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

[elder999]

The rich aren't different from us, they just have more money.

Inasmuch as we are both going to die someday, we ate not different. Otherwise, one can see from our posts alone that we are vastly different, and, when you take into acount that the ajority of the mega wealthy-your Buffet or Gates-is saying that they should be taxed more, and is planning some sort of limit on how much of their wealth is inherited, in spite of your buying into and insisting upon the corporate generated proletarian meme of"trickle down" economics, one has to recognize that there are greater differences than just finances.

 

[celtic_crippler]

As evidenced in this thread as well as on a national scale, the current tax laws do nothing but breed dissent, animosity, and resentment.

"We hold these truths to be self evident that ALL men are created equal...." except under the tax code.

IMHO, there is only one way to handle tax and make it fair; only one way it would eliminate all the "hate", and that's a flat tax rate for everyone. Regardless of income, the same percent has to apply to everyone.

But it will never happen... because the government currently benefits from the dissent. It helps with their "class warfare" campaign.

Real leadership would instead encourage people to rise above and improve themselves, not blame the successful for their woes.

 

[Steve]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around billcihak's idea that a regressive tax structure is "fair." If the rich are the same as the rest of us, and taxes should be fair, and we presume that I've earned my meager wealth as much as a rich person has earned his or her fortune, then I'd like to know why the rich person should be allowed to pay a smaller percentage in taxes.

I'd love to hear a simple, rational explanation of the above, billcihak.

I'd also like to know whether any of the other people who are very critical of the Democrats agrees. Big Don? Celtic Crippler? Anyone?

 

[granfire]

Inasmuch as we are both going to die someday, we ate not different. Otherwise, one can see from our posts alone that we are vastly different, and, when you take into acount that the ajority of the mega wealthy-your Buffet or Gates-is saying that they should be taxed more, and is planning some sort of limit on how much of their wealth is inherited, in spite of your buying into and insisting upon the corporate generated proletarian meme of"trickle down" economics, one has to recognize that there are greater differences than just finances.

well, there was some trickling down...but it sure wasn't wealth....

 

[Empty Hands]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around billcihak's idea that a regressive tax structure is "fair." If the rich are the same as the rest of us, and taxes should be fair, and we presume that I've earned my meager wealth as much as a rich person has earned his or her fortune, then I'd like to know why the rich person should be allowed to pay a smaller percentage in taxes.

Because the wealthy own the Republican party, and the Republican party owns our friendly partisans. Thus whatever the Republican party stands for at the moment will be justified and rationalized - even if that is opposite to what the Republican party stood for 10 years ago. Or even 6 months ago. This dynamic is also how we get thousands of self-described Christians promoting the most un-Christlike policy and behavior imaginable.

The history of how the Republican party became associated with the wealthy is quite interesting, and it's actually not a bad thing. The Whigs and the Republicans they became were the main political force for abolition (except for a few, e.g. "cotton whigs") due to their ideology of "Free Soil and Free Labor". Also as a consequence, they promoted business interests and business friendly improvements like the US Bank. 150 years later, they still promote business interests, thus also the wealthy. How they also managed to pick up the forces of racism and reaction along the way is a sadder story.

Similarly, the current position of the Democrats can be traced back to Andrew Jackson and the opposition to the US Bank, internal improvements, free labor, and the like.

 

[pgsmith]

Real leadership would instead encourage people to rise above and improve themselves, not blame the successful for their woes.

Excuse me, but what on earth would possibly make you put the phrase "real leadership" in a forum on politics? Today's politics have absolutely nothing to do with "leadership", and everything to do with money and power.

Aaron, thanks for the insight!

One thing that always seems odd to me. Pgsmith, you said if you made 150 million dollars you would be happy to pay 50 million in taxes? Why? You would be giving that 50 million dollars over to the control of what almost every post on politics here on the study admits is a group of corrupt, greedy, degenerates who became politicians. They will use that 50 million dollars to line their own pockets, increase their own power and to get even more than that 50 million dollars from you. What they don't steal, they will waste or allow to be taken in fraud, and then they will print money to cover the money needed to fund the programs they were supposed to be supporting with your 50 million dollars. Wouldn't it make more sense for you to dole out that 50 million dollars to charities that you control? Wouldn't you do a better job of helping the really poor get a leg up because of your 50 million dollars? Why give it to politicians when you would handle it better and more efficiently?

Because if I had that much money (through some unknown miracle ) I would feel incredibly bad knowing that millions of people struggling to get by are having to pay more of their hard-earned wealth in taxes than me, when I can afford it so much easier than they can. It's something I don't have the necessary calluses to deal with, and I have no desire to develop them.

 

[billc]

Because if I had that much money (through some unknown miracle ) I would feel incredibly bad knowing that millions of people struggling to get by are having to pay more of their hard-earned wealth in taxes than me, when I can afford it so much easier than they can. It's something I don't have the necessary calluses to deal with, and I have no desire to develop them.​

Yeah, still not getting why giving that money to politicians would help those people struggling. You could take that 50 million dollars and send their kids to college, pay their medical bills, fix their homes, or pay off their mortgages. You could do it in a way where people who actually needed it would get it, not the political cronies of politicians who get it because they have powerful connections, or the politicians who would just use it to increase their power and election chances dolling out to those who could most help them get reelected. The politicians who would steal and waste the money, and then increase the debt to pay for the programs that your money should have helped in the first place. If you were that wealthy, you could actually oversee the use of "your" money, and make sure it wasn't wasted or stolen. Wouldn't that be a better use of that 50 million dollars than giving it to a corrupt political governing class in the form of taxes?​

 

[elder999]

Aaron, thanks for the insight!
.

On the other hand, to be fair, Ben and Jerry have managed to remain friends-and the most ruthless thing they've ever done, business wise, that I know of, is take on Haagen Dasz together. Tom Clancy, Stephen King, JK Rowling, and a bunch of other writers and artists have managed to become industries unto themselves without screwing anyone over. Likewise, several major sports figures, rock bands and other musicians.

On the other hand-speaking of bands-there's Creedence Clearwater Revival, just for starters-a band breakup accompanied by financial stress and stress over intellectual property that was so acrimonious that John Fogerty wouldn't visit his own brother on his deathbed.

Money can screw up the best of relationships, if not handled correctly, and make monsters of the best of people-they can even be "the best of people" if money isn't involved, and only turn into monsters when they see $$$$.

You don't get to be Mitt Romney, though, or Donald Trump, Warren Buffett, etc.-without gleefully stepping on a few necks-hard.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, still not getting why giving that money to politicians would help those people struggling. You could take that 50 million dollars and send their kids to college, pay their medical bills, fix their homes, or pay off their mortgages. You could do it in a way where people who actually needed it would get it, not the political cronies of politicians who get it because they have powerful connections, or the politicians who would just use it to increase their power and election chances dolling out to those who could most help them get reelected. The politicians who would steal and waste the money, and then increase the debt to pay for the programs that your money should have helped in the first place. If you were that wealthy, you could actually oversee the use of "your" money, and make sure it wasn't wasted or stolen. Wouldn't that be a better use of that 50 million dollars than giving it to a corrupt political governing class in the form of taxes?​

Yeah, still not getting why you won't explain why you believe rich people should pay a lower percentage than poor people in taxes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ballen0351]

Yeah, still not getting why you won't explain why you believe rich people should pay a lower percentage than poor people in taxes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Poor people dont pay taxes.
Id rather see the same tax rate for everyone, rich, middle, and the poor.

 

[ballen0351]

On the other hand, to be fair, Ben and Jerry have managed to remain friends-and the most ruthless thing they've ever done, business wise, that I know of, is take on Haagen Dasz together.

Ofc. Daniel Faulkner's family may disagree with that

 

[Steve]

Poor people dont pay taxes.
Id rather see the same tax rate for everyone, rich, middle, and the poor.

Thanks, ballen. But I was specifically asking billcihak to explain why he believes that rich people should pay less of a percentage than every one else, including you and me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Steve]

Poor people dont pay taxes.
Id rather see the same tax rate for everyone, rich, middle, and the poor.

And would it surprise you to learn that there are a large number of people in the top 20% who pay zero income tax? Weird, huh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Big Don]

And would it surprise you to learn that there are a large number of people in the top 20% who pay zero income tax? Weird, huh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, if you don't have income, you don't pay income taxes, regardless of how much you have in the bank...

 

[billc]

Because I look at the total paid by the individual. 3 million dollars paid by one person is enough for anyone to pay each year, and probably excessive. If the poor or middle class are paying too much, in actual dollars, it should be reduced as well.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, if you don't have income, you don't pay income taxes, regardless of how much you have in the bank...

Top 20% of EARNERS. If you have enough money to shelter your income to avoid taxes, you don't pay income taxes. It's all on the IRS.gov website. The statistical information and breakouts are right there. I've posted them here in the past. Do some research.

Look. It seems to me that you guys have a real problem with poor people who pay zero taxes. I'm just pointing out that you guys don't hold the very rich to the same standard. Just highlights that your issue with the people getting a free ride is essentially just a bigotry toward people who don't make a lot of money.

 

[Steve]

Because I look at the total paid by the individual. 3 million dollars paid by one person is enough for anyone to pay each year, and probably excessive. If the poor or middle class are paying too much, in actual dollars, it should be reduced as well.

What's "too much?" Could you define that please? Is it, say, a percentage of one's income? In actual dollars, what's too much for a middle class family with a total income of $60,000 per year? If a family makes $100,000/year, what's "too much" for them? You're waffling like crazy right now, using abstract terms that have no actual meaning. "Too much, in actual dollar." That's double speak.

 

[billc]

Yes, we hate people who pay zero taxes, you've nailed it and you have outed us. No not really. I'm willing to say 15% of any income stream to make it easier, but at some point there is a "too much," for any individual to pay to the government. 3 million dollars is too much. I have been pretty clear as well, 35-40 grand that no one pays any taxes on and then 15-20 percent flat tax on any revenue stream...but, I also think that there should be a cap on what any one person can pay in taxes no matter how much they make. I mean, if someone is giving 3 million dollars to the government in taxes, they should get a medal, not be the subject of hate.

 

[Steve]

Yes, we hate people who pay zero taxes, you've nailed it and you have outed us.

Never said that. I've said that some here have gone on record as being vehemently opposed to the bottom 20% paying no taxes. It's an observation, not a conclusion. In other words, I'm only repeating what has been said. Another observation is that Don and Ballen (and a few others) have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that someone in the upper 20% of earners who pays zero taxes doesn't bother them. The conclusion is that it's not the idea of paying zero taxes that's an issue. The real issue is poor people paying zero taxes.

No not really.

Kind of. Pretty much. Yeah. Really.

I'm willing to say 15% of any income stream to make it easier, but at some point there is a "too much," for any individual to pay to the government. 3 million dollars is too much.

But... what about for the middle class family who makes $100,000 per year? You said that they shouldn't pay "too much, in actual dollars." What does that mean? Could you be more specific? Or are you saying $3 million is your cut off? You've used that dollar amount several times. Are you saying that $3,000,000 is okay, but $3,000,001 is too much? Period? If I make $8 Gazillion dollars per year, I've fulfilled my civic duty (in your opinion) by paying a lump sum of $3 million to the government. After that, my income should be tax free?

I have been pretty clear as well, 35-40 grand that no one pays any taxes on and then 15-20 percent flat tax on any revenue stream...but, I also think that there should be a cap on what any one person can pay in taxes no matter how much they make. I mean, if someone is giving 3 million dollars to the government in taxes, they should get a medal, not be the subject of hate.

Right. So, there's that middle ground where at $100,000 /year up to about $10million per year, I'm paying a higher percentage than someone who makes $2 billion per year. Because you're suggesting that we institute a regressive tax schedule.

It's cool if you believe this. It's your opinion. Just don't pretend it's "fair." It is in no way fair. And also, this is a seperate discussion than the apparent bigotry toward the poor that ballen and Big Don are demonstrating.

 

[ballen0351]

Top 20% of EARNERS. If you have enough money to shelter your income to avoid taxes, you don't pay income taxes. It's all on the IRS.gov website. The statistical information and breakouts are right there. I've posted them here in the past. Do some research.

Look. It seems to me that you guys have a real problem with poor people who pay zero taxes. I'm just pointing out that you guys don't hold the very rich to the same standard. Just highlights that your issue with the people getting a free ride is essentially just a bigotry toward people who don't make a lot of money.

No I think everyone should pay the same amount regardless of income level. A nice flat tax rate of say 15%. Then the give the govt the budget and say you can't borrow more you have X amount of money this year deal with it.