OT: US President (US Dom Players only) - Page 18

thejeff · #**171** November 4th, 2008, 07:16 PM

No, I actually mean a top marginal rate of 90%.
Starting with income somewhere north of 10 million, maybe. And marginal rate, so only income above the 10 million is taxed at the highest rate. Lower rates below that until you reach the current max 35%? somewhere around 1/4 million.

Also changing the capital gains rate to a progressive structure, with a large exemption so those living off of retirement savings aren't hurt. It makes no sense to tax those just sitting back watching their money grow less than those working for a living.

I'd really be happy with something in the 70% range.

Again, this didn't destroy our economy last time we tried it. In fact we had the healthiest middle class we've ever had in this country.

Note that this is still far from socialism, more like FDR through Eisenhower & up to JFK. And far more radical than anything that scary socialist Obama is going to try.

licker · #**172** November 4th, 2008, 07:28 PM

And you still think the global market and investment conditions are the same as a century ago?

You are right though, it isn't socialism, it's insanity.

thejeff · #**173** November 4th, 2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

Only the first statement is true, according to the IRS. Top 5% on the 2006 doc pays 55% of the taxes, and has 31% of the adjusted gross income.

My apologies then.

I'd poked around after Chris's post and found a source giving something around 48% income for the top 5%. That probably wasn't adjusted gross income, which may account for some of the disparity. A quick look didn't find the source again. Maybe later...

Aezeal · #**174** November 4th, 2008, 07:42 PM

I think it's completely idiotic to be discussing the birthcertificate... you shouldn't win on technicalities... but the world these days is like that and I accept that.. so does mcCain I'd say and his lawyers.. if there was more than just rumours there they'd have cracked down on it instead of just passing the rumours, it'd be blown out of proportion.

IT's just republican fanatic wishfull thinking and gossip.

I've been pretty used to seeing american make the wrong (my opinion yes) choice and I'd not be surprised if they'd do it again but pplz who keep bringing this up are just idiots

thejeff · #**175** November 4th, 2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by licker

And you still think the global market and investment conditions are the same as a century ago?

You are right though, it isn't socialism, it's insanity.

No, obviously the global conditions are not the same as 50 years ago.
So what?
What has changed that makes higher taxes on the top 1% or so, completely insane?
Why do those differences lead to that conclusion?

What horrible consequences do you see?

"Things are different now, that can't work" isn't an argument.

licker · #**176** November 4th, 2008, 07:48 PM

Point being those people will simply not have their money in the US for *any* of it to be taxed.

GrudgeBringer · #**177** November 4th, 2008, 08:09 PM

Licker,

Point well taken....

My GF is a Privite Banker and she has notices that the majority of the Largest depositers are either selling off or taking HUGE loans to themselves from the companies they control.

Money is being put on hold (and hid) it seems for another 24 hours. After that they have aprox 2 months to make that money dissaper.

Tax that gentlemen....

GrudgeBringer · #**178** November 4th, 2008, 08:10 PM

Sorry about the spelling...(LOL) watching the Green Mile will reading this.

MaxWilson · #**179** November 4th, 2008, 08:26 PM

Hauser's Law seems appropos. You *can't* soak the rich.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1211...n_commentaries

Or at least, not if you're trying to generate income. Thejeff's purpose seems to be more about building the middle-class. If raising the top marginal tax rates to 90% reduced IRS revenues from $1250 billion to (say) $700 billion but that $700 billion was being paid mostly by people making less than $100,000 per year--would that be a positive thing in your eyes? (Open question to anyone who cares to answer.)

Me, I'm kind of split. On the one hand, I'm pro-growth. On the other hand, the middle class will make a living one way or the other, and penalizing high earners out of existence to make way for middle-class jobs MIGHT be better than bribing the middle class with "bread and circuses." On the gripping hand I can't bring myself to favor punitive measures against people who work hard and succeed; it's un-American.

-Max

chrispedersen · #**180** November 4th, 2008, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thejeff

The only evidence backing this whole argument is an elementary school equivalent registration form his stepfather filled out. Because of that, which has no legal significance other than registering him for school, we must conclude that he legally changed his name and citizenship.

And as other's have said, his birth certificate is available. He can't produce the other documents requested since they don't exist. He never changed his citizenship or his name, so he can't produce documentation showing he changed back. Easier just to have the case dismissed.

No, actually his birth certificate is *not* available. He refused to make it available. He had a copy of a birth certificate posted on his website for a few days; it was rumored to be that of his half sister.

Point is - no he never submitted a birth certificate to the courts. Takes all of ... 5 minutes right?