Where is the US economy headed?

A continuing, and stunning, silence from parados & cyclo....

Since he didn't specify either, who is the one being pedantic? You can't argue neither was specified without arguing his statement doesn't exist. Good luck with that goerge.

Not you of course. You're much too clever for that. Kill off the host and how will the parasites survive?

Unfortunately, you're not quite as clever as you think.

If taking all of the wealth of the 1% can't pay off the national debt in a single year, how will taking only a part of it (albeit a big chunk) do so over time?

Yes, theoretically it could happen if, at the same time, government spending was significantly cut, but you and your confreres have little stomach for that. Your Main Man Obama, despite all of his hollow 2008 campaign rhetoric about the evils of increasing the deficit, has done just that, and in spades!

Whether it's based on an ideological or political foundation (or both) Obama and his swarming krill want to endlessly spend money to do good., and perchance to buy votes.

Obama and Democrats talk about cutting spending but never do so in any meaningful way (unless, of course, it has to do with Defense). How can the Dems retain power if they don't buy votes with taxpayer dollars?

Face it, your ideology and your politics requires an enormous amount of government spending.

Ignoring the corruption of crony capitalism so prevalent within this administration, and giving y'all some benefit of the doubt, all this money you want to spend will do very little if anything at all for the rich. So **** them, you have the power! Take their money and give it to the people you like and who will vote for your pols.

If it's an entirely unsustainable strategy, who cares?

It only has to last as long as your pols seek re-election and you remain an ideological liberal.

Current national reality has become so warped by spin that you will always find bullshit to support your positions, and if, after you croak, it all proves to be false and the house of cards collapses, who cares?

If Republicans in government are willing participants in the spending sham (and for the most part they are) how much more must Democrats be?

You don't have your finger on the trigger, but you support all of Democrat gunslingers. Keep spending other people's money to finance an ideological agenda you can't or won't finance yourself so that you can feel so good about how you are contributing to the welfare of the American people.

It is very likely that he meant a period of time within the range of usual economic calculations. That his statement exists is readily verifiable by scrolling up. You are muttering pedantic nonsense in an unseemly attempt to wiggle out oif accountability for your foolish partisanship.

Any results on your recalculations of tax rates??

Let me see if I can make it easy for you.

If the millionaire has $100 that is taxed at the 39.5% federal tax rate then:

The millionaire pays $39.50 to the Federal government
$100 - $39.50 = $61.50

So the millionaire keeps $61.50 in his pocket
But we know the millionaire paid 10.5% tax to the state government.
But that was paid PRIOR to the $100 that was used to calculate the $100 for Federal taxes. That means the millionaire paid
X - 10.5X/100 = 100
We simply solve for X
.895X = 100
X = 100/.895
X = $111.73

So the millionaire had an income of $111.73 for his state taxes.
So, he didn't pay $10.50 in state taxes. He actually paid $11.73 in state taxes which was deducted from his income to get Federal taxable income of $100.

So.. What do we have..

He keeps $61.50
Feds get $39.5
State gets $11.73

That means he kept $61.50 of $100 of Fed income or 61.5%
It also means he kept $61.50 of $111.73 of State income or 55%

That means he could NOT pay the government 49.5% of his income at the same time he kept the above figures.
49.5% + 55% = 104.5%

His income was not over 100% of his income.

Who said anything about taking all the wealth?
You seem confused about simple terms like income and wealth. Do you need assistance in knowing the difference?

Sorry, I took a shower. I didn't realize you were this needy george. I will be out all evening now. Perhaps you can get a 13 year old to help you with the math if you don't understand it.

You still don't get it. The state takes about 105K from our millionaire's income in both cases; the Feds take about $349K in the first instance and with a 70% tax rate about 625K. That leaves him with an after tax income of about $546K now and about $270,000 with the higher rate (in both cases ignoring the benefits oif lower tax rates on the first $300K of income). That involves a drop in after tax income of $276K, or more than 50%.

I believe that stands a very good chance of inducing our millionaire to try life on the Nevada shore of Lake Tahoe.

You are both stupid and deceitful.

No? Where did you grow up? San Francisco?

Or maybe on a farm a few hundred miles from another living being.

But wait, you're a geezer. Even San Fran in the 40's accepted the simple logic of such sayings, and was yet to be corrupted by post-modernist thought and blind allegiance to left wing idiocy.

Don't tell me you're parents were big fans of the Bolsheviks.



If it is, I feel pretty good about my assumption, since your take on how prevalent "two wrongs don't make a right" might be is clearly wrong and ignorant.

Oh and by the way, if it's only an assumption that government wastes billions, you're more addicted to the Kool-ade than I had imagined.



So what is it you want them to pay for? When faced with a crippling national debt, Obama's only solution seems to be to raise taxes on the rich. Forgive me if I imagined this had something to do with the debt.

He's such a bullshitter though I should have realized that in providing a answer to one specific question he really meant to reply to another: How will we keep American children from starving?

And all this tripe about "stupid"...it's interesting, but sort of sad, that someone in their 70's hasn't advance beyond schoolyard days.

I think you do need to find a 13 year old to explain it to you george.

It would be MORE advantageous for a millionaire to move to NV under the LOWER Federal rate.

Really? Then please point out the errors in my math.

You can't because I am correct.

So.. that hardly makes me the one that is stupid or deceitful.

I think "our millionaire", having more choices than most, will live where the weather suits best.

Can you read?

Look at the line you chose to quote.

You Cyclo, CI and DrewDad all seem to be individual aspects of the same persona.

Once one of you latches on to what you think is a clever argument (Who said we wanted to take all of their money?), you can all be relied upon to parrot it.

Yours is the exception that proves the rule of synergy.

That's very likely. And if he understands HS algebra he will stay in CA if he hasn't moved by now.

Actually, I can read which is why I pointed out you are confusing income which is earned with wealth. I was talking about income and you changed the subject to wealth.

Maryland raised taxes on their rich and found revenues drop, because Maryland millionaires seemed to have disappeared.

In reality, they were living in Maryland all along, but they simply were spending more time at their properties in Florida so that they could claim residence in Florida instead of Maryland.

The rich are a whole lot smarter that the liberal politicians imagine, but keep trying to begger them clowns because that will do wonders for the economy.

so you are suggesting that the wealthy will opt to move out of the country if asked to pay a fair share?

Now that is one very serious ad hominem.

They could, and I know some who are seriously considering doing so.

Thanks to the internet, companies can be managed on line, and if they can, the managers can live anywhere that has bandwith. Costa Rica and Ecuador keep coming up in dscussions.

Your question, of course is obviously loaded.

What you, Obama and the rest of you liberals think is a "fair share" is not so because you say it is. Folks, rich or otherwise, have a right to question your assumption. I know this is tough for you to swallow but it actually is the American way.

It's moot, for now, in any case because the GOP controlled house will not permit a national gouging of the wealthy. Obama knows this, but it plays well with those who are likely to vote for him and so he's going to keep tilting at the windmill.

The point some of you can't seem to comprehend is that the rich do not to have to leave a state that highly taxes the rich in order to defeat the tax. Not-with-standing Cyclo's contempt for Nevada, I can live anywhere in this country and yet pay Nevada only taxes if I schedule things right. Fortunately I live in Texas and so I don't have to mount such a defense, but the nature of my business is that I can live anywhere.

I guarantee you that I while I may buy a vacation residence in any of these states, I will never assume residency in any place like NY, NJ, CT, MD, or CA...just to name a few. As a result, none of them will get a share of my reveunes via state income taxes.

I'm pretty sure you see the state imposing higher millionaire taxes to be righteous and the millionaires who manage to defeat them as sinister, but then I gather you may actually be a true believer in the Leftist dream.