‘A Bad Bargain’

When you see the word “grand” in front of the word “bargain,” look out. They are trying to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This is why President Obama is treating right-wingers to lunch and dinner, while ignoring progressives.

After first making nearly all the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich permanent, key members of Congress and the White House now say there is a deficit problem that can only be solved by austerity budgets. Well, the last election wasn’t about dismantling our earned benefits programs and the social safety net that Americans have relied on since the New Deal. President Obama is proposing a BAD bargain.

Sign Senator Bernie Sanders’ petition today.

Send a Message to President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker Boehner: No Budget Deal on Backs of the Elderly, the Children, the Sick and the Poor.

At a time when the middle class is disappearing, poverty is increasing and the gap between the rich and everyone else is growing wider, we demand that the federal budget not be balanced on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our country.

A federal budget that reduces the deficit by cutting cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security and disabled veterans, raising the Medicare eligibility age and lowering tax rates for the most profitable corporations in this country is not a grand bargain. It is a bad bargain.

We oppose the chained-CPI, a new way to measure inflation and consumer prices designed to cut benefits for Social Security recipients, disabled veterans and their survivors.

We demand a budget that puts millions of Americans back to work in decent paying jobs.

We demand a budget that makes sure that the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations pay their fair share.

UPDATE: Rep. Ryan, announcing his budget plan today:

“This to us is something that we’re not going to give up on, because we’re not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people.”

Definition of a Bushism: when a right-winger accidentally tells us what he really wants to do.

UPDATE: Obama’s Poll Numbers Drop As He Tries To Push Cuts To Social Security And Medicare

UPDATE: Obama To GOP: I’m Serious About Cutting The Social Safety Net

DC’s Worst-Kept Budget Secret: Lots Of Democrats Support Entitlement Cuts

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on March 12, 2013 - 11:19 pm

    About the update:

    How do you destroy something which only exists if you don’t use it.

  2. #2 by cav on March 12, 2013 - 11:33 pm

    If you don’t use it, you lose it. And the Ryan-heads are nothing if not losers.

  3. #3 by brewski on March 13, 2013 - 8:51 am

    Richard, you should run for prime minister of Greece. Your willful disregard of arithmetic would fit in well there.

  4. #4 by cav on March 13, 2013 - 10:09 am

    The prime minister of Greece is a toad of the banking houses – executing plans that were known to be failures for the people, but good for the banks. Their plan was all about the arithmetic of plunder, and discarding the victims.

    IOW…just where do you get this shit?

  5. #5 by brewski on March 13, 2013 - 10:11 am

    Ask Richard. He is the one who doesn’t understand math. You know, the part where if you spend more than you bring in eventually you run out of money. That part.

  6. #6 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 10:12 am


    You ought to join the Republican wrecking crew. Bring your own sledgehammer.

  7. #7 by cav on March 13, 2013 - 10:39 am

    Can’t we just dismiss Ryan as a antisocial quack for now and forever.

    Oh yea, right, he’ll only reincarnate as a ‘fitness master’.

  8. #8 by brewski on March 13, 2013 - 11:03 am

    Richard, why don’t you bring your own calculator.

  9. #9 by Larry Bergan on March 13, 2013 - 5:38 pm

    The American health care system is a nightmare. It’s been proven that you pay into it through your employer, (if your employer offers you a plan that doesn’t reek of stench), and you walk around feeling safe until you try to actually make a claim.

    I’m not even blaming the employers. It’s a nightmare for THEM to find a decent plan. While looking to place blame you could start with prescription drug prices and work down from there.

    George W. once pacified us by telling us anyone – yes, even the have-nots – can get help at the emergency room, as if that would be an experience that would restore your faith in your society.

    It’s not going to take much for Ryan to drown the American healthcare baby in the bathtub.

  10. #10 by Larry Bergan on March 13, 2013 - 5:57 pm

    I’m beginning to think Obama is as bad a bargainer as I am; meaning, no ability to bargain, whatsoever.

    I used to work for an optical company in the seventies called Midwest Optical. I was REALLY into music and my boss’s boss knew it. I was aching to buy a four track tape recorder which had just come out, because I thought I might be able to create a musical masterpiece on the thing.

    My boss’s boss actually handed me a thousand dollars in cash to go out and buy it. I have heard all my life that if you payed cash for something, you could talk the salesman into giving you a great bargain. I went strutting into the music store and asked the salesman what he was willing to do. He told me he could sale it to me right there for twelve hundred dollars. I gave him the money and, excitedly, took my treasure home.

    I found out shorty after that, the going price was less then what I paid.

    My boss’s boss’s gift had no interest attached, and I paid it back in full as soon as I could because he trusted me.

    No musical masterpiece was forthcoming, but I had a lot of fun trying anyway.

    Obama doesn’t owe the Republicans anything.

  11. #12 by brewski on March 14, 2013 - 1:47 pm

    I plan on being around in 2036. I don’t want my earned benefit reduced by 25%. It is a mathematical certainty that without changes this will indeed happen. Why are you in favor of that?

  12. #13 by Richard Warnick on March 14, 2013 - 2:13 pm

    Why not eliminate the cap on payroll taxes?

  13. #14 by brewski on March 14, 2013 - 8:46 pm

    To just do that in isolation would:
    1. Make the highest marginal tax on wage income and self employed income be 54.9% plus state plus local, while leaving the capital gains and dividend income marginal rates much lower. Having wildly different tax rates for different characters of income encourages gaming and cheating, drives suboptimal behavior and isn’t fair.
    2. Changes the entire nature of social security entirely from being an income insurance program where what you pay in is related to what you get back, to a giant redistribution program. That would be like you paying $5,000 for the same auto insurance policy your neighbor paid $500 for.
    3. It makes the actuarial net present value of the contributions vs the benefits to be hugely negative for many taxpayers.
    4. There is no mechanism to ensure that those extra revenues won’t be spent on further wars and studies on fat lesbians as is being done now.

  14. #15 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2013 - 9:27 am

    (1) Raise the taxes on capital gains and dividends so that they are the same as ordinary income.

    (2) Right now, rich people pay LESS, as a percentage of income, for the same earned benefit programs.

    (3) In the early 1980s, payroll taxes covered 90 percent of wages; today they reach only 85 percent due to increasing income inequality.

    (4) There is a trust fund, as you know, that is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

  15. #16 by brewski on March 15, 2013 - 10:50 am

    Ok, so now you are proposing something totally different from what you proposed in #13. If you want to go down that path then you might as well rewrite the tax code from scratch, which is what I have been saying all along and you have disagreed with. Conceptually it isn’t all that hard. I understand that for some reason politically it is very hard. Everyone will focus on what they are “losing” and not what the big picture is and what they will be gaining.
    We have been over this before. There is no Trust Fund. Ezra Klein said so. If Richard Warnick Trust Fund has a loan for $1 billion to Richard Warnick, then Richard Warnick Trust Fund and Richard Warnick combined do not have $1 billion. Have you ever heard the expression “they eliminate each other in consolidation”? I know this is a bit outside of your expertise, but if you have a trust fund and you borrow a lot of money from your own trust fund, that does not magically mean that your trust fund is really rich. It means that combined you and your trust fund together have zero, since the asset and the liability offset each other. Just ask Ezra Klein.

  16. #17 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2013 - 11:09 am

    The obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund are no different from what the USA owes to China and Japan. This is what President Bush failed to understand when he irresponsibly declared that the Trust Fund was full of “worthless IOUs.”

  17. #19 by cav on March 15, 2013 - 1:49 pm

    Why the general public is not ransacking DC and hanging rethuglicans and Blue Dogs from lampposts is beyond me.

  18. #20 by cav on March 15, 2013 - 2:00 pm

    And of course the second words out of every Republicans mouths after they vote Aye to cut SS and Medicare will be “ZOMG Obama and the Democrats Just Cut Your SS and Medicare!!!!” and there will be 3rd party ads running from that day to the next several elections.

  19. #21 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2013 - 2:15 pm

    That’s true. And it makes one wonder why any Dems are so willing to cut their own throats in next year’s election. Probably because they don’t work for you and me.

    New Research: Deficit Hawks Reflect the Views of the Wealthy, Not the Majority

    Survey by social scientists shows why Washington focuses on deficits instead of desperately needed jobs.

  20. #22 by brewski on March 15, 2013 - 2:29 pm

    “The obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund are no different from what the USA owes to China and Japan.”

    Yes they are. Just ask Ezra Klein.

    If I owe $1 trillion to Japan then I have a big problem. If I owe $1 trillion to a trust fund that I owe, then I don’t really have a big problem since it is my own trust fund. Owing to third parties and owing to myself are entirely different. You apparently don’t have the ability of the willingness to understand this.

  21. #23 by brewski on March 15, 2013 - 2:38 pm

    “At the end of the day, there is one federal government. It raises a certain amount of money, engages in a certain amount of spending, and a dollar it uses for one purpose is a dollar that it cannot use for another purpose. When I talk about Social Security and Medicare, I often get e-mails from liberals saying these programs are self-financed and they don’t have any relationship to the deficit. That’s true in the sense that they are not increasing deficits now, but it’s untrue in the sense that they are projected to vastly increase deficits later. When their revenues stop meeting their expenses, in other words, they will begin increasing the deficit. They are not separate in any serious way.”

    Ezra Klein

  22. #24 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2013 - 4:38 pm

    Ezra Klein is right. To re-phrase, earned benefits programs are not adding to the deficit. However, in 10-20 years the time will come when the federal government has to make good on its trust fund obligations.

    The answer is simple: raise taxes. Oh, and tell the catfooders to go to Hell.

    Oh, and you forgot to include the very next paragraph where Klein wrote:

    That said, it’s important to take Lew’s point about Treasury securities seriously. Treasury securities are considered among the single safest investments on Earth. It’s not overstating matters to argue that much of the modern financial system rests upon the confidence investors have in them. When you hear that investors are making a “flight to safety,” it means they’re buying Treasury securities. The same Treasury securities that the Social Security system purchases. If the government defaults on those bonds, the economy will fly into a tailspin.

    An innocent mistake, I am sure!

  23. #25 by Larry Bergan on March 15, 2013 - 5:30 pm

    FDR’s solution would make republican heads pop off and roll down the street today, but he actually passed this.

    From Bill Moyers’s interview with Richard Wolff:

    RICHARD WOLFF: His bill that he sent to the Congress, a proposal, was that anyone who earns over $25,000, which would be roughly $350,000 a year now, in current dollars, would have to give every nickel of it, beyond the $25,000, to the government, 100 percent. That’s maximum income. The President of the United States, with massive popular support. And when the Republicans said, “No, we can’t do that.” They fought. And the compromise was a 94 percent top rate.

    RICHARD WOLFF: Compared to the 39 percent, and .6 percent that we have today. I mean, you can see there that that– that was a lesson. That I believe the corporations and the rich in America have learned. They saw that they were forced between two choices. A real revolutionary possibility, or a compromise. They voted for the compromise. They gave the mass of people real support, far better than anything they’re getting now.

    I think it’s a wonderful idea. If you are a greatly successful businessman who makes more then enough to live a fantastically comfortable life in America, why wouldn’t you want the spoils of your success going to build your nation. It worked really well for this country before and I’ll bet the rich weren’t toting so many guns back then either. There’s a good reason for that.

  24. #26 by brewski on March 15, 2013 - 7:47 pm

    The Social Security Fake Trust Fund does not buy “the same” treasury securities bought by anyone else. So he is wrong about that.

    You don’t seem to understand the difference between cash accounting and accrual accounting. In cash accounting, which is what the government uses and is illegal for corporations to use, if you take in $1 today and you incur liabilities of $1 trillion for next year, you have a “balanced budget” today. So this repeated statement that Social Security is not adding to the deficit, only makes any sense if you are only thinking in cash accounting and only makes sense if you ignore the obligations being incurred. Corporations would be shut down and their officers and directors would go to prison if they did accounting that way. So the stupid ignorant statement that Social Security is not adding to our deficit is completely dishonest and ignorant. Social Security is piling up these obligations that under accrual accounting would indeed be a mammoth deficit right now. Not later. Now. It has no way to pay for them. The President’s Budget says so. If the right answer is to increase the tax rate to 54.9% plus state taxes plus local taxes, then where is Obama’s plan to do that?

    Obama is explicitly kicking the can down the road until 2036 and just letting the train wreck happen to whoever the poor sod is who happens to be in charge then. His budget says so.

  25. #27 by Larry Bergan on March 15, 2013 - 7:58 pm


    The only way corporate officers are going to jail is if they don’t make everything they can for their stockholders. Step into the 2010’s. The laws have been changed since FDR.

  26. #28 by brewski on March 15, 2013 - 7:59 pm

    Larry, I looked up the data. The 94% was applied to people who reported over $200,000 in 1944. So that would be $2.6 million today. Also, it was very easy to avoid “reporting” any income over $200,000 back then, so don’t assume that rich people ever actually paid that. Higher marginal tax rates increase avoidance in all sorts of ways. Both legal and illegal. One easy way to avoid paying any more than $199,000 is to stop working. It’s called leisure preference. So people could just get to $2.59 million today under your plan and then just stop working.

    Communism is a great emotional appeal. I get what you are saying when you wistfully dream about “why wouldn’t you want the spoils of your success going to build your nation” but the problem is that it doesn’t work. It didn’t work then and it wouldn’t work now.

    The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy—including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives—were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure.

  27. #29 by Larry Bergan on March 15, 2013 - 8:06 pm

    2.6 million would be an acceptable compromise to me.

    What kind of a slacker would stop working just because he made a penny over $199,999 a year? The guy would be praised and loved for working even harder and contributing to the welfare of his society. In the rare chance that he lost everything, he would be assured his society would take care of him in his old age.

  28. #30 by brewski on March 15, 2013 - 9:30 pm

    “What kind of a slacker would stop working just because he made a penny over $199,999 a year? ”
    You mean $2.6MM per year.
    The correct question is, who would continue to work if he or she only got to keep 6 cents of every dollar.
    The answer is, almost everyone.
    The other ones would all have Cayman Island banks accounts, like Jack Lew.

    “The guy would be praised and loved for working even harder and contributing to the welfare of his society.”
    Would this be at the same time they all sang songs for the Fatherland in unison?

    “In the rare chance that he lost everything, he would be assured his society would take care of him in his old age.”
    In a gulag?

  29. #31 by Larry Bergan on March 15, 2013 - 10:06 pm


    Ok, I’ll rephrase: What kind of a slacker would stop working just because he made a penny over $2.6 million a year in 2013. That helps my point.

    When you said:

    The correct question is, who would continue to work if he or she only got to keep 6 cents of every dollar.
    The answer is, almost everyone.


    I assume you meant, almost nobody, but you’re not stupid and you realize that you’d have to make $2.6 million before you only made 6 cents of every dollar.

    Your last two questions don’t make any sense. The Fatherland was renamed during the Bush years and social security has nothing to do with gulags.

  30. #32 by brewski on March 15, 2013 - 10:32 pm

    Thank you for noticing my error. Yes, they would work hard up until they hit the 94% marginal rate. Then they would stop. People make marginal decisions based on marginal costs and benefits. They don’t make marginal decisions based on past costs and benefits. People who are not slackers work hard because they see their benefit to do so, on the margin. If they do not, they will not.

    Your assertions that people will be happy to work not to make money for themselves and their families but rather to work just for the pension plans of tenured teachers assumes a level of patriotism and naïveté that I don’t believe non-slackers have.

  31. #33 by Larry Bergan on March 15, 2013 - 10:58 pm

    But brewski, FDR’s method worked.

    The 25 thousandaires of his time didn’t stop working and the 2.6 millionaires of our time wouldn’t either.

    They enjoy doing what they’re good at and wouldn’t be envious of hobos.


    If they lost all their money to the healthcare industry, they would be assured of living their lives out in dignity, having simple barbeques at their homes in springtime.

  32. #34 by cav on March 16, 2013 - 12:46 am

    Real slackers stop waaay short of the $2.49Million.

    There’s always tomorrow.

  33. #35 by cav on March 16, 2013 - 12:49 am

    brewski made an error? Must be dreaming.

  34. #36 by brewski on March 16, 2013 - 8:50 am

    It didn’t work. The $25,000 top bracket was never passed.

    And when the top rate was 91% the government collected the same proportion of revenue as when the top rate was 28% or 35% or 39.6%.

    So your notion of how it did work or would work is not not supported by the data. It is only supported by your dreamy-eyed ideology of everyone sacrificing for the greater good and the State will be our nanny and take care of all of us.

    If high tax rates work so well in nanny states then why have countries like Canada, UK, Germany, Denmark, all lowered their rates from where they were?

  35. #37 by cav on March 17, 2013 - 11:42 am

    Jaw-Dropping Crimes of the Big Banks

    Preface: Not all banks are criminal enterprises. The wrongdoing of a particular bank cannot be attributed to other banks without proof. But – as documented below – many of the biggest banks have engaged in unimaginably bad behavior.

    You Won’t Believe What They’ve Done …

    Here are just some of the improprieties by big banks


  36. #38 by cav on March 17, 2013 - 3:00 pm

    It’s funny, we seem to have some sort of Robo-troll functioning over on the ‘Reid: Filibuster Reform Within 36 Hours’ thread.

  37. #39 by Richard Warnick on March 17, 2013 - 4:12 pm

    I e-mailed Cliff about it. Something like 100 spam comments in the past 36 hours. Almost all on that same post.

  38. #40 by cav on March 17, 2013 - 4:41 pm

    It’s too god a topic to be taken over in that way. The robo-troll might have selected an old gun thread instead, but, Noooo1

    In other news: We already know that banks of J P Morgan’s size are also too big to be allowed to fail and too big to prosecute. Such banks are too big to regulate and apparently too big to manage. So how much more evidence do we need that banks like JPMorgan are simply too big a risk for taxpayers to bear?


  39. #41 by cav on March 17, 2013 - 4:42 pm

    Speak of the … that thread’s been scrubbed clean. Good job youse guys.

  40. #42 by cav on March 17, 2013 - 4:54 pm

    Spoke a little too soon…

    Hell, maybe it’s just me. My horoscope said my day might be like this.

  41. #43 by Richard Warnick on March 17, 2013 - 8:39 pm

    I’m spamming comments manually every few hours.

  42. #44 by cav on March 19, 2013 - 11:10 am

    So not only is the US Government not going to prosecute Dimon for his multiple crimes or arrest any other Morgan stooge, their minions in Congress are trying to make sure that isn’t even possible and depositors are on the hook for the bank gambling losses legally. SIFUABS.


  43. #45 by brewski on March 19, 2013 - 2:13 pm

    The answer back in 2008 and 2009 was receivership, not TARP as was done. It could have been done but would have required more balls than anyone had. Wasn’t even considered for the majors.

  44. #46 by cav on March 19, 2013 - 2:43 pm

    You are correct.

  45. #47 by brewski on March 19, 2013 - 3:16 pm

    I’ve thought about this one a lot. What the government did and what Romney suggested for GM was correct to put it into receivership, wipe out stockholders and come out healthier. I disagree with some of the details of the GM restructuring especially putting secured debtholders in a junior position to unsecured creditors. But the point is the same. Citi and GS and JPM and BofA should have been put in receivership, wipe out stockholders, which means wipe out anyone with stock options as well, replace much of management, recapitalize and come out healthier. Among other things this takes care of the moral hazard problem of rewarding bad behavior. Those who made bad bets would lose. That is the way it is supposed to work. The rule of law. It would be hard for anyone to argue against that except for the losers. The only important thing to do would be to never use the word “nationalize”. The correct word is receivership.

  46. #48 by cav on March 19, 2013 - 9:01 pm

    This is, as our Vice President would say, a Big Deal. For some unknown reason, john Boehner has deigned to let a vote be take in the House of Representatives on The People’s Budget. This, unlike Paul Ryan’s “plan,” is a real and actual budget, with numbers and everything, about which you can read here:


    Now that you have read it, or at least the summary, here comes the part where you get up off your ass and DO something. Actually, you can do it sitting on your ass, if you’d like. You need to call your Congressional Representative, and urge him/her to support this budget and vote “yes” tomorrow. It’s very easy and takes about a minute and a half out of your day. Unless you’re like me and have them programmed into your phone, you can find the phone number for your Congresscritter here: http://www.house.gov/represent … (just plug in your ZIP code). Or, if you are REALLY lazy, and/or if you don’t know who your representative is, you can just call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121; just tell them your ZIP code and they will tell you the name of your Representative and connect you to him/her.

    This is a Whose Side Are You On moment, and it is extremely important that as many people as possible call and express their support, urging their Representatives to vote for this truly Progressive piece of legislation. Tell them to vote FOR it, and tell them you will be watching to see if they do. GO. NOW.

  47. #49 by brewski on March 19, 2013 - 9:13 pm

    Has it been scored by the CBO?

    In reading the summary of it my first suspicion is that it won’t raise anywhere near the revenue it says it will. Other governments have already found out the hard way that when they raise taxes thinking they will get more revenue from that taxable income that the taxable income has a way of disappearing for lots of various reasons. Money can move, jobs can move, people can move. We do not have a captive market, nor captive capital, nor captive jobs, nor captive people. Money will leave, people will leave, jobs will leave, taxes will leave.

    That budget is a mirage.

  48. #50 by cav on March 19, 2013 - 9:22 pm

    The People’s Budget
    Budget of the Congressional Progressive Caucus
    Fiscal Year 2012

    The People’s Budget eliminates the deficit in 10 years, puts Americans back to work and restores our economic
    competitiveness. The People’s Budget recognizes that in order to compete, our nation needs every American to
    be productive, and in order to be productive we need to raise our skills to meet modern needs.
    Our Budget Eliminates the Deficit and Raises a $31 Billion Surplus In Ten Years
    Our budget protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and responsibly eliminates the deficit by targeting
    its main drivers: the Bush Tax Cuts, the wars overseas, and the causes and effects of the recent recession.
    Our Budget Puts America Back to Work & Restores America’s Competitiveness
    • Trains teachers and restores schools; rebuilds roads and bridges and ensures that users help pay for them
    • Invests in job creation, clean energy and broadband infrastructure, housing and R&D programs
    Our Budget Creates a Fairer Tax System
    • Ends the recently passed upper-income tax cuts and lets Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of 2012
    • Extends tax credits for the middle class, families, and students
    • Creates new tax brackets that range from 45% starting at $1 million to 49% for $1 billion or more
    • Implements a progressive estate tax
    • Eliminates corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies; closes loopholes for multinational corporations
    • Enacts a financial crisis responsibility fee and a financial speculation tax on derivatives and foreign exchange
    Our Budget Protects Health
    • Enacts a health care public option and negotiates prescription payments with pharmaceutical companies
    • Prevents any cuts to Medicare physician payments for a decade
    Our Budget Safeguards Social Security for the Next 75 Years
    • Eliminates the individual Social Security payroll cap to make sure upper income earners pay their fair share
    • Increases benefits based on higher contributions on the employee side
    Our Budget Brings Our Troops Home
    • Responsibly ends our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to leave America more secure both home and abroad
    • Cuts defense spending by reducing conventional forces, procurement, and costly R&D programs
    Our Budget’s Bottom Line
    • Deficit reduction of $5.6 trillion
    • Spending cuts of $1.7 trillion
    • Revenue increase of $3.9 trillion
    • Public investment $1.7 trillion

    It’s fairly representative of what the majority thinks should be supported budgetarily. Way more-so that what Ryan has offered.

  49. #51 by brewski on March 19, 2013 - 11:32 pm

    Why did you post that? I already read it. It does not tell me whether or not its claims have been scored by the CBO.

    What I do believe is that it will create enormous employment opportunities for tax attorneys and accountants to figure out how to get around all of that.

    The taxes for some people will be 49% + 15.3% + 14.4% = 78.7% tax rate. You don’t think that will cause people to leave? So 78.7% x $0 = $0.

  50. #52 by cav on March 19, 2013 - 11:56 pm

    There are other readers, u-no. I’d like to see them all give their reps a call.

    Easy-peazy : )

    And good riddance to the selfish pigs who would do as you suggest. Where they gonna go? The Cayman’s? China?

  51. #53 by brewski on March 20, 2013 - 8:41 am

    Corporate tax rate: 15%
    Combined tax rate on dividend income: 29.5%
    Capital gains are taxed at half of the individual’s personal income tax rate.

    Clean air, free healthcare, good skiing. I have friends from Utah who have move there recently and received permanent residency status.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: