Taxing the rich...yeah, that works...

[billc]

The wealthy in France are leaving. I guess a 75% tax on millionaires isn't too appealing to...well...millionaires. I guess the next step is to set up a special police force at the border to take the rich into custody so they can be made to comply...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...llande-Wants-The-Rich-to-Pay-Their-Fair-Share

[h=2] And although he didn't use Obama's exact words, his intent was clear: it's time for the rich to pay their fair share. The rich got the message and have begun an exodus from France.[/h]Some of the proposed tax hikes include a 75% tax rate on all earnings over one million euros, 45% (up from 41%) on all incomes over 72,000 euros, and higher taxes on second homes as well. In essence, Hollande is planning to squeeze even more money out of the producers in his country so that he can use that money to fund his government and feed the masses that have grown accustomed to cradle-to-grave social services.

Yes, the "Nanny State," is a slow death for liberty.

 

[Flying Crane]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

you are always good for a laugh.

 

[pgsmith]

Nearly 100,000 U.S. millionaires pay lower tax rates than middle class

Perhaps we aren't France after all?

Political rhetoric (be it conservative or liberal) reveals alot about a person.

 

[WC_lun]

Wait, I can agree with something Billi said, we shouldn't be taxing our rich at %75. However, I think they should pay a bit more than those who aren't as wealthy. Since we do not tax our wealthy at %75, the OP seems to be a waste of time AND a failed attack attempt.

 

[K-man]

So how 'rich' do you have to be until you pay no tax? If the rich don't pay their fair share, then the country from which they created their wealth can't be maintained. Then you have 'quantitative easing' or printing money which leads to inflation and further increases the gap between rich and poor.

 

[Big Don]

Wait, I can agree with something Billi said, we shouldn't be taxing our rich at %75. However, I think they should pay a bit more than those who aren't as wealthy. Since we do not tax our wealthy at %75, the OP seems to be a waste of time AND a failed attack attempt.

So, we're going to ignore that the rich pay the lion's share of taxes already and punish them for being successful?

 

[billc]

That's the plan...

 

[pgsmith]

So, we're going to ignore that the rich pay the lion's share of taxes already and punish them for being successful?

So, you figure that asking them to pay the same tax rate that I do is punishing them? Are you saying that because they make more money than me, we should give them a lower rate as a reward? That's what we've been doing to this point. Personally, I think our current tax system is incredibly stupid. However, if they're going to keep it they should at least apply it fairly, and not give extra tax breaks to those that don't need them. Perhaps you should try actually reading what I linked to.

Nearly 100,000 U.S. millionaires pay lower tax rates than middle class

 

[Big Don]

So, you figure that asking them to pay the same tax rate that I do is punishing them? Are you saying that because they make more money than me, we should give them a lower rate as a reward? That's what we've been doing to this point. Personally, I think our current tax system is incredibly stupid. However, if they're going to keep it they should at least apply it fairly, and not give extra tax breaks to those that don't need them. Perhaps you should try actually reading what I linked to.

Nearly 100,000 U.S. millionaires pay lower tax rates than middle class

You understand, don't you that 20% of $5,000,000 is a whole lot more than 25% of $50,000 don't you?

 

[WC_lun]

So, we're going to ignore that the rich pay the lion's share of taxes already and punish them for being successful?

Yet again someone must explain how mathmatics work. If you make more money that everybody else then you will pay more taxes than everybody else even if your tax rate is lower than everybody else's. That does not mean you are paying the same or greater percentage than anyone else. It means you make a lot more money than everyone else. So it is easier to see, Mr Blue makes $10,000 and is taxed 20% on it. That means he pays $2000 in taxes. Mr Red makes $100,000 and is taxed 10%, so he pays $10,000 in taxes. Mr Red pays more in taxes than Mr Blue, but Mr Blue has a lot more taken out of his income as taxes. That is how our taxes work right now. Understand?

In my opinion, the EFFECTIVE tax rate on the rich should at least be the same as the poor and middle class pay. Case in point, Mr Romney paid 15% of his income in taxes. Is that more or less than the percentage that you paid of your income? Most likely it was less. Why is that acceptable? By the way, I am only using Mr Romney's taxes as an example because his effective tax rate is easily verifiable for 2010.

 

[billc]

Here is Mitt Romney's net worth from wikipedia...

Personal wealth

As a result of his business career, by 2007, Romney and his wife had a net worth of between $190 and $250 million, most of it held in blind trustssince 2003.[SUP][87][/SUP] In 2012, it was estimated that he had amassed twice the net worth of the last eight presidents combined,[SUP][88][/SUP] and would rank among the four richest in American history if elected.[SUP][88][/SUP][SUP][89][/SUP]
An additional blind trust existed in the name of the Romneys' children and grandchildren that was valued at between $70 and $100 million as of 2007.[SUP][90][/SUP] The couple's net worth remained in the same range as of 2011, and was still held in blind trusts.[SUP][91][/SUP] In 2010, Romney and his wife received $21.7 million in income, almost all of it from investments, of which about $3 million went to federal income taxes (a rate of 13.9 percent, based upon the beneficial rate accorded investment income by the U.S. tax code) and almost $3 million to charity, including $1.5 million to the LDS Church.[SUP][92][/SUP]Romney has always tithed to the church, including stock from Bain Capital holdings.[SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][93][/SUP][SUP][94][/SUP] In 2010, the Romney family's Tyler Charitable Foundation gave out about $650,000, with some of it going to organizations that fight specific diseases such as cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis.[SUP][95][/SUP]

Soooo...

The couple's net worth remained in the same range as of 2011, and was still held in blind trusts.[SUP][91][/SUP] In 2010, Romney and his wife received $21.7 million in income, almost all of it from investments, of which about $3 million went to federal income taxes (a rate of 13.9 percent, based upon the beneficial rate accorded investment income by the U.S. tax code)

I think 3 million dollars is too much for any one citizen to pay in taxes, whatever the rate. That someone could look at someone who pays 3 million dollars, in just taxes, and say, "He didn't pay enough," is someone who needs a better moral compass. Just because he has a lot of money doesn't mean any one else is entitled to it.

And as to the greedy rich, Romney, and his wife gave huge amounts of their income to charity, after taking the 3 million dollar hit in taxes.

almost $3 million to charity, including $1.5 million to the LDS Church.[SUP][92][/SUP]Romney has always tithed to the church, including stock from Bain Capital holdings.[SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][93][/SUP][SUP][94][/SUP] In 2010, the Romney family's Tyler Charitable Foundation gave out about $650,000, with some of it going to organizations that fight specific diseases such as cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis.[SUP][95][/SUP]

So tell me how Romney is a bad guy with this kind of contribution to society. Has anyone here on martial talk given even close to 3 million dollars to charity plus another 650,000 to other specific charities. I'll tell you what, show me in your charitable giving that you gave close to that much, after paying 3 million dollars in taxes, and I'll take your points more seriously.

 

[WC_lun]

$3 million dollars to charity is a notable thing. However, that is 1 to 1.5 % of what he has made. I gave 10% last year to charity. I am sure Mr Romney also wrote that off his taxes, which is allowed by law and not a bad thing, but dims the claim he donated to charity through purely altruistic reasons. For many people it is about the not rich playing by one set of rules and the rich playing by another. Why shouldn't they pay the same tax percentages as everyone else? What is so special about the rich that they should get lower tax rates? That they pay more in total money as a reason is pure hogwash. They also have much more money left after taxes.

 

[Empty Hands]

You understand, don't you that 20% of $5,000,000 is a whole lot more than 25% of $50,000 don't you?

By this mendacious argument, a tax rate of 100% on a $10,000 income is exactly equivalent to a 1% tax rate on a $1,000,000 income. Good luck with that.

 

[elder999]

On the one hand, it's pretty clear that our current tax structure is unfair to the middle class.

On the other hand, it's pretty unfair that when the tax rates change next year, and Rita-that's the wife-and I are in that lovely, nearly 40% bracket, my annual salary-which pretty much is 40% of our combined salaries (which were a matter of public record, once, so I don't really care)-will all go to income taxes.....chaps my butt bigtime, it does.

On the other hand, it's also pretty unfair that my income from Walmart stock dividends this year-which is on track to exceed my salary by a little less than $10k-is only taxed at 15%-the nearly 40% next year is also unfair, though.....

The way our government taxes us is just a mess-and few people really comprehend the relationship between taxation and the economy at all. That includes you billi-the U.S. has a much lower tax rate on the wealthy than a lot of countries, but it's worth pointing out that our tax rates on the highest income were at their highest when the country's economy was at it's strongest-that's actually been pretty consistently true.

I think some kind of sliding flat tax on all income-regardless of whether it's salary or from investments-would probably work best. By sliding I mean some sort of exclusion for those below "lower middle class," and some sort of slight increase for those who earn more than $1,000.000/yr.

With no deductions at all for charitable giving.

And, yeah, billi, we may not have given as much as Romney did to charity, but my family gave a little more than 10% of our annual income, as we do every year.

 

[elder999]

[h=1]Most Americans say tax rich to balance budget: poll[/h]

Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll showed.
The next most popular way -- chosen by 20 percent -- was to cut defense spending.

 

[ballen0351]

I'd rather see everyone pay something. Then the rich pay more. My sister is a dead beat single mom of three by three different looser guys two are in prison right now and the last one just got out like 3 months ago. She works a job making like 11 bucks an hour. Last year she got back every penny she paid in taxes plus 2200 more in tax refund then she actually paid. I know this because my wife helped her file. She has a negative tax rate and actually makes a profit off of her taxes and a pretty nice return rate at that.

 

[pgsmith]

I think 3 million dollars is too much for any one citizen to pay in taxes, whatever the rate. That someone could look at someone who pays 3 million dollars, in just taxes, and say, "He didn't pay enough," is someone who needs a better moral compass. Just because he has a lot of money doesn't mean any one else is entitled to it.

You don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. How can the actual amount that is paid make any difference at all? 27% of my income went to taxes last year. Another 13% went to various charities. The dollar amount is irrelevant. 27% percent of my income is still 27%, no matter if I made $10,000 or $10,000,000. If I am required to give up a certain percentage of my income to the government, why shouldn't someone who makes 10x what I do? You think that it's right and moral to punish me for not making enough money, and reward the rich for making more? It seems to me that you've got a real problem with your "moral compass", perhaps you should consider a career in politics?

And as to the greedy rich, Romney, and his wife gave huge amounts of their income to charity, after taking the 3 million dollar hit in taxes.

Yes, they did. However, they did it as a way to reduce their taxes, whereas I did it because I believe that the causes I support do a lot of good in our troubled world. And I still paid more of my limited income to charity than they did.

 

[Steve]

Hey I'm not going to comment on the percentage thing. I think you guys know where I fall on that.

But the money Romney gave to the lds church was a tithe. More like a tax than a donation. Not voluntary.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[billc]

Instead of trying to take more from Romney, how about getting the greedy politicians to take less from you. That would be a start in the right direction. Giving them more from anyone is just dumb. They spend it on themselves, increasing their power, so, vote for someone who will lower your taxes, not raising taxes on other people, especially on people who will avoid them anyway.

You know what, it makes a big difference what people actually pay. 3 million dollars is 3 million dollars. If you didn't pay that much at your tax rate, you still didn't pay as much as Romney, he is just more successful, financially than you. Don't hate him, go after the corrupt politicians. You may pay a bigger chunk of your salary, but who do you vote for? If you voted for anyone who said they want to raise taxes on anyone, you only have yourself to blame. If you are unhappy with your tax rate, as I am, then vote for the greedy politicians who will at least say they are going to lower taxes. If they don't, vote them out. That's how the system works.

You know, isn't it about time we stopped these politicians from turning us against each other, getting us to hate those who are successful, just to help them gain more power. Power that they will use against us, after they use us to attack the easy targets like Romney. He didn't steal his money, like politicians. He earned his money through hard work, the politicians earn their money from taking it from other people. There are bad poor people and their are bad rich people, and there are greedy, corrupt politicians. The ones who want to target the rich are some of the worst, because they won't stop at the rich. The real money is in the middle class, and after they use the poor and middle class against the rich, who do you think they will attack next?

 

[billc]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/poll-americans-want-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-everyone.php

A new poll by McClatchy/Marist finds that most Americans — including those on the low end of the income spectrum — favor keeping the Bush tax cuts in place for all Americans. According to the poll, 52 percent of registered voters say they want all of these tax cuts extended, including those for incomes above $250,000. 43 percent want the cuts extended just for incomes below that threshhold.
The results are essentially the same for voters at the lower end of the income spectrum. Those making less than $50,000 per year supported tax cuts for all incomes by 53 percent to 41 percent.
Whites and Hispanics both want to see the tax cuts for everyone, with Hispanics favoring this position more than whites. African-Americans were evenly divided.
Perhaps the most striking result was among voters ages 18-29. They favor tax cuts for everyone by a margin of 69-29, the largest margin of any age group.
Maybe there is hope for this country after all.

Fight to lower your own taxes, don't be a tool for greedy, corrupt politicians used to take other peoples money.