I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

[classicman]

There is a difference between the two. Wasn't the Cap gains rate initially established to incent people into saving more?
Has it gotten out of hand? Absolutely.
Does something need to change? Definitely.
Romney is a perfect example of that.
Interesting how when you compare Romney's #'s to Obama's #'s, the REAL difference is from where the income is derived.
Heck, I've been saying this for over a year.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Sundae

Romney's tax records made the news today in the UK.

Am I missing something here?
How is it possible for someone to earn $21 MILLION and only pay $3 million in tax?

7%?

7% if you're on minimum wage feels like an awful lot.
7% of millions is small change. It's money you cannot possibly spend OR EARN rationally.
Especially when you have the money to manage your money.

It seems I know very little about America.
And almost nothing about American politics.
Because I find that appalling.

Please note.

Your numbers are on target but your arithmetic is wrong. 21/3=7. True. But 7 is not 7 percent. If you turn it around... 3/21, you get .14 ish. 14 PERCENT.

Carry on.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by glatt

I haven't been following this Colbert Super PAC thing that closely. How much money is there in this Super PAC, and where did it come from? Did viewers send money in? If they did, can Colbert and Stewart keep it for themselves now?

The money came from viewers and fans who donated through the website. Generally speaking his audience is young, moderate-to-liberal (not as liberal as Daily Show demographics,) and wants to see the system change, which is indirectly what he promises by mocking it. I'm not sure exactly how much money he has, but if I had to guess I'd say several hundred thousand, maybe over a million. He generally logs over a million viewers each night, and early on he was running the names of everyone who had donated at the bottom of the screen, and the ticker just kept going with no repeats for the whole show for weeks on end. And yes, legally Colbert could keep it all for himself, just like the owner of any SuperPAC could (and they do--Sarah Palin kept asking for money in emails to donors even after she officially ended her campaign. It was just money for her, no other purpose for it.) His whole point with this thing is to demonstrate all the ways in which the system is severely broken, not even by pushing them to their logical conclusions but by using them in the same way everyone else does every day.

The whole "Jon Stewart is not coordinating with Colbert" thing is real--John Huntsman's own father runs one of the SuperPACs that is running ads for John Huntsman, but they're "not coordinating" wink-wink-nudge-nudge. He has also been using funds to get an item on the ballot in South Carolina--just a non-binding referendum allowing voters to declare whether "corporations are people" or "only people are people," but all along the way everyone he's been working with to make it happen has made it clear that that's how anyone gets anything on the ballot, you buy it. It was awhile back so I forget the specifics, but Karl Rove was petitioning to alter the SuperPAC rules even more, such that even outright coordination wouldn't be considered coordination, so Colbert and never-had-a-chance-candidate Buddy Roehmer used Colbert's SuperPAC funds to make this ad against it. It ran in major network ad spots.

Anyway, that's the deal with the SuperPAC. He's going to keep using the money to shed light on the system until the money runs out. But my understanding is that so far, people have liked what he's done and the donations are still coming in.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

There is a difference between the two. Wasn't the Cap gains rate initially established to incent people into saving more?
Has it gotten out of hand? Absolutely.
Does something need to change? Definitely.
Romney is a perfect example of that.
Interesting how when you compare Romney's #'s to Obama's #'s, the REAL difference is from where the income is derived.
Heck, I've been saying this for over a year.

Seriously?

No, I fully believe the lower cap on capital gains was established because the people who earn capital gains wanted to pay less in taxes and had the political mojo to make that happen.

When you save your money, you know, like "regular" people do, in a savings account or some such, the interest you earn is regular income. not Capital gains. You have to be much more bux up to get capital gains.

Or, do some other thing with your money, like, buy stock low, sell stock high, that profit is capital gains. But you're not doing that with your "savings".

[tw]

Originally Posted by Sundae

Am I missing something here?
How is it possible for someone to earn $21 MILLION and only pay $3 million in tax?

Where have you been the last decade? Numbers were being posted even back when George Jr declared "Mission Accomplished".

2) When the rich get richer, massive recessions and job losses result. This problem only occurred twice in American history. Just before 1929. And again in the 2000s. Obvious is what followed both times.

3) The rich get government welfare - both wealthy individuals and corporations. Myth purveyors have a majority of Americans believing their taxes went down. Nonsense. Even Reagan raised taxes. But popular myths say otherwise. Spin is easy when numbers are ignored.

4) George Jr said the rich create jobs. A myth called trickle down economics - or better called voodoo economics. At what point does that 'rich create jobs' lie become obvious?

5) Cited almost a decade ago is what Warren Buffet said back when Ted Koppel was still doing Nightline. Buffet - America's second richest man - loudly complained that he pays less taxes. That morning, that many years ago, it was posted here.

The richest (individuals and corporations) pay lowest tax rates because that was the political agenda. A majority were also told Saddam had WMDs. By ignoring numbers that said otherwise, subjective claims are sufficient to manipulate reality. Richest Americans get tax breaks. Numbers for the last decade have always said so.

American politics is easily grasped when facts must include numbers. When facts without numbers are best called lies. Most still believe Reagan reduced taxes when numbers say Reagan increased taxes. Why do so many believe Reagan cut taxes? Same reason why a Tea Party agenda is obviously bogus. Too many eyes glaze over when numbers arrive. So many all but want to believe lies. You don't have a Fox News, et al to inspire so many with subjective claims (lies) and hate.

BTW, many if not most American have been told they are some of the world's highest taxed people. You see those numbers. Americans are some of the least taxed people. But that would not inspired lies and hate on Fox News. So numbers are not provided.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

Seriously?

Yes

I fully believe the lower cap on capital gains was established because the people who earn capital gains wanted to pay less in taxes and had the political mojo to make that happen.

Believe what you will.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Anyway, that's the deal with the SuperPAC. He's going to keep using the money to shed light on the system until the money runs out. But my understanding is that so far, people have liked what he's done and the donations are still coming in.

Thank you! That was a very interesting read. I figured it was viewers, but never saw that reported anywhere. I love those guys.

[Spexxvet]

There were four men who were friends since they were in diapers. They had all just recently retired, and were all single. They decided to jointly buy a house, and live together.
Tom had been a very successful teacher. He was divorced in his late fifties, and his wife took the bulk of his wealth. His total post-retirement income was $22,000 per year.
Dick had been a very successful mid-level executive in a retail company. He had never been married, and got cancer in his fifties, and was terminated from his job. In his second career, he was as a very successful cashier at the local grocery store. His total post-retirement income was $12,000 per year.
Harry’s wife died in her thirties, leaving Harry to raise his three children by himself. To meet the needs of his children, he worked several low paying part time jobs, which provided him with no benefits, and he was very successful at those jobs. His total post-retirement income was $6,000 per year.
Mitt’s father had been a governor. Mitt was able to attend some of the best schools in the country, not only for his undergraduate education, but for two post graduate degrees. His daddy’s support, wealth and influence helped Mitt get a high paying job, and he was very successful. Mitt’s wife died just recently. His total post-retirement income was $20,000,000 per year.
After a year of living together, the house needed a new roof, which was going to cost $8,000. Tom dug into his savings and was able to contribute $2,000 toward the replacement. Dick didn’t have any savings, but did not dine out for a month, and cancelled his cable and cell phone, and was able to contribute $1000. Harry did not have any savings, and did not have cable, a cell phone, smoke cigarettes, or spend money on anything but absolute necessities. He could only come up with $200 to contribute. Mitt felt that the roof cost $8,000 and there were 4 of them, so he was willing to contribute $2,000 – his fair share, and was unwilling to reconsider. Mitt continued to enjoy his lavish lifestyle.
The friends weren’t able to have the roof replaced for $5,200, so the roof continued to decay. Several months later, in the middle of the night, the roof collapsed, killing them all.

[BigV]

so... what's capital gains got to do with savings? Can you please connect those two dots for me?

[SamIam]

Put on your tin foil hats and dig out your old decoder rings. Newt plans to have a permanent US base on the moon by his second term in office. When I first saw this story aired on MSNBC, I thought they were making it up. They weren’t.

"By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American," Gingrich said.

"I'm prepared to invest the prestige of the presidency in communicating and building a nationwide movement in favor of space," Gingrich said at a meeting of aerospace executives and community leaders after the rally.

"If we do it right, it'll be wild and it will be just the most fun you've ever seen," he said.

I can't wait.

[Griff]

Here is Gingrich's plan, which Romney has apparently mocked. I like the idea only if we pay for it. Remember one thing Reagan did right, he was optimistic whenever the cameras were on. Democrats need to be careful about all their gloom and doom scenarios, people don't want to vote for that and don't want water cooler talk to be dominated by it.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

so... what's capital gains got to do with savings? Can you please connect those two dots for me?

A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Griff

Democrats need to be careful about all their gloom and doom scenarios, people don't want to vote for that and don't want water cooler talk to be dominated by it.

Sucks to be the Republican response to the SOTU, then.

[Griff]

SOTU is a very limited audience.

NEW YORK—The interest among television viewers in President Barack Obama's annual State of the Union addresses is dwindling.

The Nielsen measurement company said Wednesday an estimated 37.8 million people watched Obama's speech the night before on one of the 14 networks airing it. Obama's audience for the speech has dropped each year, from a high of 52.4 million in 2009.

Obama narrowly missed President George W. Bush's least-watched State of the Union. Bush's last one was seen by 37.5 million people in 2008.

Obama is good at optimism. Unfortunately, a lot of editorial writers on the left are like Krugman very negative. They give the impression that they don't believe in human progress which is pretty much an un-American outlook. Not that the GOP is doing any better this time around.

[classicman]

The difference for some is between what is said and what actually takes place.
Not just him, but virtually all of them.