Billionaire George Soros: I Should Pay More In Taxes

Quit relying on any political party to provide you with a job. It is not the governments job to provide you with a job. It makes great political rhetoric, but it not their job.

Quit relying on any political party to provide you with a job. It is not the governments job to provide you with a job. It makes great political rhetoric, but it not their job.

it is the governments job to ensure a health economy.

it is the governments job to ensure a health economy.

There's that Promote/Provide Liberal confusion again. :(

i think you are the one who's confused. you should take a civics class.

IndependentVoter
Quit relying on any political party to provide you with a job. It is not the governments job to provide you with a job. It makes great political rhetoric, but it not their job.

So, it makes sense to incur huge debt when a shallow recession dips GDP .3%, but not for when a killer great recession causes 9% GDP loss? How smart was it to cut taxesdeferments in in the last decade, incurring debt to do so?

IV,

If I'm willing to give up the payroll tax cut, that must mean I have a job. Duh! And, yes, I did pay a higher tax rate than Romney, Soros, Buffet, etc.. And, yes, again, I make a LOT less than them. And again, I have no envy for it. I have what I need and ask for nothing more. Well, that isn't exactly true, I do wish my property taxes weren't so high. Hopefully, when the housing market picks up, I will sell and move somewhere a little cheaper in that regards...

On What ???????

I just love easy questions. ALL INCOME!!!!!!!!

Child support payments included?

Child support payments included?

Is it income?

Child support payments included?

what kind of nonsensical question is that?

Oh did not like that..sorry...the easy answer was tax all income...so does that include child support payments a person receives......?????

ALL INCOME!!!!!!!!

Like all Uber Rich folks do, what do you tax if they don't claim an "INCOME" ? :/

You think Soros and Buffet claim incomes ?

If you try to single out one "Group" for "Special" concideration, wouldn't that go against the constitution of the United States ?

greg -

You must remember that according to the liberal Democrats, all rich people are evil (unless they are friends with the Democrats who are actually good) and so evil people (rich repubs) should pay more in taxes.

Take from those that have and re-distribute it to those that want?

That is why the liberals only want the govt to be able to own guns. If the govt has all the guns, then it is a lot easier for criminals in govt to steal from the citizens they pretend to represent.

You must remember that according to the liberal Democrats, all rich people are evil

source?

You must remember that according to the liberal Democrats, all rich people are evil

source?

Newsvine.com

So no source from captainobvioussays

you "heard" me

but just for fun :)

Cheers :)

the comment was:

You must remember that according to the liberal Democrats, all rich people are evil

so people, not corporations.

infared -

My source would be the truth.

The liberal Democrats want to tax the rich unfairly by charging them higher rates of taxes then other people pay. Forcing certain people to pay more (than others) is a way of discrimination against the people that are not loved. Treating people differently based upon their wealth is a form of discrimination, rich or poor. People usually discriminate against other people they do not love. Higher income tax rates assessed on people with higher incomes is a form of punishment for their personal success. A good person would only want to punish a criminal and would, at the same time, reward the innocent. Criminals are typically viewed as evil.

So why would a liberal Democrat want to raise taxes (punish) a person that they love (do not want to discriminate against)? If people punish the rich for their success, then that means they are being called criminals by society, meaning those liberal individuals think that the rich are evil (criminals)?

Can you prove me wrong?

My source would be the truth.

LOL

The liberal Democrats want to tax the rich unfairly by charging them higher rates of taxes then other people pay

i think having more money than the other people has something to do with it.

Forcing certain people to pay more (than others) is a way of discrimination against the people that are not loved

LOL

Treating people differently based upon their wealth is a form of discrimination

yup

Higher income tax rates assessed on people with higher incomes is a form of punishment for their personal success

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

CaptainObviousSays-

Thank you for the support. I laughed at how many sources there is out there beyond the comments I read all the time or hear about on the daily media.

Some claim there is no class-warfare, but I bet President Obama can not get through the 2012 debates without mentioning how much he is going to punish the successful small businesses and job creators in this country (ie the rich).

i think having more money than the other people has something to do with it.

so it is ok to treat people differently based solely upon how much money they have?

infrared-

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

source?

source?

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

In his will, Holmes left his residuary estate to the United States government (he had earlier said that "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society" in Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927).)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.

The revenue of the state is the state.

Edmund Burke, father of modern conservatism

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

And here I thought it might be someone's opinion. Thank you for proving to me that it is natural fact.

Is opinion allowed on Newsvine?

Is opinion allowed on Newsvine?

you want a source that proves that tax money is required for public roads?

according to the liberal Democrats, all rich people are evil

no, that would be Jesus. Camel, eye of needle, etc.

Liberal Dems just think the economy is in better health when the so-called job creators are taxed more heavily on the money they're not using to create jobs. This is, of course, most evident by the fact that over the last thirty years the economy has deteriorated while the top marginal rate has gone down.

70% of our economy is consumer spending. That means in order for it to be healthy, consumers need to have cash to spend. In order for them to have cash to spend, barriers need to be in place to prevent money from collecting among a few people. The downward redistribution of wealth is necessary in order to save capitalism from feeding on itself and eventually killing itself. It was a good system from WWII until the 80s.

we have a spending problem not a tax problem

stop spending... problem solved

the feds are not job creators... and with a 200,000 dollar subsidy each volt sold.. they are even worse at building cars...

That's a bunch of nonsense; we can't just stop spending any more than we can stop eating. Our tax levels - especially for the higher-income brackets - are historically low, and they need to be bumped-up if we're ever going to pay down the public debt.

the feds are not job creators

More nonsense... chances are, a federal employee is dropping off a few pieces of mail at your residence today.

we have a spending problem

You're right. The last administration spent all our money and now the bill has come due. The real question now is who can afford to pay.

The last administration spent all our money

Thanks for the laugh....but...not even Democrats believe that to be true....

that's not correct MDC.

That's a bunch of nonsense; we can't just stop spending

I bet balancing your checkbook is fun...

I bet balancing your checkbook is fun...

Hahahahaha !!!!

Always in the "Red". Maybe they should run for congress. LOL!

we can't just stop spending any more than we can stop eating.

The repubs are not saying stop all spending. They are saying we can spend less on waste, fraud and abuse. But the Democrats want to keep current spending too high on these things.

President Obama's own Budget does not even cut the 2013 year deficit below what it was when the repubs last controlled the Congress and Presidency.

It would be fine to increase taxes if the economy was better. President Obama said that it would be bad to increase taxes in a recession, when he was trying to justify his own flip-flopping on extending Bush Tax Cuts for small business job creators, middle class, working poor and his friends - the rich, Warren Buffett and George Soros.

More nonsense... chances are, a federal employee is dropping off a few pieces of mail at your residence today.

How does that prove that the feds are job creators?

How does that prove that the feds are job creators?

in a liberals mind we all should work for the feds?

limited government is not in the liberal vernacular

Government spending =Economic Demand. Repubgs are still trying to run the economy into a ditch...

Try to understand that in an economy that your income is someone else's spending, and your spending is someone else's income. If EVERYONE stops spending all at once, then no one makes any money, then we have a depression!!! Macroeconomics 101!

Randy -

govt spending = econ drags.

money supply as my liberal college professors explained it-

- fed prints money and loans it to banks

- banks loan money to businesses and individuals who then spend money with other businesses and individuals causing income to increase with those businesses and individuals that received the money.

- govt taxes about 15% currently of income and spends the money

- some of govt spending results in higher incomes for businesses and individuals which the govt can recoup only about 15% from income taxes.

You want to raise the current income tax rates, when it would be far easier to just spend less.

If you tax more income, then businesses and individuals will have less to spend each year. Less spending means less income to be taxed. That means less tax revenue which leads to even higher taxes, then less private spending, then less incomes, then less income to be taxed, then lower taxes, and the whole system collapses on itself until the govt taxes all income and controls 100% of everything. Is that what you want?

More than Happy

Try to understand that in an economy that your income is someone else's spending, and your spending is someone else's income. If EVERYONE stops spending all at once, then no one makes any money, then we have a depression!!! Macroeconomics 101.

Again, nobody is going to stop all spending. The dictionary defines "reduction" in spending as different from "stop" spending. ONLY the govt needs a reduction in current spending levels or our problems will continue to expand. Just look at the USSR. The Communists kept spending long after they could no longer afford it. They raised taxes as high as they could go and the whole thing failed in the end.

The govt is the only entity that can force citizens to pay for their spending. They can take away all of our freedoms and put us in jail if we refuse to pay for their over spending. That is unfair and so we think that the spending needs to come down first, then we can talk about increasing taxes if the need is great enough.

The reason the communist USSR system failed is that you never win by punishing successful people. Higher taxes on Warren Buffett will only further encourage him to lower his US income levels by moving more operations to other countries where taxes are lower. The rich are the only people with enough money to choose how much taxes they are willing to pay.

This article, along with comments from President Obama, prove that he chooses NOT to pay more in taxes. He could pay more even today, but he CHOOSES not to pay more in taxes. You really think that his choices will change in the future? That he wants to pay more in taxes? In this country he is free to choose to pay more in taxes and he uses his freedom to keep paying almost nothing like he always has.

Un

If you tax more income, then businesses and individuals will have less to spend each year. Less spending means less income to be taxed. That means less tax revenue which leads to even higher taxes, then less private spending, then less incomes, then less income to be taxed, then lower taxes, and the whole system collapses on itself until the govt taxes all income and controls 100% of everything. Is that what you want?

If this is the case, how come the higher marginal tax rates from the 50's till now had higher growth,and higher employment? How come the 12 years prior to 1981 the avg annual deficit was 35 billion, and after 12 years after 1981 the avg annual deficit was 295 billion? Low taxes rewards speculation , devestment in the domestic economy, higher marginal rates rewards domestic spending and investment.

There was no such thing as a tax cut for anybody but the extremely wealthy for the last 30 years...they were merely tax deferments, only those whose tax benefit surpassed their per capita share of increased debt...for the rest of us, its deferred tax plus interest...They only time we should incur debt is in total wars of attrition, or catastrophic economic disasters like what we had at the end of 08...not all deficit spending is equal. Tax cuts on upper incomes are very ineffective stimulants, but this is the deficit spending of republicans over the last 30 years.

More nonsense... chances are, a federal employee is dropping off a few pieces of mail at your residence today.

Yeh and we see how well the government runs a "business" huh ?

White House to Propose Plan to Help Postal Service

The Obama administration said on Tuesday that it would seek to save the deficit-plagued Postal Service from an embarrassing default by proposing to give it an extra three months to make a $5.5 billion payment due on Sept. 30 to finance retirees’ future health coverage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/business/white-house-to-propose-plan-to-help-postal-service.html

Social Security taxes started at 1% and now are at 12.6% - twelve times higher today and the program is still going bankrupt.

Plus we pay for Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Health Insurance for all, the defense of the world, wars on drugs, illegals, criminals, govt waste fraud and abuse. We are paying to regulate the world temperature (even though we can not even stop illegals from working in our country) while paying to shut down all forms of cheap energy in our country.

OVER SPENDING is the quickest way to bankruptcy! Can you think of a quicker way other than stop working and quit your job? We do not want the govt to quit its job, just stop spending so much while doing it. Stick to a budget and squeeze every penny like it is your last. That is the American Way to success. We are a saving country - NOT a spending country.

Help people by encouraging giving and stop taking for the benefit of the govt and their friends - greedy rich that refuse to give until the govt requires them to give.

what does social security have to do with the national budget?

what does social security have to do with the national budget?

Sorry, I had to stop laughing. You are either having fun at my expense or you are serious, in either case I am sorry. I should have drawn a better correlation.

Social Security surplus revenues from past years were never saved and the surplus' went for govt overspending on other programs to balance (or attempt to balance) the budget. Today, due to govt over spending in past years, we have to keep raising taxes higher and higher to keep up with spending. That is what we have seen with SS. Tax rates started at 1% and now are at 12.6% and the program is still in trouble (source: Stephen Goss - Chief Actuary SSI).

Income tax rates started at 1% also in 1913 according to the IRS (source). Today income tax rates are over 30% and we are in more trouble than we ever were in 1913? Or do you think we are better off?

If we balance the budget today and start to save money, then we will have a nest egg for future rough times like war, drought, famine, storms, etc. Are you not saving any money personally? Do you feel govt should spend only and never save?

Social Security surplus revenues from past years were never saved and the surplus' went for govt overspending on other programs to balance (or attempt to balance) the budget. Today, due to govt over spending in past years, we have to keep raising taxes higher and higher to keep up with spending. That is what we have seen with SS. Tax rates started at 1% and now are at 12.6% and the program is still in trouble (source: Stephen Goss - Chief Actuary SSI).

source?

Un-Do-It, our government is not a charity, we do not collect taxes by donation. "Freedom isn't free" isn't just a slogan.

So... what the hell does the USSR have to do with anything? Raising tax revenue by raising tax rates is not a difficult concept! The hurt of the tax increase hurts less when its weighed towards those most able to afford it.

They could hide in Detroit. There are tens of thousands of vacant homes. Detroit could really use more people to replace the about 500,000 liberal Democrats that have fled that city over the last 10 years (since the 2000 census) per the 2010 census govt reports.

Detroit has been controlled by the Democrats for over 50 years now, and it is the prime example of what happens to an economy controlled by the Democrats. And to make matters worse, Detroit has zero excuses as they are the city that builds cars with the UAW unions. Just about everybody in the country needs cars, car parts, and auto related products. I would understand a whole lot more if Detroit made a product not many people actually want around their homes and children like arsenic or sulfuric acid.

It's not about good and evil, it's about finance. We need the GOP to grow up and realize that bumping-up tax rates is a common action of government!

Stop spending more than we take in...it is not rocket science.

We are still seeing "Evolution" in 2012. Evolving is slow for Liberals. :D

Stop spending more than we take in...it is not rocket science.

Austerity is not going to get the economy flowing again as it should, it's gonna take a little borrowing and a little spending! Macroeconomics 101.

Stop spending more than we take in...it is not rocket science.

it isn't that simple. if you understand economics "stop spending" isn't a solution.

Macroeconomics 101.

We are over budget by "Trillions". Can we keep the company going ? Hmmmmmm.

Simply put for Liberals = Your company has gone under, no matter how much borrowing or wishful thinking you do. :D

And this "New" Liberal Budget proposal has "Sunk" your company to where your grandchildrens grandchildren grandchildrens are gonna be paying for your failures.

We are over budget, and over budget by "Trillions". Can we keep the company going ? Hmmmmmm.

For Liberals, Simply put = You are about to lose your company. :)

it has been helpfully suggested you should take an economics course because what you just posted is absolutely ridiculous.

Your checkbook must be funny....you don't balance it do you? LOL

Oh please greg, where do Conservatives get off lecturing anyone about spending? The GOP's time for lecturing about spending ended around 2003 with the Iraq War, unfunded tax cuts, and Medicare Part D.

Recessions and stagnant economies are the EXACT time to borrow money to get things going again. Look at the interest rates these days... the market is signaling that we should be borrowing more!!!

Try to understand... what makes sense for a household does not scale-up and make sense for a government.

Greece is currently facing an economy that we will shortly be facing ourselves. They are our window into the future.

Last I heard, they are cutting spending. But are they raising taxes also?

Not exactly, the interest rates on our T-bills are practically zero, even with the S&P's nonsense downgrade. When push comes to shove, the faith and credit of the United States is what this world relies upon!

IV: we should take in more, use it more wisely and spend less. otherwise we never get ahead. you're right, it's not rocket science.

The country stopped spending in the Great Depression. How did that work out for us?

i really think that republican's historical education starts with reagan.

the troll-like responses

Really? Raising taxes are not bad. Spending more than we take in is idiotic.

Spending more than we take in is idiotic.

the increase in the deficit is primarily because of bush and his increase in the war budget. the two wars were primarily kept off the books. what needs to be done are cuts to the military.

I guess infrared hasn't figured out, "OBAMA HAS BEEN PRESIDENT SINCE January 2009"

the two wars were primarily kept off the books.

Not this nonsense.....again......Please learn the differnce between a budget and the national debt..PLEASE!

I guess infrared hasn't figured out, "OBAMA HAS BEEN PRESIDENT SINCE January 2009"

and when did the wars start?

Not this nonsense.....again......Please learn the differnce between a budget and the national debt..PLEASE!

learn the difference that wars need to be funded also when you cut taxes, you increase tax expenditures.

and when did the wars start?

And Bush still has control ????????????????????

Today's date is February 14, 2012. Head spinning, ain't it. :)

Seems Oblahblahblah is tax cutting to his hearts content. Except for the rich, but he doesn't have the guts to change the tax codes on his own. Those "Uber" Rich liberals donate too much. :)

Now is the time for President Obama to start leading and stop following President Bush's lead.

We need leadership not more complaining.

infrared

Please learn the differnce between a budget and the national debt..PLEASE!

And Bush still has control ????????????????????

you think ending the wars is that simple????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

We need leadership not more complaining.

yeah i heard this before except here is the problem: republicans

Please learn the differnce between a budget and the national debt.

you can repeat that all you want, still doesn't make you correct.

you think ending the wars is that simple??????...

President Obama said it would be when he campaigned in 2008. He said he would bring back all our troops within 6 months of getting into office. After he was elected he changed his tune pretty quick and started saying the same thing President Bush had said for years, ...

...we will need to wait until the time is right for our soldiers to come home.

yeah i heard this before except here is the problem: republicans

Yeah, republicans have over 25 'job-creating' bills that have passed the House and are still sitting in the Democrat controlled Senate and Harry Reid will not even bring them up for debate. The Democrats in the Senate have yet to do a budget.

Yet, who is it that is terrorizing citizens and police in New York, Oakland, etc. The Democrats Occupy Movement. How is burning the American Flag going to solve our current Federal spending problems anyway?

Please learn the differnce between a budget and the national debt.

You really don't know the difference....WOW...sounds like somebody on Obama's economic team....

President Obama said it would be when he campaigned in 2008. He said he would bring back all our troops within 6 months of getting into office. After he was elected he changed his tune pretty quick and started saying the same thing President Bush had said for years, ...

well i am not going to say he never broke a promise but the iraq war is done and there is a pullout plan from afghanistan. panetta already proposed budget cuts.

Yeah, republicans have over 25 'job-creating' bills that have passed the House and are still sitting in the Democrat controlled Senate and Harry Reid will not even bring them up for debate. The Democrats in the Senate have yet to do a budget.

just because they call them job creating they aren't. tax expenditures do not create jobs.

No, they're not, they're gonna stay right here because there is no substitute for the U.S.A. Besides, if they were gonna leave to avoid taxes, they would have gone already!

No, they're not, they're gonna stay right here because there is no substitute for the U.S.A. Besides, if they were gonna leave to avoid taxes, they would have gone already!

Have you noticed how many businesses have packed up and left?

More than happy -

No, they're not, they're gonna stay right here because there is no substitute for the U.S.A. Besides, if they were gonna leave to avoid taxes, they would have gone already!

What can we offer them that other counties can not? The rich do not have to live by the laws of our country here in the US or in any other country.

Maybe you have not been watching the news and seen how many jobs have gone over seas. They already have left in many ways.

I know a US citizen that took his money to a small country, paid their govt leaders to make him the ambassador of their country to the US, moved into a mansion on US soil and now pays zero taxes, is completely above the law with diplomatic immunity, and never again has to worry about any of this nonsense of leaving the US. Where there is a will...

I know a US citizen that took his money to a small country, paid their govt leaders to make him the ambassador of their country to the US, moved into a mansion on US soil and now pays zero taxes, is completely above the law with diplomatic immunity, and never again has to worry about any of this nonsense of leaving the US. Where there is a will...

source?

infrared -

Are you saying what he did is impossible?

Are you saying what he did is impossible?

i am asking you for a source.

I am asking you for your source to prove that it is impossible.

lol are you going to claim the flying spaghetti monster exists as well unless I disprove it?

welcome to newsvine just remember i will not be only person to laugh when you debate like that.

What can we offer them that other counties can not?

They gotta live somewhere, and few countries can even come close to the kind of stability, tolerance, and freedom the good ol' U.S.A. offers. @!$%# yeah!

Maybe you have not been watching the news and seen how many jobs have gone over seas.

They left to take advantage of slave-labor prices and disposable land. Again, you might pay less tax in Honduras, but you won't get American workers and infrastructure.

I know a US citizen that took his money to a small country...

Blah blah blah... there are always going to be tax cheats, but the IRS notoriously tough. They know where the money is going.

The economic concept you are referring to is called elasticity. It's not unknown! It goes up as substitutes become available, but we're still the best country on the planet and even rich people will pay a little extra to stay!

The rich liberal Democrats like George Soros, Warren Buffett and President Obama will never understand why “it is better to give than to receive”. For them, they only want to give when it is required to give. They only want to give if the govt takes it by force. Otherwise, they will not give. Sounds a little selfish and greedy maybe?

What a crock of BS.

We need to get on board with what is my responsibility to my country. I have more than many, so my responsibility is greater. That is how a progressive tax works.

Right now with income taxes at their lowest in 50 years, we're sinking in debt because we don't have enough income to cover the services the citizens expect. W was the first president to ever cut taxes during wartime. Common sense should have warned them that was a recipe for disaster. Because a disaster is exactly what we got from their policies.

We are sinking in debt, because no matter what we collect, we spend more than we collect.

I'm not against raising taxes on the rich and eliminating loopholes--BUT THAT ALONE will not solve the problem. We also need to cut spending.

From http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/138442204.html?page=1&c=y

Tax the rich? Totally. It'll buy us ... a year.

Somewhere on the afternoon of May 26, we'll run through our last billionaire. On to the millionaires.

First, the philosophy behind my policy, drawn from careful consideration of the debate to date: For any plan to work, we need a federal tax policy that's simple, fair and -- this part is key-- to the maximum extent possible, involves someone else's money.

With that principle in mind, like Willie Sutton, that early "corporate raider," we go where the money is. Our national treasure: America's billionaires.

Under my plan, billionaires aren't just going to pay more, they're going to pay it all -- a 100 percent tax rate. And not just on what they make in a year. We're going to take it all -- 100 percent of their entire lifetime net worth...

So on to the millionaires. We've got more of them -- but we need more, too: After all, it takes 1,000 millionaires to equal one billionaire. In federal budget terms, that's 10,000 millionaires a day.

Trouble is, millionaires are fiscal twigs in the federal fireplace. Mitt Romney's $20 million for 2010? That's three minutes of federal spending.

CC: I hope you were equally as concerned about excess spending during prior administrations. If you were, what did you do about it?

Ok then cut the military budget drastically there is your spending cut.

Entitlements dwarf the military budget.

so?

Entitlements are the problem.

so then helping american is the problem?

so americans are the problem?

ok i see your point of view.

Another one that does not know the difference between a budget and the national debt....good grief...how is it possible?

independentvoter i asked you this and you didn't answer it, how are wars funded at all? by magic or by budgets?

Another one that does not know the difference between a budget and the national debt....good grief...how is it possible?

Since I didn't use either term in my post, your post makes no sense. About what I would expect though.

I love it when the right wingnuts say people like Buffett should just send in more money if they want higher taxes. These are the same right wingnuts who pushed us into two wars without funding them.

#11

Why would Buffett, etc, want to pay for these wars if they were so bad and expensive? Why would buffett agree with President Obama and yet both of them want to pay more in taxes when they know that it will allow for more spending on additional wars?

independentvoter i asked you this and you didn't answer it, how are wars funded at all? by magic or by budgets?

#11.2

If you believe in magic, I am going to have to ask you for your source.

Since budgets can not take us into war, I would argue that wars are paid for by taxpayers and soldiers.

Borncorn

Yeah..don't try to learn.....it is easier for you...

infrared

Maybe this will help. The deficit is the difference between the money federal government takes in, called receipts, and what it spends, called outlays, each year.

When the amount of spending exceeds the level of income, there is a deficit and the Treasury must borrow the money needed for the government to pay its bills.

Budgets not withstanding....actual money spent....actual revenue that came in. Facts.

One way to think about the debt is as the government's accumulated deficits, the Bureau of the Public Debt suggests.

As of 2/10/2012 the national debt was 15,354,108,706,908.54.

Actual money spent...actual money that came in. Facts.

how are wars funded at all

The money is authorized to be spent....by Congress. Simple.

Does not matter what the Budget says.....as long as Congress spends more money than we take in...the national debt grows.

Does not matter if a President leaves 5 wars off the books (budget) what is actually spent and what money actually comes is a matter of record...no part of the debt is off the books. I hope this helps.

yes so then increase taxes and you can pay off the debt.

yes so then increase taxes and you can pay off the debt.

There aren't enough " rich " to take taxes from

Putting a finger in the dam

The wealthy make up a tiny part of the American populace. According to CNN, only 0.2 percent of tax returns were filed by people who made $1 million or more — 236,883 people. Only 8,274 people filed returns showing annual income of $10 million or more. It is estimated that raising taxes on the wealthy would not do much more than put a finger in the dam. According to the New York Times, raising the top marginal tax rate from the current 35 percent to 45 percent for couples earning more than $1 million per year and to 49 percent for billionaires would create another $78 billion in annual tax revenue. The deficit for this year, according to Reuters, is already at $1.1 trillion. The other hitch in the tax the rich strategy is that income for the wealthiest of Americans tends to fluctuate, according to CNN. Since many of the wealthier members of American society have large stock holdings, when stocks plummet, so does their income.

http://personalmoneynetwork.com/moneyblog/2011/08/11/taxing-the-rich-national-debt/

i don't recall the name of the company, just remember it was some health insurance company where the 3 top executives took a total of 5 billion dollars. lewis black touched upon this even.

There aren't enough " rich " to take taxes from

I don't think anyone has suggested that raising taxes on the 'rich' would eliminate the deficit.

Allowing tax cuts to expire for married filers with incomes above $250,000 and single filers with incomes above $200,000— the top 2 percent of U.S. households[1] — will avert $826 billion in added deficits and debt over the next ten years.

Allowing High-Income Tax Cuts to Expire on Schedule Would Be Sound Economic and Fiscal Policy

Yeah, I can see where $826B wouldn't make a dent in the debt. </sarcasm>

You think we should have a voluntary tax system? Whoooooaaaa, you guys are really getting out there.

So you are for higher taxes, Patriot? Let your party reps know!

You think we should have a voluntary tax system? Whoooooaaaa, you guys are really getting out there.

In Massachusetts you can volounteer to pay at a higher tax rate if you would like to - Now keep in mind Mass is a very blue state but guess what ? Less than one percent offer to pay the higher tax rate -Why are liberals all for higher taxes yet need the government to tell them to pay it instead of just paying it themselves?

Soros can write a check out to the Govt enytime he wants to -Why aren't him and Buffet doing it ?

Why are liberals all for higher taxes yet need the government to tell them to pay it instead of just paying it themselves?

are you actually arguing for a voluntary tax system? seriously?

are you actually arguing for a voluntary tax system? seriously?

No i am not - I am saying if a person thinks he does not pay enough he should pay more - Pretty simple really- We all pay taxes - If someone like Soros thinks he should pay more then let him -What is stopping him from putting his money where his mouth is ?

So you are for higher taxes, Patriot? Let your party reps know!

I am for higher taxes for Mr. Soros if he thinks he should pay more. By all means, let him. Make it as easy as possible for him.

No i am not - I am saying if a person thinks he does not pay enough he should pay more - Pretty simple really- We all pay taxes - If someone like Soros thinks he should pay more then let him -What is stopping him from putting his money where his mouth is ?

probably because if he alone just paid higher taxes there wouldn't be any effective change. the push for higher taxes is a push for things to get better in general. when you have higher taxes, there is more money to spend on internal improvements.

I am for higher taxes for Mr. Soros if he thinks he should pay more. By all means, let him. Make it as easy as possible for him.

great! call your representative and tell them to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Patriot: So, just to be clear, you think our government should be run by citizens voluntarily paying more in taxes? Do you get to pick and choose who receives services then? No taxes, no benefits? Is it sliding scale? It's ok if the wealthy pay little or no taxes, but not ok if the same is true about the poor, right?

You keep making things up echo - Who said anything about "voluntary taxes" ?

If a person thinks he or she should pay more in taxes then let them -

You keep bringing up this bogus " voluntary" tax statement - No one is saying taxes should be voluntary - Try to post without making up things if you can please

I "keep" bringing it up? one comment does not make a trend... besides, was asking Patriot, but thanks for your input :)

Sorry echo - It was not just you who made the same ludicrous statement -

Some keep making ludicrous statement after ludicrous statement though but they are not the same

Echo82

Stop with the narrative and putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing.

If you wish to embellish, do it to your own statements.

My statement is limited to Mr Soros. Let him mind his own business and show us that deeds are stronger than words.

You keep making things up echo - Who said anything about "voluntary taxes" ?

That would be you. You stated that Buffett should voluntarily send in more money. What part of voluntarily don't you understand?

That would be you. You stated that Buffett should voluntarily send in more money. What part of voluntarily don't you understand?

Nice try born - As usual making things up are you ? Spinning words much ? Typical - Sad but typical - Some of you are boring - Can't even debate without lying and making things up

No i am not - I am saying if a person thinks he does not pay enough he should pay more - Pretty simple really- We all pay taxes - If someone like Soros thinks he should pay more then let him -What is stopping him from putting his money where his mouth is ?

That does not mean it is a "voluntary " tax system- He pays what he has to and then if he wants to he sends more - Get it? Nah some of you never will

if he wants to he sends more

That would be the definition of voluntary.

That would be the definition of voluntary.

And the tax he paid that the Government levied on him? That is not voluntary is it? Damn you are a bore - See ya

From the guy that says that voluntarily paying taxes isn't voluntarily paying taxes. Damn you are a bore

thanks for clearing that up Patriot, was asking a question but obviously did not phrase it correctly... lowered tax rates have not resulted in job creation or growth in the economy. I'm not sure why so many are so adamently against scaling back some of the tax benefits for the wealthiest. while it won't save the economy it will make a difference. the positives of tax cuts for the wealthy have not outweighed the negatives. except of course for those few lucky individuals.

lowered tax rates have not resulted in job creation or growth in the economy

Really? Are you serious? No job creation? No economic growth?

You better tell that to BO because he was just spouting about how his admin has reduced the unemployment rate and that the economy is growing - slowly but growing.

And here I suspected those figures were fudged.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Bush tax cuts have not translated into the job creation they said they would. look it up. also they were never paid for. why do conservatives like to gloss over that fact? stop twisting what I said, you don't like it when others do that.

Will you please send below to Mr Soros - If he wants to pay more what is stopping him ?

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

so boring when the same old, same old is used over and over by those with little or no imagination or expansive thought process.

so boring when the same old, same old is used over and over by those with little or no imagination or expansive thought process.

And your reply was typical liberal nonsense - Keep up the good work -

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

That post is awesome. I am definitely keeping this address on file.

Consider his check in the mail. /sarcasm.

no other way to respond to the same old RW rhetoric.

.

"RW" rhetoric - Good one

Answer a question echo - Soros thinks he should pay more - So why is he not writing a check and paying more?

I think I should pay less. So why am I not getting a bigger refund?

I think I should pay less. So why am I not getting a bigger refund?

Another typical nonsensical reply - You never let us down

I take it you can't answer the question.

Another typical nonsensical reply - You never let us down

Another typical nonsensical reply

BM: you would have to ask Soros that. Advocating for change is something we all should be entitled to do, don't you think? When something is not working then we have the right to say so. Tax cuts for the wealthy have not provided the benefits to all that they were touted to. A decade should be long enough to see the results if they were going to. Time for an adjustment.

I don't know what's worse, a leftist billionaire like Soros acting as if a tax increase on the "wealthy" will increase the amount of taxes he actually pays,

a rule that says you have to pay (for example) $10 in taxes but with a new rule saying you have to pay twice as much you still have to pay $10? what weird logic.

You really don't get it do you? WOW...

One last time.....10% of 20,000,000 of taxable income = 2,000,000
20% of 10,000,000 of taxable income = 2,000,000.

All we have to do is limit the amount of taxable income...same amount of money...but by george you have doubled my tax rate.

LOL

you increase the tax rate or you reduce it and close the loopholes and you increase tax revenues and decrease tax expenditures. making millionaires and billionaires pay for the other 250,000 they make brackets is a more sensible solution all together and that continues to be pressed. what you seem to believe is allow the wealthy pay for the first set amount that they make but not for the rest and at that reduce their rates more and keep the loopholes. there are corporations that make billions a year and actually get money from the government.

I give up...you win....I have tried....well..on more time....what I can do to keep paying any more actual money (amount) of taxes is to reduce my taxable income.

Now do you get it...??? Make the rate what you will...the amount of money I pay will stay the same.....okay? The government will not get any money money.....okay?

hence forth making other incomes more taxable. those who get dividens should pay more, etc.

Wow..just wow.

Bye

bye

Sorry....

I have to ask....just have to...hence forth making other incomes more taxable

What other incomes are not on line 43 of the 1040?

LOL

stock options, investments, dividens.

They go on line 9a....9a comes before line 43....the amount that is taxed...

Who does your taxes...Rangel?

Wow....LOL

actually it isn't taxed at high amounts. people who work for a living pay more taxes than paris hilton who lays around on the pool.

What does Paris Hilton have to do with the fact that you know next to nothing about taxes?

What is your effective tax rate? What is your mariginal tax rate?

What does Paris Hilton have to do with the fact that you know next to nothing about taxes?

What is your effective tax rate? What is your mariginal tax rate?

i am not going to spend my afternoon teaching you on taxes

here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=wOMdIX7VzfUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=taxes+for+dummies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4dc6T-TXG8Hu0gHuhoDRCw&ved=0CFsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=taxes%20for%20dummies&f=false

good luck

i am not going to spend my afternoon teaching you on taxes

Question: What other incomes are not on line 43 of the 1040?

Your answer: stock options, investments, dividens

You really don't know do you? Wow

You teach me about taxes.....LOL LOL LOL

$10 million a year paid 22 percent.

- $1 million to $10 million paid 25 percent.

Also, you seem to have left out a significate amount of taxpayers.

I will include a study that shows all federal taxes paid by income:

A big debate over tax policy is starting to heat up.

So, what are the facts behind the debate? How much do wealthier Americans already pay in taxes?

Quite a lot of money, but perhaps not as much as is implied by the nation's progressive income-tax brackets, in which tax rates rise along with income.

One analysis, released Friday, finds that high-income Americans pay overall taxes that are roughly proportional to their income – and that most lower-income groups do the same.

Who pays how much

To put it in numbers, according to the analysis, the top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes.

He talks the talk but wont walk the walk.

uh, he's willing to have his own taxes raised for the good of the country. that's EXACTLY what walking the walk is. see also: putting his money where his mouth is and putting up, not shutting up.

now, if he sought tax havens after the tax increase he advocated, THAT would be not walking his talk

If Soros wants to he can over pay his taxes. He talks the talk but wont walk the walk. End of story on that guy.

no spin, um, your suggestion is absurd. And they already thought of that, but guess the millionaires are just smarter than you thought.

The Patriotic Millionaires response:

"First, we are well aware that making voluntary contributions to reduce the deficit is an option that is open to us. That you seem to think reminding us of this is a constructive contribution to this serious debate indicates that you have missed the point. In our democracy, individual citizens do not get to pick and choose what government spending to pay for. That is an intrinsic part of living in a democracy: you don't get to opt out.

To suggest that we try to tackle this problem by making individual contributions is, frankly, insulting. It is like suggesting to someone expressing a desire to serve their country by bearing arms that they buy a rifle and a plane ticket to Afghanistan. Some problems are too big to be solved except through collective effort and shared sacrifice, and this is one of them." - Patriotic Millionaires

There now, see how ludicrous the suggestion is.

babina - He has not put his money where his mouth is. What part of that do you not understand?

Greck - What is ludicrous is supporting what Soros said. This topic is about Soros and how he feels . He is the one who said he should pay more in taxes. He can go right ahead and pay more if he wants to.

A Voluntary tax system? And you really think that would work? You right wingnuts come up with the craziest stuff.

Borncorn - Typical left wing comment. The system is not voluntary but paying more than required is an individual choice.

BTW name calling (wingnuts) lessens your credibility.

name calling (wingnuts) lessens your credibility.

whereas nothing says "great solid argument" like generalizations

Typical left wing comment.

see 17.2 above, babina covered the rest quite well.

Voluntary taxes? I have heard of this libertarian fairy tale before...I assume you have an example of where that has been successfully tried and proven to work in perpetuity...do you? Where a 1st world nation got that way by people volunteering to give money they aren't required to give and surpassed all other nations?

He is the one who said he should pay more in taxes. He can go right ahead and pay more if he wants to.

But, then you say it is not voluntary. What kind of logic is that?

logic? what's that? lol

yes, clearly the person whose entire post consists of:

If Soros wants to he can over pay his taxes. He talks the talk but wont walk the walk. End of story on that guy.

is interested in a high-minded exchange of ideas, -riiiiight.

dog - The fringe left thinks Soros walks on water but in reality he is full of talk and no action.

He says he should pay more in taxes but will not do so unless tax laws are changed to make him do so. He is full of himself.

Apparently, you didn't read this response to your silly suggestion that taxes be voluntary.

The Patriotic Millionaires response:

"First, we are well aware that making voluntary contributions to reduce the deficit is an option that is open to us. That you seem to think reminding us of this is a constructive contribution to this serious debate indicates that you have missed the point. In our democracy, individual citizens do not get to pick and choose what government spending to pay for. That is an intrinsic part of living in a democracy: you don't get to opt out.

To suggest that we try to tackle this problem by making individual contributions is, frankly, insulting. It is like suggesting to someone expressing a desire to serve their country by bearing arms that they buy a rifle and a plane ticket to Afghanistan. Some problems are too big to be solved except through collective effort and shared sacrifice, and this is one of them." - Patriotic Millionaires

Soros is the one who brought up the subject of wanting to pay more taxes. Until the tax rules change he is blowing smoke. If the government wants more tax income it is incumbent on them to change the tax rules.

Until then if Soros wants to pay more he is free to do so.

If the government wants more tax income it is incumbent on them to change the tax rules.

yes, that's precisely the point. Soros and Warren Buffett argue that the government should do exactly that, and are not only willing to pay their taxes, but believe it would be just, fair, and better for the economy.

see also: putting money where mouth is.

to suggest that the aim of overall economic health (which is the goal) can be achieved by one or two people paying more in taxes is silly.

the goal isn't for George Soros to feel better, it's for our economy to function better.

Soros, and others in agreement with him are simply saying that they should be taxed more because it would achieve this aim if all among their class were.

If George Soros simply wanted to feel better about his money, he'd donate more of it to charity.

If the government wants more tax income it is incumbent on them to change the tax rules.

Exactly! That's what we're lobbying for.