Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[David in FL]

1. Nonsense about size of government rings false when things like Sandy happen, don't they? 2. Government is necessary. Of course everything starts locally, and localities and states should be in charge of their destiny, but they don't have anything without the "United" States. Otherwise we would be like the tribes in Afghanistan with tribal leaders telling you how to live your life and fighting off the tribe next door. Without regulation you would not have clean water, safe food, clean air and safe working conditions. Corporations (who aren't people, BTW) would love to be able to do what they wish with minimal regulation ( and they did with impunity until the government finally stepped in) 3. because the free market will always take shortcuts that will affect their bottom line in a positive way. A perfect example is the pre-existing condition edict in Obamacare. The insurance companies would love to get rid of that for one simple reason: bottom line. I am all for market systems, but you better be damn sure that it is not taking advantage of people in lieu of profits. 4. And personal responsibility is not a "conservative" principle, it is uniquely American.

1. Why? Smaller doesn't mean impotent, it simply means that bigger, especially in the federal government, isn't necessarily better. There are appropriate functions for the federal government, but the majority can and should be handled by the states. Where we get into trouble is when people immediately look to the government to take care of them, rather than taking the steps necessary to take care of themselves. Hell, they have people in New York who are out of food after two days, wondering where the government is with their chow. That's just ridiculous......and sad. 2. I agree, but the functions of the federal government should be limited, with most necessary functions exercised at the state and local level. 3. This statement shows that you don't understand what is meant by the free market. As such it really doesn't make any sense so I can't comment. 4. Not at all. By definition conservatism embraces individual freedom coupled with personal responsibility for the decisions and actions that result from those decisions. Liberals or statists believe more in the community and the responsibility of government to take care of the community as a whole. Heck, maybe you're conservative and didn't even realize it! Wouldn't that be great?! :-)

[phan52]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

Although I live comfortably, I am not wealthy, nor do I make enough to fit into what Obama defined as middle class ($250K).  Last year, I paid an effective tax rate of 9% on my income.   Even so, I laugh when I hear such comments...

The very liberal Tax Policy Center takes into account both income taxes and payroll taxes when accounting for the percentage of taxes paid.    According to their own figures, the wealthy are paying 67% of all taxes collected in this country, while the middle class pays 11% and a group they call the "upper middle class" pays 19%.   Combining the two groups that fit into their definition of middle classes amounts to 30% of all taxes collected.

According to the IRS, the richest 1 percent of Americans earned 22 percent of national personal income but paid 40 percent of all personal income taxes. The top 5 percent earned 37 percent and paid 61 percent of personal income tax. The top 10 percent earned 48 percent and paid 71 percent of all personal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent earned 12 percent of personal income but paid just 3 percent of income tax revenues.

Given this information, can you explain just how is the tax burden being born by the middle class  when they are paying less than half of what the wealthy are paying?

Your numbers are not based on any reality related to the amount of money that is amassed and sheltered from taxation.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by David in FL

1. Why? Smaller doesn't mean impotent, it simply means that bigger, especially in the federal government, isn't necessarily better. There are appropriate functions for the federal government, but the majority can and should be handled by the states. Where we get into trouble is when people immediately look to the government to take care of them, rather than taking the steps necessary to take care of themselves. Hell, they have people in New York who are out of food after two days, wondering where the government is with their chow. That's just ridiculous......and sad.

2. I agree, but the functions of the federal government should be limited, with most necessary functions exercised at the state and local level.

3. This statement shows that you don't understand what is meant by the free market. As such it really doesn't make any sense so I can't comment.

4. Not at all. By definition conservatism embraces individual freedom coupled with personal responsibility for the decisions and actions that result from those decisions. Liberals or statists believe more in the community and the responsibility of government to take care of the community as a whole. Heck, maybe you're conservative and didn't even realize it! Wouldn't that be great?!

I like how you cherry pick what I said and then number it to fit your narrative. You translate it any way you want, but you don't live in my reality. And I certainly understand free markets. You just have a completely right wing fringe idea of what they are. You're welcome to your Ayn Rand world, but no thanks.

[David in FL]

I like how you cherry pick what I said and then number it to fit your narrative. You translate it any way you want, but you don't live in my reality. And I certainly understand free markets. You just have a completely right wing fringe idea of what they are. You're welcome to your Ayn Rand world, but no thanks.

Not sure what you mean. I numbered your points so I could comment on each in turn and you could follow.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Not sure what you mean. I numbered your points so I could comment on each in turn and you could follow.

First of all, you cherry picked. And I did not number it, you did. You edited what I said and I don't appreciate it. There is nothing I despise more than people disingenuously changing what somebody else says to fit their own strawman narratives. Frankly, that is what I expected. This is not a debate, BTW. You have your reality, I have mine, but my reality is not defined by you.

Ciao.

[David in FL]

First of all, you cherry picked. And I did not number it, you did. You edited what I said and I don't appreciate it. There is nothing I despise more than people disingenuously changing what somebody else says to fit their own strawman narratives. Frankly, that is what I expected. This is not a debate, BTW. You have your reality, I have mine, but my reality is not defined by you. Ciao.

One more time..... I numbered your points, so I could show my response to each with a corresponding number. If that was confusing to you, I apologize. I'll try to keep it simpler for you going forward.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by hanalei

Where u get these #'s? Fox news? Id rather read a tabloid. And the taxes people reference are % based by income, not totals..

Your response to my question says everything I needed to know (and already suspected).

I believe I clearly stated where those numbers came from and neither source was Fox News.  One was even a liberal, left wing shill.  Furthermore, had you paid attention to what was quoted, you would have seen that the percentages I listed are percentages of the total tax dollars collected by the government from each group, not percentages of individual income paid in taxes.

[hanalei]

Quote: Originally Posted by hanalei  Where u get these #'s? Fox news? Id rather read a tabloid. And the taxes people reference are % based by income, not totals..   Your response to my question says everything I needed to know (and already suspected).     I believe I clearly stated where those numbers came from and neither source was Fox News.  One was even a liberal, left wing shill.  Furthermore, had you paid attention to what was quoted, you would have seen that the percentages I listed are percentages of the total tax dollars collected by the government from each group, not percentages of individual income paid in taxes.

Unsubscribe me from this pointless thread. People only see what they want.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by phan52

Your numbers are not based on any reality related to the amount of money that is amassed and sheltered from taxation.

My figures are based on the amount of money collected by the government from each group.   Whether additional money could, or even should have been collected via taxation is irrelevant to those numbers (although very relevant to which candidate you support), as they show only was was actually collected from each group.   Those ARE reality.  The REAL reality of just how much money is collected BY THE GOVERNMENT from those individual groups of people.      The fact you can't seem to grasp this is again, very telling but let me try to express this another way for you.........

The government collected $1.9 trillion dollars in personal income taxes and payroll taxes.  Of that amount, the wealthiest Americans paid $1.279 trillion dollars.      The two groups which the Tax Policy Center identify as middle class groups collectively paid $573 billion dollars.   Now, tell me again who is bearing the burden of our tax system?

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by hanalei

Don't assume anything, and being judged by you is like being judged by a worm. Id like to see these numbers u claim from the actual IRS.gov website link, not respewed from your sarcastic mouth.

Sent from my EVO using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2

Certainly no need to assume anything.   Your own words have confirmed what I suspected (not that I need it at this point)......  When name calling is all you have, you have nothing.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by hanalei

Unsubscribe me from this pointless thread. People only see what they want.

Sent from my EVO using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2

And there it is again..........

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

My figures are based on the amount of money collected by the government from each group.   Whether additional money could, or even should have been collected via taxation is irrelevant to those numbers (although very relevant to which candidate you support), as they show only was was actually collected from each group.   Those ARE reality.  The REAL reality of just how much money is collected BY THE GOVERNMENT from those individual groups of people.      The fact you can't seem to grasp this is again, very telling but let me try to express this another way for you.........

The government collected $1.9 trillion dollars in personal income taxes and payroll taxes.  Of that amount, the wealthiest Americans paid $1.279 trillion dollars.      The two groups which the Tax Policy Center identify as middle class groups collectively paid $573 billion dollars.   Now, tell me again who is bearing the burden of our tax system?

With all due respect Team,

In your own words, it is " dollars in personal income taxes and payroll taxes. "

The figures you submitted are Net Income dollars, Not Gross Income. It's a very big difference.

Gross Vs	Net
Meaning:	The term gross refers to the total amount made as a result of some activity. It can refer to things such as total profit or total sales.	Net (or Nett) refers to the amount left over after all deductions are made. Once the net value is attained, nothing further is subtracted. The net value is not allowed to be made lower.

[dave67az]

Problem is, there are way too many corporations out there (you know, the ones that want us to feel sorry for them paying so much taxes) that use illegal methods to reduce their tax burden.  These types of stories are WAY too common.  I understand when people don't like the rules (like tax laws).  But what I do NOT understand is people who lack the integrity to follow the rules.  Whether it's golf rules, or tax law, if you can't follow it, you should either play a different game or close down your business and move to another country so you're not another leech on my society.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/29/us-usa-tax-whistleblower-idUSBRE89S17920121029

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Problem is, there are way too many corporations out there (you know, the ones that want us to feel sorry for them paying so much taxes) that use illegal methods to reduce their tax burden.  These types of stories are WAY too common.  I understand when people don't like the rules (like tax laws).  But what I do NOT understand is people who lack the integrity to follow the rules.  Whether it's golf rules, or tax law, if you can't follow it, you should either play a different game or close down your business and move to another country so you're not another leech on my society.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/29/us-usa-tax-whistleblower-idUSBRE89S17920121029

I agree, I just don't understand how a candidate can have paid such little tax %% and have so much of their money on offshore accounts and is running for the Presidency. I'm not going to judge or condemn but it doesn't feel right.

Also, there is legal maneuvering that corporations do to keep the bottom line down one is ongoing post worker expenses.

I'll use a Military company as an example, if they get awarded a contract they have learned it is better to hire temporary workers for 1-2 years. This creates an insecure worker that will just get enough time to go back on unemployment. Additionally, the Health costs for these workers is outrageous and extremely inflated and comes out directly from your hourly wage. After your assignment ends, your health costs alone are unmanageable on unemployment.

The foundation starts because Companies no longer want to hire permanent employees because of ongoing health cost commitments and High Litigation expenses for erroneous worker lawsuits. You have to start at the bottom and reduce health costs to promote Permanent Work Placement. You also need Litigation reform to reduce the frivolous lawsuits.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by Joakim

With all due respect Team,

In your own words, it is "dollars in personal income taxes and payroll taxes."

The figures you submitted are Net Income dollars, Not Gross Income. It's a very big difference.

Gross Vs

Net

Meaning:

The term gross refers to the total amount made as a result of some activity. It can refer to things such as total profit or total sales.

Net (or Nett) refers to the amount left over after all deductions are made. Once the net value is attained, nothing further is subtracted. The net value is not allowed to be made lower.

Regardless of whether you are talking gross or net, the end result is, they are already paying the lion's share of the taxes collected.    Changing the amount they can deduct (Romney's plan) or raising the tax rate they pay (Obama's plan) will certainly increase the absolute dollars they pay.   Under either plan, that increase will also increase the percentage of total tax dollars they pay as well.

My point was (and is) that the wealthy are already shouldering the largest burden (and not by just a little bit) when it comes to tax dollars collected.    Suggesting that somehow the middle class is the one carrying the country is misleading at best and probably more correctly described as deceptive.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Problem is, there are way too many corporations out there (you know, the ones that want us to feel sorry for them paying so much taxes) that use illegal methods to reduce their tax burden.  These types of stories are WAY too common.  I understand when people don't like the rules (like tax laws).  But what I do NOT understand is people who lack the integrity to follow the rules.  Whether it's golf rules, or tax law, if you can't follow it, you should either play a different game or close down your business and move to another country so you're not another leech on my society.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/29/us-usa-tax-whistleblower-idUSBRE89S17920121029

I don't disagree here.  Cheating is cheating.    Furthermore, I question why we are providing subsidies to companies that are making billions of dollars (such as oil companies).  Before we begin to ask individuals to give up more of what they have made regardless of income bracket), we should stop giving to corporations who clearly don't need it in the first place.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by Joakim

I agree, I just don't understand how a candidate can have paid such little tax %% and have so much of their money on offshore accounts and is running for the Presidency. I'm not going to judge or condemn but it doesn't feel right.

The man paid almost $2 million in taxes last year.  That's more  money than I will make (let alone pay in taxes) in the remainder of my life.   So I guess the definition of "such little tax" is a matter of perspective...

Putting money in off shore accounts has been a problem for a very long time.   When I was a kid, I remember people complaining about others putting money in off shore accounts.   I'm in my 50's now, so that clearly goes back to well before either Bush took office.    However, as long as he is playing by the rules, I don't see it as wrong.   In fact, just the opposite.   I see it as a smart move, made within the rules as they exist (whether you agree with those rules or not is a matter for another debate).

Frankly, considering that every dollar collected by the federal government actually came from taxpayers and I happen to be a taxpayer, those federal dollars happen to be mine (and yours).   Personally, I want somebody who is well versed in how to get the most out of that money to be the guy holding the purse strings.  Just my opinion and yours may vary.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

The man paid more in taxes last year than I will make in the remainder of my life.   So I guess the definition of "such little tax" is a matter of perspective...

Putting money in off shore accounts has been a problem for a very long time.   When I was a kid, I remember people complaining about others putting money in off shore accounts.   I'm in my 50's now, so that clearly goes back to well before either Bush took office.    However, as long as he is playing by the rules, I don't see it as wrong.   In fact, just the opposite.   I see it as a smart move, made within the rules as they exist (whether you agree with those rules or not is a matter for another debate).

Frankly, considering that every dollar collected by the federal government actually came from taxpayers and I happen to be a taxpayer, those federal dollars happen to be mine (and yours).   Personally, I want somebody who is well versed in how to get the most out of that money to be the guy holding the purse strings.  Just my opinion and yours may varay.

I don't see anything incorrect with your statements and I agree I don't want to get into the highlighted. I'm more concerned with his Federal Budget plans and other platform issues.