trying to tax the super rich down, but that is exactly what happens. And, even more importantly, the money from those taxes do not go to where they are supposed to go. If you are going to say we need this to take care of the "poor" then give it to the poor and stop funding solyndras, and other BS programs!
Sincerely, thanks again for the honest dialogue!

[Tom]

Any plan to avert sequestration should start like this....

1 Reconvene congress.
2. Get prez off golf golf course
3. Tell prez to stop the blame game and start negotiating - act like a leader.



In the meantime, I say sequestration is a good thing. Double it. Triple it.
There is no way this small amount of cuts should hurt anyone. Those that are being hurt, let it be know your president is playing politics and causing this - no one but Obama is to blame here. And if you voted for him, no sympathy - you deserve it! :lol:

There is another term that ends in "tration" that we should do to congress and the pres, but for now, SEQUEStration will have to do.

[elysiantraveller]

In the meantime, I say sequestration is a good thing. Double it. Triple it.
There is no way this small amount of cuts should hurt anyone. Those that are being hurt, let it be know your president is playing politics and causing this - no one but Obama is to blame here. And if you voted for him, no sympathy - you deserve it! :lol:

There is another term that ends in "tration" that we should do to congress and the pres, but for now, SEQUEStration will have to do.

It will hurt economic growth to some extent but hell with it. There was no better deal available to Republicans.

Besides the major private industries that are going to be hurt are in the defense line of work anyway, its not like their survival has been a concern of the Democrats...

ever...

[NJ Stinks]

But, NJ, (and I do appreciate your response), it was the president who WANTED sequester to start. Then, once it become a reality, he whined and blamed the rethugs trying to avert it. If I am not mistaken, the left claimed the end of the world would happen with sequester....
As I have said before, I have no problem what so ever taking care of those people who actually need it. My problem is and always will be with the huge amounts of fraud in the system. If we can hire thousands of IRS agents to ensure the implementation of Obamacare, why cant we get people to ensure the legitamacy of our government aid programs?
Instead we talk about how sequester will kill us and then extend millions and millions to Egypt only days later.
And, lastly, to my hypothetical, you may say we are not trying to tax the super rich down, but that is exactly what happens. And, even more importantly, the money from those taxes do not go to where they are supposed to go. If you are going to say we need this to take care of the "poor" then give it to the poor and stop funding solyndras, and other BS programs!
Sincerely, thanks again for the honest dialogue!

I can understand your concern about government waste. No doubt it is a valid concern. As for the sequester, Obama was wrong to think that there were enough reasonable people in Congress who could actually compromise. (He had zero history as President to lead him to believe a deal could be made.) I can't say how bad the sequester will be for the economy but we'll find out in the next couple years.

The part of your response in bold is not true. The paste below is from FactCheck.org and discusses the role of the IRS relating to Obamacare.
__________________________________

This wildly inaccurate claim started as an inflated, partisan assertion that 16,500 new IRS employees might be required to administer the new law. That devolved quickly into a claim, made by some Republican lawmakers, that 16,500 IRS "agents" would be required. Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas even claimed in a televised interview that all 16,500 would be carrying guns. None of those claims is true.

The IRS’ main job under the new law isn’t to enforce penalties. Its first task is to inform many small-business owners of a new tax credit that the new law grants them — starting this year — which will pay up to 35 percent of the employer’s contribution toward their workers’ health insurance. And in 2014 the IRS will also be administering additional subsidies — in the form of refundable tax credits — to help millions of low- and middle-income individuals buy health insurance.

The law does make individuals subject to a tax, starting in 2014, if they fail to obtain health insurance coverage. But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified before a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee March 25 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sluAS6Z5MEU) that the IRS won’t be auditing individuals to certify that they have obtained health insurance. He said insurance companies will issue forms certifying that individuals have coverage that meets the federal mandate, similar to a form that lenders use to verify the amount of interest someone has paid on their home mortgage. "We expect to get a simple form, that we won’t look behind, that says this person has acceptable health coverage," Shulman said. "So there’s not going to be any discussions about health coverage with an IRS employee." In any case, the bill signed into law (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590enr.txt.pdf) (on page 131) specifically prohibits the IRS from using the liens and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers, and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the tax or those who don’t obtain coverage. That doesn’t leave a lot for IRS enforcers to do.

So where does the claim of 16,500 new agents come from?

Link: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/

[newtothegame]

I can understand your concern about government waste. No doubt it is a valid concern. As for the sequester, Obama was wrong to think that there were enough reasonable people in Congress who could actually compromise. (He had zero history as President to lead him to believe a deal could be made.) I can't say how bad the sequester will be for the economy but we'll find out in the next couple years.

The part of your response in bold is not true. The paste below is from FactCheck.org and discusses the role of the IRS relating to Obamacare.
__________________________________

This wildly inaccurate claim started as an inflated, partisan assertion that 16,500 new IRS employees might be required to administer the new law. That devolved quickly into a claim, made by some Republican lawmakers, that 16,500 IRS "agents" would be required. Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas even claimed in a televised interview that all 16,500 would be carrying guns. None of those claims is true.

The IRS’ main job under the new law isn’t to enforce penalties. Its first task is to inform many small-business owners of a new tax credit that the new law grants them — starting this year — which will pay up to 35 percent of the employer’s contribution toward their workers’ health insurance (#). And in 2014 the IRS will also be administering additional subsidies — in the form of refundable tax credits — to help millions of low- and middle-income individuals buy health insurance.

The law does make individuals subject to a tax, starting in 2014, if they fail to obtain health insurance coverage (#). But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified before a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee March 25 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sluAS6Z5MEU) that the IRS won’t be auditing individuals to certify that they have obtained health insurance. He said insurance companies will issue forms certifying that individuals have coverage that meets the federal mandate, similar to a form that lenders use to verify the amount of interest someone has paid on their home mortgage. "We expect to get a simple form, that we won’t look behind, that says this person has acceptable health coverage (#)," Shulman said. "So there’s not going to be any discussions about health coverage with an IRS employee." In any case, the bill signed into law (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590enr.txt.pdf) (on page 131) specifically prohibits the IRS from using the liens and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers, and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the tax or those who don’t obtain coverage. That doesn’t leave a lot for IRS enforcers to do.

So where does the claim of 16,500 new agents come from?

Link: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
Well I never used a number (16,500) as you did. I said "thousands....and here is the link showing the budget allows for 4000 more employees. Now as to what their specific task will include, who knows. But, 4000 more would seem like a large increase to me no matter what they are tasked with.
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/534/2749669/2013-budget-ups-IRS-funding-allows-for-staff-increases

This government report shows the staffing levels needed for implementation....
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2012reports/201243064fr.pdf

[NJ Stinks]

Well I never used a number (16,500) as you did. I said "thousands....and here is the link showing the budget allows for 4000 more employees. Now as to what their specific task will include, who knows. But, 4000 more would seem like a large increase to me no matter what they are tasked with.
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/534/2749669/2013-budget-ups-IRS-funding-allows-for-staff-increases

This government report shows the staffing levels needed for implementation....
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2012reports/201243064fr.pdf

The first link does not mention anything about additional staffing for the Affordable Care Act in the request to hire 4,000 more IRS employees and the second link on page 10 says the IRS will need 858 full-time employees to deal with the ACA in 2013.

[newtothegame]

The first link does not mention anything about additional staffing for the Affordable Care Act in the request to hire 4,000 more IRS employees and the second link on page 10 says the IRS will need 858 full-time employees to deal with the ACA in 2013.
ok, so a little less then 1/4 of the new IRS agents will be for the ACA...either way, they are staffing more and the point still remains that I would like to see them go after some fraud!

[NJ Stinks]

ok, so a little less then 1/4 of the new IRS agents will be for the ACA...either way, they are staffing more and the point still remains that I would like to see them go after some fraud!

Me too! :ThmbUp:

[HUSKER55]

that will increase government expenses at a time we need them cut, won't it?

[badcompany]

that will increase government expenses at a time we need them cut, won't it?

We'll take that under advisement. Next question, please. ;)

[HUSKER55]

just a minute and I will open my mail bag....:D

[hcap]

Well we just cut expenses. I tell ya them repugs are mighty smart

...ACORN may no longer exist, but that isn't stopping Republicans from trying to defund it all over again. From the House Appropriations Committe's newly introduced legislation to fund the government through the end of fiscal year 2013:

None of the funds made available in this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries or successors.

Phew! That's a relief. God forbid a non-existent enemy of the Republican Party should be allowed to not exist without being defunded. And just in case you're skeptical about this, don't worry, it's totally normal: A spokeswoman for the appropriations committee told Huffington Post that the provision to defund the defunct group was "a typical provision that is included in most appropriations bills." :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

ACORN still exists, but under other guises.

You do understand that Clark Kent is still Superman, even with the glasses on, right? Superman did not cease to exist.

[hcap]

Ok, you need some heavy duty ..................





Kryptonite !!!


Take 2 tablespoons after each conspiracy theory with meals
That will make your paranoia subside until you tune back in to Rush or Faux Noos or Malkin

Red or green is ok as long as it clogs further those arteries leading the cortex.

Caution, not recommended for suppository use :cool:

[HUSKER55]

WHY SHOULD GOVERNMENT be supporting any community organizers or anything like that. Don't you think there comes a point where people have to do for themselves. Why should I pay for your group?

I do not believe that is governments role.

[fast4522]

So what change or no change will occur.

http://www.ibtimes.com/ge-pfizer-microsoft-apple-other-major-us-corporations-are-parking-more-cash-abroad-avoid-paying