Mark Cuban says what?!?

[Rodram]

Mark Cuban, Dallas Mavericks Owner: Wealthy Should 'Pay Lots Of Taxes'

The Huffington Post Posted: 9/19/11 06:13 PM ET

Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, said wealthy Americans should pay "lots of taxes" in a post on his blog on Monday.

Titled "The Most Patriotic Thing You Can Do," the post told readers that wealthy Americans should "do something positive" with their money by hiring, training and paying employees and spending money on rent, equipment and services.

"I don’t care what anyone says. Being rich is a good thing," Cuban wrote. "Not just in the obvious sense of benefiting you and your family, but in the broader sense. Profits are not a zero sum game. The more you make the more of a financial impact you can have."

Cuban -- who has a net worth of $2.5 billion -- encouraged his readers to "get out there and make a boatload of money" and "enjoy the shit out your money" knowing that making more and paying higher taxes would help others.

So be Patriotic. Go out there and get rich. Get so obnoxiously rich that when that tax bill comes , your first thought will be to choke on how big a check you have to write. Your 2nd thought will be “what a great problem to have”, and your 3rd should be a recognition that in paying your taxes you are helping to support millions of Americans that are not as fortunate as you.
Cuban's post came in the wake of Rep. John Fleming's (R-La.) suggestion that he couldn't afford a tax hike because he had only "maybe $400,000 left over" from his $6.3 million in business profits. Fleming said that he opposed Obama's plan to tax the wealthy during an appearance on MSNBC.

[Whitedog]

Interesting! However, I do feel sorry for Fleming, having a gross profit of only 6.3M but having to actually pay for materials and labor, thereby reducing his net to only about 400K. I miss the slave days when we could keep all of our money, and not have to pay employees or have to pay for our raw materials. Then, having to pay taxes and accept some civic responsibility, that's just too much!! We can easily fix the job and trade deficit problem by elimination of the minimum wage and all benefits, so a few of us can stuff our pockets. Watch how quick the jobs come back without any rules (that keep us civilized). Like I've said, "taxes pay for civilization, so we need to decide how civilized we wish to be".

[Laz]

He had a gross revenue of 6.3 Million. Profit comes after expenses are subtracted. However this is a good example of the so called millionaires Obama wants to tax. He may be worth a million but his income is far from it. He is unlikely to risk hiring a person if he knows that will reduce his profit to a level lower than he needs after the additional taxes are levied.

[Whitedog]

OK, as an employer, and one of those that could end up being taxed a little more, I'll explain something. Taxes have some, but little effect on hiring. We hire when we can make a profit on the work of an employee, and taxes along with payroll and other labor factors are DEDUCTIBLE. Net is what's left over AFTER paying your taxes. If an employee won't make a company money, then they are not hired. It's very simple, and as a suceessful owner, for nearly 20 years, I have some experience and insight into the matter. Listen to something besides FOX or AM talk radio, and you might learn something.

I personally believe in paying people well, and expect an effort in return. I have people that have been with me nearly all of the 20 years, and will stay as long as we are here. I won't tell you what I do, but just say I pay well above industry standard, and THAT'S how I stay in business. Not whining about taxes (other than Rick Perry's un-American margin tax), and figure it's my duty as a citizen to pay what I owe.

[Rodram]

Originally Posted by Whitedog

OK, as an employer, and one of those that could end up being taxed a little more, I'll explain something. Taxes have some, but little effect on hiring. We hire when we can make a profit on the work of an employee, and taxes along with payroll and other labor factors are DEDUCTIBLE. Net is what's left over AFTER paying your taxes. If an employee won't make a company money, then they are not hired. It's very simple, and as a suceessful owner, for nearly 20 years, I have some experience and insight into the matter. Listen to something besides FOX or AM talk radio, and you might learn something.

I personally believe in paying people well, and expect an effort in return. I have people that have been with me nearly all of the 20 years, and will stay as long as we are here. I won't tell you what I do, but just say I pay well above industry standard, and THAT'S how I stay in business. Not whining about taxes (other than Rick Perry's un-American margin tax), and figure it's my duty as a citizen to pay what I owe.

Hey Whitedog, nice to hear from you! You must be a pretty good employer to work for and I think that there are a LOT of employers just like you that realize you get what you pay for.
If you want good work you pay for it and you as the entrepreneur, is benefitted with employers that basically feel responsible for the work or product and a sense of pride and ownership ensues. Now of course there are always exceptions and caveats where an employee takes advantage of the situation, but they are not the norm.
I myself felt a sense of pride and ownership with my employer even though I had been through many union contract negotiations with them and some got a little contentious. We as employees always felt satisfied afterward and proud of working for them even though we didn't get everything we wanted. Hell, I used to wear my company shirt everywhere and I was proud of it too. My employer negotiated in good faith and with a common interest and that was the key.
As a result, that company, even though it was the runt of the industry, grew big enough to buy the giant out, but the mistake was the management style of the giant was adopted and that has led to the demise of the company and its employees.

As far as taxes are concerned, we are all conservative and don't want our money wasted, but we are engaged enough in what's going on politically and what's happening to our country both financially and economically to realize when its time to pay into and invest in our country and that's the difference between us and conservatives.
Conservatives are worried about defeating President Obama and thats it. It is a sad state we've gotten to Whitedog, but I'm on a mission to change the narrative we've been fed for years by the republican party. If I can change those lies into a responsible common sense approach for just one or two voters, then my advocacy will be justified in my eyes. I will never quit because this is a war that will never end.

[Rodram]

Zombie Lies: Republicans Revive False Claim That Obama Tax Hikes Would Hurt Small Businesses
By Pat Garofalo on Sep 19, 2011 at 9:55 am

During the 2010 debate over the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, Republicans continually claimed that allowing tax rates for the richest two percent of Americans to go back to where they were under the Clinton administration would disproportionately affect small businesses. The claim wasn’t true then — as just 3 percent of people with any business income at all, from a business large or small, would be affected if the top two tax rates increase — but that didn’t stop the GOP from parroting it over and over.

Today, President Obama plans to unveil a deficit reduction plan that will, once again, call for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for those in the top two income tax brackets, as well as a new “Buffett rule” — a minimum tax for millionaires, inspired by billionaire investor Warren Buffett’s continued outrage that tax rates for investors are lower than those for working class Americans.

So, inevitably, Republicans have revived their talking point regarding small businesses:
“It is disappointing the president has nothing but a fresh slogan for the same job-killing small business tax hikes opposed by bipartisan majorities in Congress,” [House Speaker John] Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) followed suit on Fox News Sunday:
"And don’t forget the fact that most small businesses file taxes as individuals. So, when you are raising these top tax rates, you’re raising taxes on these job creators where more than half of Americans get their jobs from in this country."

To review: fewer than 2 percent of the small businesses in the country face either of the top two tax brackets. Far more, in fact, are in the lowest tax bracket. Plus, “many of the roughly 650,000 filers with small-business income who face one of the top two tax rates are merely passive investors who have nothing to do with running the business.”

On a final note, small business owners that file their taxes as individuals (instead of through the corporate tax system) pay taxes on the income they actually take home. A small business owner who is pocketing one million dollars annually should be taxed like anyone else taking home that much. Claiming that the tax hikes Obama proposed would adversely impact small businesses is just another way in which the GOP is going to bat for the very rich.

[Whitedog]

It really baffles me how most of the people that swallow the stuff they hear on FOX and from the AM radio loud-mouths, are ctually voting against their own interests. On the plus side, they do save me money, so I can put more away in my retirement accounts, while they cost themselves more in the long run. If anyone thinks you can balance a budget, either in business or government, simply by cutting costs, they are doomed to failure. If I cut costs and don't increase revenue (sales or taxes, as the case may be) I never will profit. Without increased positive revenues, I wouldn't be here, and sharing those revenues with our great ladies!! Therefore, cutting expenses, along with revenue enhancement, helps the ECCIE economy, along with my disposition. See, compromise is good for all. Tell that to the 'Party of NO'.

[THETAXMAN]

rodram, lets for a monent agree on raising taxes on the wealthy. The highest estimate of how much income would be raised by this is around 150 billion a year for the next 10 years. How do we justify spending the other trillion dollars that we will have to borrow every year for the next ten. The CBO projects deficts of over a trillion for the next ten years. So do we keep raising taxes on the evil rich or do we cut spending and actually balance the budget. Personally do not know of any one who could justify spending more then they bring in every year and increasing thier debt load every year. how does the math work please.

[Rodram]

Ok, thats cool. we agree on taxes. TAXMAN are you sure the 150 billion estimate is correct? It sounds off to me and I'll check, but see if you can recheck it also.

[Rodram]

Hey Whitedog, I like the provider twist you put in there Lol! Now thats an argument for revenue sharing huh?! LOL!

[Rodram]

Originally Posted by THETAXMAN

rodram, lets for a monent agree on raising taxes on the wealthy. The highest estimate of how much income would be raised by this is around 150 billion a year for the next 10 years. How do we justify spending the other trillion dollars that we will have to borrow every year for the next ten. The CBO projects deficts of over a trillion for the next ten years. So do we keep raising taxes on the evil rich or do we cut spending and actually balance the budget. Personally do not know of any one who could justify spending more then they bring in every year and increasing thier debt load every year. how does the math work please.

Remember Taxman, we aren't saying that taxing the wealthy will resolve all of our debt, but it is a part of the formula. The only reason this is an issue is because republicans refuse to allow any revenue to be raised and that is why we are having this discussion.

This is President Obama's proposal:

"The core of the president's plan totals just over $2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. It would let Bush-era tax cuts for upper income earners expire, limit deductions for wealthier filers and close loopholes and end some corporate tax breaks. It also would trim mandatory programs, including Medicare. And it would target subsidies for farmers and retirement benefits for federal employees."

_$1.5 trillion in new revenue, which would include about $800 billion over 10 years from repealing the Bush-era tax rates for couples making more than $250,000. It also would place limits on deductions for wealthy filers and end certain corporate loopholes and subsidies for oil and gas companies.

_$580 billion in cuts in mandatory benefit programs, including $248 billion in Medicare and $72 billion in Medicaid and other health programs. Other mandatory benefit programs include farm subsidies and federal employee retirement benefits. The plan would reduce federal workers' paychecks by 1.2 percent over three years, saving the government about $21 billion over 10 years.

_$430 billion in savings from lower interest payment on the national debt

This issue with the wealthy gets more traction especially when people are now aware that the ratio of corporate profits to wages has never been higher in the history of this country since the Great Depression.

How is it Taxman that corporate profits are at a record level when the rest of us are flailing? That math is the math that we need to do before any math about the tax rate.

I would also say "taxing the wealthy" is not a true representation of what is happening here. What we are trying to do is level the playing field, a shared sacrifice, and really receding what the wealthy have gotten for the past 10yrs as a gift from the Bush Administration in the form of the Bush Tax cuts.

Go to this link to see the difference in what is proposed by republicans as compared to Pres. Obama:

AGI-Adjusted Gross Income
http://www.ctj.org/bushtaxcuts2010.php

[THETAXMAN]

You answered your own question by quoting the presidents plan, 1.5 trillion over 10 years equals about 150 billion a year. So again I ask how are we going to balance the rest of the annual budget? If we even get to 4 trillion in savings from tax increases and savings ( i have never seen the govt save anything) over ten years that then equates to 400 billion a year and we are still left with deficits of about 7 to 8 hundred billion for the next ten years. That means new debt. As I have stated before corporations do not pay taxes they collect taxes and they incorporate whatever taxes they have to pay as part of the selling price for thier product. Only C corporations pay corporate taxes. S corporations do not, those profits flow out to the shareholders. Also you need to look closley at these corporations that do not pay taxes, they probably have gotten a deduction for dividends paid and those dividends are taxed at the individual level. We can debate wether or not the rate on dividends needs to be increased or not but somebody is paying some taxes.

[Rodram]

Originally Posted by THETAXMAN

You answered your own question by quoting the presidents plan, 1.5 trillion over 10 years equals about 150 billion a year. So again I ask how are we going to balance the rest of the annual budget? If we even get to 4 trillion in savings from tax increases and savings ( i have never seen the govt save anything) over ten years that then equates to 400 billion a year and we are still left with deficits of about 7 to 8 hundred billion for the next ten years. That means new debt. As I have stated before corporations do not pay taxes they collect taxes and they incorporate whatever taxes they have to pay as part of the selling price for thier product. Only C corporations pay corporate taxes. S corporations do not, those profits flow out to the shareholders. Also you need to look closley at these corporations that do not pay taxes, they probably have gotten a deduction for dividends paid and those dividends are taxed at the individual level. We can debate wether or not the rate on dividends needs to be increased or not but somebody is paying some taxes.

I didn't include the savings for ending the wars which is part of the proposal. We will never be completely out of debt so lets drop that illusion.

Ok, so if we play your game, what do we do? Where's your plan and what do you or your party propose to do?

And before you say tax cuts, I will ask where in the economic history of this country have tax cuts gotten us out of this so called "economic crisis"?
I know the answer and it is never.

It seems to me republicans want all the answers which is never good enough but never has the solution themselves, so here's your chance Taxman go for it! Oh, and good luck! LOL/jk.

[THETAXMAN]

Well first lets get something clear I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN. Second I do not believe that cutting taxes is what needs to happen and what I mean by cutting taxes is lowering amount of money paid in. I do believe that the tax code needs to be revamped accros the board. I do believe that the wealthy can afford to pay some more taxes but I also believe that the top 10% who pay 80% of the taxes are paying thier fair share. The IRS data supports my claim of that the top 10% pay approx 80% of the income taxes. My solution is simple if we are overspending by whatever % after adjusting for increases in taxes then the govt across the board, every department every program gets cut by the same amount from the presidents paycheck to those of every person working for the govt. Now some programs probably should be cut more then that but since we are asking every one to share then I am for every one having to suffer. Social security fix should be as follows, if you are in the program no changes, if you are not in the program then for those 60 and above you have to wait until 67, if you are under 60 then you do not get to collect any SS until you are 70. Social security should be means tested. All forms of income should be considered when testing is done. If you recieve private disability payments that are tax free that is included in the test for qualifing for SS. This keeps those who do not need SS from getting it. Let's get back to the true intent of the program which was to keep people from living in poverty when they retire and cannot work. You have enough income to provide for yourself no money from the govt. This also would be the same for Medicare. do away with all refundedable credits. I have no problem helping those on the bottom with reducing thier income tax liability to zero but no refunds. I know they pay SS & medicare taxes but if we refund those then does it not make those programs welfare programs when those who have not contribute because of refundable credits start recieving benefits? SS is not gauranteed, the proof is at the bottom of your earnings statement that you recieve from the SSA that clearly says congress may change this at any time. my 2 cents

[Rodram]

I thought that I had heard this before but I couldn't remember where, so I Googled this exactly: Why does the top 10% pay 80% of the taxes? After the Yahoo Answers! entry which comes up first for almost everything posed as a question, guess who comes up after that? RUSH LIMBAUGH! That raises a flag because that means it's either inaccurate or a lie. But if you say your not a republican I believe you and I apologize.

I wanted to try and explain the difference and why you were incorrect concerning about that tax ratio and exactly what it is that the President is proposing.
Obama is calling his proposal the Buffet Rule after Warren Buffet. Politifact did research on this and it is very detailed with links to all of their numbers so get your reading glasses and some wine and take a look see!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...wer-taxes-oth/

Ok, so revamping the tax code is part of the Presidents proposal and that's solved, but of course the devil is in the details, and that will come from congress.

Social Security is part of the Presidents proposal but I doubt what you are advocating for would past muster with the American people, especially the work until your 70 provision and again, that will be for congress to hash out.