PDA

View Full Version : Bill Maher complains about taxes in California



Elspeth
03-16-2013, 06:40 PM
I, for one, was glad to hear him say something. The taxation here is getting insane, and ask Nova how much of it is going to illegals.



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/03/16/bill-maher-california-income-taxes-liberals-you-could-actually-lose-m#ixzz2NiYzskrX

Bill Maher on California Income Taxes: 'Liberals - You Could Actually Lose Me'

...Pointing at Virginia's former Republican Congressman Tom Davis, Maher said, "You know what? Rich people - I'm sure you'd agree with this - actually do pay the freight in this country."

"I just saw these statistics," he continued, "I mean, something like 70 percent. And here in California, I just want to say liberals - you could actually lose me. It's outrageous what we're paying - over 50 percent. I'm willing to pay my share, but yeah, it's ridiculous."

So it appears there is a point where Maher's money becomes more important than his politics.

Consider that in California, millionaires on top of the 39.6 percent they'll pay to the federal government in 2013, there's an additional 14.63 percent that now goes to the state.

Add in payroll taxes, local taxes, and property taxes, and I've seen estimates that the total tax bite could exceed 60 percent here.

But the rich aren't paying their "fair share."

Regardless, it sure was nice to see a liberal - especially one that contributed to Obama's reelection campaign! - complaining about his taxes.

JB
03-16-2013, 08:45 PM
Maddow goes on a rant that the rich complain they are taxed too much and then Maher immediately complains that he is taxed too much. LMAO.

And isn't she sitting in the seat usually reserved for the comedian that is the guest that night. I've only seen clips of the show but they usually have a comedian that doesn't know what the heck they are talking about in that seat. Sounds about right for her, except that she's also not funny.

Elspeth
03-16-2013, 09:17 PM
Maddow goes on a rant that the rich complain they are taxed too much and then Maher immediately complains that he is taxed too much. LMAO.


Well, Maher is particularly angry about California. Prop 30 just raised taxes on anyone making over a million. And if you add that to the special "mental health" tax that millionaires and up make every tax year, you can see why he gets pissed off.

Odysseus
03-17-2013, 01:37 PM
Well, Maher is particularly angry about California. Prop 30 just raised taxes on anyone making over a million. And if you add that to the special "mental health" tax that millionaires and up make every tax year, you can see why he gets pissed off.

Did anyone point out how much effort he expended on behalf of the Democratic politicians that raised his taxes and are the ones claiming that he doesn't pay his fair share?

Sic hacer pace, para bellum.
Sent from my android.

Elspeth
03-17-2013, 02:16 PM
Did anyone point out how much effort he expended on behalf of the Democratic politicians that raised his taxes and are the ones claiming that he doesn't pay his fair share?

Sic hacer pace, para bellum.
Sent from my android.

No one said he was logically consistent. :friendly_wink:

LukeEDay
03-17-2013, 04:33 PM
These stupid liberals voted for it and wanted it, so they can deal with it. They made the bed, let them lie in it.

Odysseus
03-17-2013, 07:51 PM
No one said he was logically consistent. :friendly_wink:

Nope, but it would be nice if somebody pointed out that he's getting what he voted for. A few weeks ago, I mentioned on Facebook that a friend of mine and I had tried to shop for ammo at WalMart, and that the shelves were completely bare, and another friend of mine who I'd pretty much stopped interacting with after she became a total Obamaphile commented and complained about the price of ammunition, and how hard it was to get in California. I pointed out to her that this was what she'd voted for, and didn't get a response. Go figure.

Somebody needs to explain to these idiots that, as Obama keeps saying, elections have consequences, and if you vote for the Progressive ideologue with no clue how the world works, you end up with high taxes, restricted liberties and a collapsing economy.

Elspeth
03-17-2013, 08:25 PM
Nope, but it would be nice if somebody pointed out that he's getting what he voted for.

That depends on how he voted in state elections. The taxes he was complaining about were STATE taxes in California. His quote was "California could lose me." He was referring to the newly passed state propositions that raise taxes on "the wealthy" like Prop 30. Technically, Obama doesn't have anything to do with these state props.

Now you might argue that that's splitting hairs, but, in actuality, Maher could have both supported Obama AND voted against Prop 30 (increases taxes on "the wealthy" and increases sales tax on everyone) and against the state and local spending propositions (like that on high speed rail) as well as the LA proposition increasing the city sales tax. Many Californians vote in just this way.

In fact, you'd be surprised just how many Californian's vote Democratic for ideological reasons but vote AGAINST state and local propositions that tax, borrow or spend. It may seem like a weird cognitive dissonance to others, but Californians identify strongly with socially liberal policies (gay marriage, abortion, drug legalization). The CA GOP scares the crap out of many Californians because of the anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion stances of the Republican party. Yes, sometimes Republicans get voted to statewide office (like governor) but they are always social liberals (ie, not true conservatives). Often, Californians will vote in a GOP governor to "balance out" a very liberal state legislature that loves to tax and spend. The true Californian is really a social liberal/fiscal conservative combination.

So depending on how he voted in the state elections, Maher's statement could be seen as having a certain logic to it. He supported Obama (for social/ideological/personal reasons) but does not support the tax increases (by proposition) passed last November. Nor may he support the new Democratic "super majorities" in both the State Assembly and the State Senate (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-usa-california-special-elections-idUSBRE92C1F720130313) which now allow House and Senate Democrats to raise taxes without a single Republican vote. A bit of history: Prop 13 (from the late 1970s) requires a 2/3 majority in both houses to pass new taxes. The Democratic party has been fighting this 2/3 majority requirement ever since, but the requirement has actually worked to keep taxes from skyrocketing too quickly. Now, with two super majorities, there's no check, no roadblock, nothing to stop new taxation except, perhaps Jerry Brown :biggrin-new:(Ok you know that's a joke. :friendly_wink:)

Add to this the fact that the most powerful caucus in the State Assembly is the Hispanic caucus and you can understand why we're all justifiably worried here. The truth of California is that the middle class is actually moving out, many going to Arizona and Texas, despite their socially conservative legislatures. In the end, you can scrape the money together for your own abortion if you can keep more of your own money to begin with. California has actually had a net loss of population in the past decade. The middle class is moving out; the illegal aliens have (temporarily) stopped coming but will return when the economy improves. Now, some high-profile rich folks are making public statements about leaving. It's a bad omen.

The millionaire class (not the really wealthy in my opinion, especially those in single digits) are beginning to feel the pinch. Folks like Maher are quickly realizing that California, with the highest state tax, with one of the the highest sales taxes in the country (almost 10%), and with lots of new taxes either recently passed or to come, is quickly becoming inhospitable to anyone with even a small level of financial comfort.

RobJohnson
03-18-2013, 06:23 AM
Obama supporters want everyone to pay more taxes except for themselves.

Maher you own this. Suck it.

Odysseus
03-18-2013, 09:13 AM
That depends on how he voted in state elections. The taxes he was complaining about were STATE taxes in California. His quote was "California could lose me." He was referring to the newly passed state propositions that raise taxes on "the wealthy" like Prop 30. Technically, Obama doesn't have anything to do with these state props.

Now you might argue that that's splitting hairs, but, in actuality, Maher could have both supported Obama AND voted against Prop 30 (increases taxes on "the wealthy" and increases sales tax on everyone) and against the state and local spending propositions (like that on high speed rail) as well as the LA proposition increasing the city sales tax. Many Californians vote in just this way.

In fact, you'd be surprised just how many Californian's vote Democratic for ideological reasons but vote AGAINST state and local propositions that tax, borrow or spend. It may seem like a weird cognitive dissonance to others, but Californians identify strongly with socially liberal policies (gay marriage, abortion, drug legalization). The CA GOP scares the crap out of many Californians because of the anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion stances of the Republican party. Yes, sometimes Republicans get voted to statewide office (like governor) but they are always social liberals (ie, not true conservatives). Often, Californians will vote in a GOP governor to "balance out" a very liberal state legislature that loves to tax and spend. The true Californian is really a social liberal/fiscal conservative combination.

So depending on how he voted in the state elections, Maher's statement could be seen as having a certain logic to it. He supported Obama (for social/ideological/personal reasons) but does not support the tax increases (by proposition) passed last November. Nor may he support the new Democratic "super majorities" in both the State Assembly and the State Senate (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-usa-california-special-elections-idUSBRE92C1F720130313) which now allow House and Senate Democrats to raise taxes without a single Republican vote. A bit of history: Prop 13 (from the late 1970s) requires a 2/3 majority in both houses to pass new taxes. The Democratic party has been fighting this 2/3 majority requirement ever since, but the requirement has actually worked to keep taxes from skyrocketing too quickly. Now, with two super majorities, there's no check, no roadblock, nothing to stop new taxation except, perhaps Jerry Brown :biggrin-new:(Ok you know that's a joke. :friendly_wink:)

Add to this the fact that the most powerful caucus in the State Assembly is the Hispanic caucus and you can understand why we're all justifiably worried here. The truth of California is that the middle class is actually moving out, many going to Arizona and Texas, despite their socially conservative legislatures. In the end, you can scrape the money together for your own abortion if you can keep more of your own money to begin with. California has actually had a net loss of population in the past decade. The middle class is moving out; the illegal aliens have (temporarily) stopped coming but will return when the economy improves. Now, some high-profile rich folks are making public statements about leaving. It's a bad omen.

The millionaire class (not the really wealthy in my opinion, especially those in single digits) are beginning to feel the pinch. Folks like Maher are quickly realizing that California, with the highest state tax, with one of the the highest sales taxes in the country (almost 10%), and with lots of new taxes either recently passed or to come, is quickly becoming inhospitable to anyone with even a small level of financial comfort.
I lived in California for eight years, and I know a number of people who vote that way, but let's be honest here. Bill Maher might have voted against the tax hikes, but he sure voted for the tax hikers, including Gerry Brown, and he's on the record as demanding that rich people who complain about taxes be vilified. In fact, he wrote a whole column about it for HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-rich-people-who-_b_737429.html?view=print&comm_ref=false):


Bill Maher.Host of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher"
Posted: September 24, 2010 08:50 AM

New Rule: Rich People Who Complain About Being Vilified Should Be Vilified

New Rule: The next rich person who publicly complains about being vilified by the Obama administration must be publicly vilified by the Obama administration. It's so hard for one person to tell another person what constitutes being "rich", or what tax rate is "too much." But I've done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy asshole.

And let's be clear: that's 3.6% only on income above 250 grand -- your first 250, that's still on the house. Now, this week we got some horrible news: that one in seven Americans are now living below the poverty line. But I want to point you to an American who is truly suffering: Ben Stein. You know Ben Stein, the guy who got rich because when he talks it sounds so boring it's actually funny. He had a game show on Comedy Central, does eye drop commercials, doesn't believe in evolution? Yeah, that asshole. I kid Ben -- so, the other day Ben wrote an article about his struggle. His struggle as a wealthy person facing the prospect of a slightly higher marginal tax rate. Specifically, Ben said that when he was finished paying taxes and his agents, he was left with only 35 cents for every dollar he earned. Which is shocking, Ben Stein has an agent? I didn't know Broadway Danny Rose was still working.

Ben whines in his article about how he's worked for every dollar he has -- if by work you mean saying the word "Bueller" in a movie 25 years ago. Which doesn't bother me in the slightest, it's just that at a time when people in America are desperate and you're raking in the bucks promoting some sleazy Free Credit Score dot-com... maybe you shouldn't be asking us for sympathy. Instead, you should be down on your knees thanking God and/or Ronald Reagan that you were lucky enough to be born in a country where a useless schmuck who contributes absolutely nothing to society can somehow manage to find himself in the top marginal tax bracket.

And you're welcome to come on the show anytime.

Now I can hear you out there saying, "Come on Bill, don't be so hard on Ben Stein, he does a lot of voiceover work, and that's hard work." Ok, it's true, Ben is hardly the only rich person these days crying like a baby who's fallen off his bouncy seat. Last week Mayor Bloomberg of New York complained that all his wealthy friends are very upset with mean ol' President Poopy-Pants: He said they all say the same thing: "I knew I was going to have to pay more taxes. But I didn't expect to be vilified." Poor billionaires -- they just can't catch a break.

First off, far from being vilified, we bailed you out -- you mean we were supposed to give you all that money and kiss your ass, too? That's Hollywood you're thinking of. FDR, he knew how to vilify; this guy, not so much. And second, you should have been vilified -- because you're the vill-ains! I'm sure a lot of you are very nice people. And I'm sure a lot of you are jerks. In other words, you're people. But you are the villains. Who do you think outsourced all the jobs, destroyed the unions, and replaced workers with desperate immigrants and teenagers in China. Joe the Plumber?

And right now, while we run trillion dollar deficits, Republicans are holding America hostage to the cause of preserving the Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest 1% of people, many of them dead. They say that we need to keep taxes on the rich low because they're the job creators. They're not. They're much more likely to save money through mergers and outsourcing and cheap immigrant labor, and pass the unemployment along to you.

Americans think rich people must be brilliant; no -- just ruthless. Meg Whitman is running for Governor out here, and her claim to fame is, she started e-Bay. Yes, Meg tapped into the Zeitgeist, the zeitgeist being the desperate need of millions of Americans to scrape a few dollars together by selling the useless crap in their garage. What is e-Bay but a big cyber lawn sale that you can visit without putting your clothes on?

Another of my favorites, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said, "I don't know where they're going to get all this money, because we're running out of rich people in this country." Actually, we have more billionaires here in the U.S. than all the other countries in the top ten combined, and their wealth grew 27% in the last year. Did yours? Truth is, there are only two things that the United States is not running out of: Rich people and bullshit. Here's the truth: When you raise taxes slightly on the wealthy, it obviously doesn't destroy the economy -- we know this, because we just did it -- remember the '90's? It wasn't that long ago. You were probably listening to grunge music, or dabbling in witchcraft. Clinton moved the top marginal rate from 36 to 39% -- and far from tanking, the economy did so well he had time to get his dick washed.

Even 39% isn't high by historical standards. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 91%. Under Nixon, it was 70%. Obama just wants to kick it back to 39 -- just three more points for the very rich. Not back to 91, or 70. Three points. And they go insane. Steve Forbes said that Obama, quote "believes from his inner core that people... above a certain income have more than they should have and that many probably have gotten it from ill-gotten ways." Which they have. Steve Forbes, of course, came by his fortune honestly: he inherited it from his gay egg-collecting, Elizabeth Taylor fag-hagging father, who inherited it from his father. Of course then they moan about the inheritance tax, how the government took 55% percent when Daddy died -- which means you still got 45% for doing nothing more than starting out life as your father's pecker-snot.

We don't hate rich people, but have a little humility about how you got it and stop complaining. Maybe the worst whiner of all: Stephen Schwarzman, #69 on Forbes' list of richest Americans, compared Obama's tax hike to "when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939." Wow. If Obama were Hitler, Mr. Schwarzman, I think your tax rate would be the least of your worries.

Bill Maher is host of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher", Friday's at 10:00PM



So, by Maher's own definition, he's a "ruthless" "greedy @$$hole" who was "lucky enough to be born in a country where a useless schmuck who contributes absolutely nothing to society can somehow manage to find himself in the top marginal tax bracket." Those are his hypocritcal words, and we should all make him eat them.



Obama supporters want everyone to pay more taxes except for themselves.

Maher you own this. Suck it.

Not only does he own it, he demanded it, and he also demanded that anyone who felt bad about it ought to be held up to public censure and ridicule. Let's start with him.

ComplexConservative
03-18-2013, 11:11 AM
Can we go back to the old stand by of tar and feathers?:evil-grin:

Odysseus
03-18-2013, 06:47 PM
Can we go back to the old stand by of tar and feathers?:evil-grin:

Maher is a Hollywood leftist. Tar and feathers are just another kink for him.

Elspeth
03-18-2013, 08:26 PM
I lived in California for eight years, and I know a number of people who vote that way, but let's be honest here. Bill Maher might have voted against the tax hikes, but he sure voted for the tax hikers, including Gerry Brown, and he's on the record as demanding that rich people who complain about taxes be vilified. In fact, he wrote a whole column about it for HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-rich-people-who-_b_737429.html?view=print&comm_ref=false):

So, by Maher's own definition, he's a "ruthless" "greedy @$$hole" who was "lucky enough to be born in a country where a useless schmuck who contributes absolutely nothing to society can somehow manage to find himself in the top marginal tax bracket." Those are his hypocritcal words, and we should all make him eat them.

Not only does he own it, he demanded it, and he also demanded that anyone who felt bad about it ought to be held up to public censure and ridicule. Let's start with him.


Once again, Ody, he was talking about Federal taxes and was arguing for a repeal of the Bush tax cuts. The state of California is a different thing altogether. One's philosophy about Federal taxes, and paying a few percent more for national stability (he seems to see it that way), can be entirely different from one's philosophy about paying excessive state taxes (more than anyone else in the country) for the programs of a state legislature that is out of control.

You are seeing "Taxes" as a general topic on which a person must have a consistent philosophy down the line, regardless of where these taxes are going. This is generally true of conservatives and liberals, but people like Maher (an "independent" who has never been a down the line liberal) are often selective in their beliefs on taxes.

Even liberals who generally support taxation are becoming fed up with California, not only because of the excessive 10% overall income tax rate, and the 10% overall sales tax (give or take), but because of where that money is going. Maher has repeatedly complained about LA streets and freeways, which are in awful condition in many parts of the city. The rise in taxes is not going to fix the 101 freeway; it's not even going into education like the governor promised. It's going into overbloated pensions that will not benefit those paying the taxes in the least. Maher strikes me as someone who is ok with taxes as long as they are going back into the community for the good of everyone. My guess is that, even he can't stand the thought of paying more taxes for over-inflated prison guard pensions.

Odysseus
03-19-2013, 11:07 AM
Once again, Ody, he was talking about Federal taxes and was arguing for a repeal of the Bush tax cuts. The state of California is a different thing altogether. One's philosophy about Federal taxes, and paying a few percent more for national stability (he seems to see it that way), can be entirely different from one's philosophy about paying excessive state taxes (more than anyone else in the country) for the programs of a state legislature that is out of control.

That is not what Maher said:


Pointing at Virginia’s former Republican Congressman Tom Davis, Maher said, “You know what? Rich people – I’m sure you’d agree with this – actually do pay the freight in this country.”

“I just saw these statistics,” he continued, “I mean, something like 70 percent. And here in California, I just want to say liberals – you could actually lose me. It’s outrageous what we’re paying – over 50 percent. I’m willing to pay my share, but yeah, it’s ridiculous.”


Note that he said "country", not state. He's clearly talking about the combined federal and state bite (unless California has a 50% bracket that I'm not aware of). And, he talks about how the rich "actually do pay the freight in this country", citing the fact that the top 10% pay 70% of all taxes, which directly contradicts what he said two years ago:


"Even 39% isn't high by historical standards. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate was 91%. Under Nixon, it was 70%. Obama just wants to kick it back to 39 -- just three more points for the very rich. Not back to 91, or 70. Three points. And they go insane. Steve Forbes said that Obama, quote "believes from his inner core that people... above a certain income have more than they should have and that many probably have gotten it from ill-gotten ways." Which they have."


If you go back and read his rant, Maher attacked Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor of California. Do you doubt for a moment that he supported Brown? He voted for this, and he has made a career of throwing venom at anyone who didn't. And he's clearly not just talking about state taxes, but the total tax bite. It's his turn to be held up as a hypocrite.


You are seeing "Taxes" as a general topic on which a person must have a consistent philosophy down the line, regardless of where these taxes are going. This is generally true of conservatives and liberals, but people like Maher (an "independent" who has never been a down the line liberal) are often selective in their beliefs on taxes.

Please don't tell me what I'm seeing. I know the difference between state and federal taxes, and I understand that there are things best done at the local, state or federal level, or that should not be done by government at all. Maher's complaint is that he's paying too much, not just to the state, but across the board, which directly contradicts his statements in his column.

Maher is about as independent as the DNC. He calls himself an independent and libertarian, but he's about as independent as the DNC. He's always favored high progressive taxation, income redistribution, racial preferences, government funding of abortion, absolute gun control, bans on home schooling, animal rights activist (he is a board member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the most radical environmentalism. He's not an independent. However, he is a hypocrite. He favors high progressive taxes and income redistribution until it's his income that's being redistributed. He's a global warming crank who lives in a mansion, drives around in limos and lives a lifestyle whose carbon footprint is up there with Al Gore's and he's a feminist who flagrantly insults women in the most vulgar possible terms. The guy has no moral compass, just a bunch of positions that make him feel good about himself at our expense.


Even liberals who generally support taxation are becoming fed up with California, not only because of the excessive 10% overall income tax rate, and the 10% overall sales tax (give or take), but because of where that money is going. Maher has repeatedly complained about LA streets and freeways, which are in awful condition in many parts of the city. The rise in taxes is not going to fix the 101 freeway; it's not even going into education like the governor promised. It's going into overbloated pensions that will not benefit those paying the taxes in the least. Maher strikes me as someone who is ok with taxes as long as they are going back into the community for the good of everyone. My guess is that, even he can't stand the thought of paying more taxes for over-inflated prison guard pensions.

How does he strike you that way, when his actual words directly contradict that? Maher isn't upset about California's wastrel spending, he's upset because he's suddenly having to pay more, much more, under the Democrats at every level that he spent millions of dollars of his own money to put into office and keep there. He's a hypocritical windbag and I really don't understand your defense of him.