Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    3:44 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Do you think the "rich" should be paying more in taxes? Back to Topics
101Speedster

Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,641
Points:2,861,230
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Aug 20, 2005 3:12:20 PM

If so, how do you define rich?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,375
Points:2,800,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 3:40:04 PM

Chiefaz - "There you go again! Social Security is NOT a government transfer of money akin to the other items you list. Social Security and Medicare are paid for by the people. It was always referred to as insurance. You pay in all your working life and they sent you a monthly stipend to exist on when you can no longer work."

I was just quoting the document that Soylent linked to.

"Government spent all the money and left IOU's."

What were they supposed to do, stuff it all in mattresses and create a Fort Knox for the mattresses? Or lend it to the government and collect interest on it?

"Be correct on your assertions, they leave the wrong impression on the youngsters. We ARE NOT spending their money!"

Obviously, you're retired. That makes you the enemy of the RWNJs who want to destroy SS.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,375
Points:2,800,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 3:35:14 PM

SoylentGrain - "RJ, when you speak of "The "wealthy" are sucking up almost all of the growth, leaving little or nothing nothing for the rest" , that's zero sum game propaganda speak."

Again, you're ignoring the word "growth". Zero sum games don't have growth, they merely redistribute a fixed amount of assets around. The economy has growth. Therefore, your use of "zero sum game" is just a strawman.

"Wealth is created by individual effort. If you are not doing the things to grow or are not placing yourself in a position to grow, that's your fault."

Unless you are "doing the things to grow" the economy, but someone else is taking the results of those efforts. In this case, that means that workers are putting forth the individual effort to grow the economy, but their employers are the only ones benefiting from that individual effort.
Profile Pic
lpatti1
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:10,978
Points:2,437,655
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 12:56:23 PM

I pay toooo much already & I'm already poor!
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,486
Points:1,432,185
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 12:43:29 PM

RJ
There you go again! Social Security is NOT a government transfer of money akin to the other items you list. Social Security and Medicare are paid for by the people. It was always referred to as insurance. You pay in all your working life and they sent you a monthly stipend to exist on when you
can no longer work. Was also intended to get the old people to quit work to make room for the younger generation. Government spent all the money and left IOU's. Now the paying back is out of taxpayer inputs.
Be correct on your assertions, they leave the wrong impression on the youngsters. We ARE NOT spending their money!
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,486
Points:1,432,185
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 12:36:33 PM

Weaselspit
Go back to school. Socialism is where the government controls the companies. Communism is where the government owns the companies. A vast
difference !
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,185
Points:21,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 7:14:14 AM

RJ, when you speak of "The "wealthy" are sucking up almost all of the growth, leaving little or nothing nothing for the rest" , that's zero sum game propaganda speak. Wealth is created by individual effort. If you are not doing the things to grow or are not placing yourself in a position to grow, that's your fault.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,375
Points:2,800,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 2:17:14 AM

Cirdan - "The amazing thing is they don't even understand how their (liberal) arguments are inherently contradictory. On the one hand, it's a zero sum game and the rich take away from the poor. At the same time they support classic Keynes economics, calling for massive government spending to stimulate the economy through the multiplier effect. In other words, it's a positive sum game. . . unless you want to take a cheap shot at rich people."

Since you and Soylent are the only ones talking about a "zero sum game", it seems your counterarguments are simply strawmen.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,375
Points:2,800,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 2:15:32 AM

SoylentGrain - "RJ, I wasn't talking about the paper. I was referring to asking legislators not to enact any new tax incentives."

Then you changed the subject, which was why the upper 40% is getting somewhere around 20% of "government transfers", as defined by the paper you linked to.

"Yes, the zero sum game propaganda."

Apparently you don't understand your own arguments. A "zero sum game" doesn't have any growth. There's a fixed amount of assets, so one person's gain is another's loss.

What we have is growth, or an increase in total assets, but with almost all of that growth going to a small segment of the population, leaving little or none of the growth to the rest. That restricts future growth.
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,539
Points:139,585
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 12:35:39 AM

"The "wealthy" are sucking up almost all of the growth, leaving little or nothing for the rest. Which means less consumer spending and a stagnant economy."

"Yes, the zero sum game propaganda."

The amazing thing is they don't even understand how their (liberal) arguments are inherently contradictory. On the one hand, it's a zero sum game and the rich take away from the poor. At the same time they support classic Keynes economics, calling for massive government spending to stimulate the economy through the multiplier effect. In other words, it's a positive sum game. . . unless you want to take a cheap shot at rich people.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,185
Points:21,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2014 12:09:54 AM

RJ, I wasn't talking about the paper. I was referring to asking legislators not to enact any new tax incentives.

"The "wealthy" are sucking up almost all of the growth, leaving little or nothing for the rest. Which means less consumer spending and a stagnant economy."

Yes, the zero sum game propaganda. There's nothing preventing you from creating your own growth.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,375
Points:2,800,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 4:51:32 PM

SoylentGrain - "Everything."

That's not what your link says: "Government transfers consist of cash payments from Social Security, unemployment insurance, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (and its predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children), veterans’ programs, workers’ compensation, and state and local government assistance programs. Such transfers also include the value of in-kind benefits: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program vouchers (popularly known as food stamps); school lunches and breakfasts; housing assistance; and energy assistance and benefits provided by Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Health care benefits are measured using the Census Bureau’s estimates of the average cost to the government of providing those benefits."

"Its not a zero sum game."

Apparently you didn't understand the word "increase".

The "wealthy" are sucking up almost all of the growth, leaving little or nothing for the rest. Which means less consumer spending and a stagnant economy.

And, ultimately, a smaller pie.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,185
Points:21,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 4:09:26 PM

"Is any of that included in the figures for "cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs"?"

Everything.

"It's not about "preventing the 'wealthy' from growing income". It's about getting them to stop grabbing all of the increase for themselves."

Its not a zero sum game.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,375
Points:2,800,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 1:31:51 PM

Chiefaz - "I pay attention. That's how I see you destroying the tax base in this country and with it most of the jobs. And, the taxes that go with them."

Wow, I didn't know I'd become King.

What's destroying the tax base and jobs is the "rich", by paying people less and moving businesses to other countries where they can exploit the actual workers more easily.

Of course, in the long run, that's hurting their customer base here, as fewer people have money to spend on their products.

As the current economy demonstrates.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,375
Points:2,800,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 1:28:03 PM

SoylentGrain - "Great point. Tell your congressman not to vote for any bills that provide incentives for investment. Im dead serious. No incentives for solar, energy efficient cars, and on and on. No tax breaks or subsidies to anyone, regardless of income level. Just stop it."

Is any of that included in the figures for "cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs"?

"And preventing the "wealthy" from growing income will help you how?"

It's not about "preventing the 'wealthy' from growing income". It's about getting them to stop grabbing all of the increase for themselves.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 1:27:37 PM

"About like Stalin did when he took over. I call that communist."

Weird, most accuse people of being 'Socialist' these days...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 1:27:03 PM

"Come on now. You have raised the implications of state and local taxes several times now. Use your head."

Again, you might want to research that a bit more. When you include State and Local taxes, the gap in taxes paid decreases between the top and every one else - it doesn't increase.

Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,486
Points:1,432,185
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 12:09:17 PM

RJHenn
I pay attention. That's how I see you destroying the tax base in this country and with it most of the jobs. And, the taxes that go with them.
About like Stalin did when he took over. I call that communist.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,185
Points:21,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 9:38:11 AM

"You might want to find a link to back that claim up before making condescending comments..."

Come on now. You have raised the implications of state and local taxes several times now. Use your head. The person making $10,000 or $25,000, typically, will not own vast amounts of land. Therefore, minimal or no property tax liability. Ther person in the top 20% income bracket will at a minimum, have a nice home and incure a significant local tax liability.

These are public records. Take any low income and high income individuals you want to compare. Go online and searce the tax records. You will find the low income person pays no or next to nothing. The guy making $200,000 will have tax liabilities that are tens of thousands of dollars, if not higher.

Just like the federal portion, almost all that money flows to benefit people who paid little into the system.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 24, 2014 9:11:13 AM

"You read the title. But, it doesnt take too sharp a pencil to calculate the "rich" guy pays a bunch more in state and local taxes as well."

You might want to find a link to back that claim up before making condescending comments...
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,185
Points:21,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 8:17:35 PM

"If you could quote where it specifies sate and local taxes, it would help."

You read the title. But, it doesnt take too sharp a pencil to calculate the "rich" guy pays a bunch more in state and local taxes as well.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,185
Points:21,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 8:09:35 PM

"So why is the upper 40% getting any of that ("Government transfers include cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs."), when they've got over 70% of total income?"

Great point. Tell your congressman not to vote for any bills that provide incentives for investment. Im dead serious. No incentives for solar, energy efficient cars, and on and on. No tax breaks or subsidies to anyone, regardless of income level. Just stop it.

"Also notice Figure 2, which tells us a lot about what's wrong with the current economy."

And preventing the "wealthy" from growing income will help you how?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 3:42:26 PM

teacher_tim: "So now you're saying ..." strawman, strawman, strawman,

No. I said what I said.

Anything you make up and assign to me is what you made up and assigned to me.

Please try again. I said my view. What's is YOURS?

Oh, here it is:

"How about everyone pays the exact same flat tax rate on everything? The more you make, the more you pay, regardless of source. Everything from dividends and capital gains to welfare and WIC is taxed exactly the same. If there is money coming in to an individual, they pay a set tax rate on it, just like everyone else. No exemptions, no tax breaks for ANYTHING. "

Great plan. Except the ones we are supporting can't afford to pay anything.

Instead of taxing what comes in I like the pay tax on what you spend plan better.

It's called the FairTax. It makes a helluva lot of sense. Please check it out thoroughly before forming a view on it. It promotes a healthy economy, reduces planned obsolescence, favors quality over planned obsolescence and protects the environment by reducing the amount of cheap product waste going into landfills.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,375
Points:2,800,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 3:25:21 PM

SoylentGrain - "Again, the CBO paper contradicts your claim."

The title of the paper is "The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010", so, no, it doesn't contradict his claim.

"Furthermore, the paper details that approximately 80 % of all government transfers go to the bottom 60% of tax filers."

So why is the upper 40% getting any of that ("Government transfers include cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs."), when they've got over 70% of total income?

Those government transfers are included in "income". Even with that, notice from the cover how the picture changes if you assume that the 5% level is the poverty rate.

Also notice Figure 2, which tells us a lot about what's wrong with the current economy.

("For example, real capital gains income rose by 55 percent from 2009 to 2010, although it was still 60 percent below the peak reached in 2007, and dividends and business income also grew rapidly from 2009 to 2010, by 10 percent and 12 percent, respectively. In contrast, wage income, the most important source for households in the lower 80 percent of the distribution, grew by less than 1 percent in real terms from 2009 to 2010. Transfer income, which is quite important to the lower income quintiles, grew by less than 2 percent in real terms.")

[Edited by: rjhenn at 10/23/2014 3:26:46 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,375
Points:2,800,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 3:08:17 PM

Chiefaz - "You turned out to be a communist!"

Demonstrating once again that you're apparently incapable of paying attention.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,375
Points:2,800,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 3:07:29 PM

flyboyUT - "RJ - why exempt any income. Do these folks who you wish to exempt not use the services of the govt? Fair means everyone pays the same percentage on their income ---- regardless of source."

Sure, if you want to keep the economy stuck in neutral. people can't spend money they don't have, at least not without making things a lot worse.

And money you take away from the poor is less that they have available to better themselves.

Which only means continuing the cycle of poverty.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,347
Points:2,956,925
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 2:51:03 PM

"The good news is that, according to the Obama administration, the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is that, according to the Obama administration, you're rich." - P. J. O'Rourke

Weaslespit - "The best solution I have seen on this thread was from airfresh. A flat tax on anything over, say $50K. Fair AND progressive."

I lean towards a National Sales Tax, collected at the cash register, just like our state sales tax. It eliminates the government monitoring of income and the vast expenses that come with that. Also, what you tax, you get less of, and what you subsidize, you get more of. Taxing income produces lower income, while taxing spending would encourage income and more savings.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,486
Points:1,432,185
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 2:41:03 PM

RJHenn
Let's see. You want to tax "rich" people more and make them pay any employees more. Good recipe for making all business head overseas. Oh, that's right you also want to make the "rich" pay taxes on anything made
overseas. Good recipe for getting those "rich" people to renounce their U.S. citizenship. Great ideal, get rid of all the people paying taxes.
You turned out to be a communist!

[Edited by: Chiefaz at 10/23/2014 2:41:43 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 12:59:05 PM

"Can you not read?"

It is a pretty large document, I have only been able to skim through it. If you could quote where it specifies sate and local taxes, it would help.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,185
Points:21,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 11:08:45 AM

Can you not read?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 10:23:25 AM

"Again, the CBO paper contradicts your claim."

How so? It focuses on Federal taxes?
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,185
Points:21,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 10:12:20 AM

"Do they not pay payroll taxes? Sales taxes? Etc. When you factor those taxes, including state taxes, into the equation the 'rich' are not so overpaying as some would make it seem. They make a lot, they pay a lot."

Again, the CBO paper contradicts your claim. Furthermore, the paper details that approximately 80 % of all government transfers go to the bottom 60% of tax filers.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 9:54:46 AM

"CBO Paper"

"The more money you make the higher the real tax rate and the higher the real dollars paid."

It is progressive, no doubt. It is also haphazard in how it accomplishes this.

Here's the real problem I have with misinformation;

"If we could get the bottom 50%, probably including you, pay some taxes, we would be much better off."

Do they not pay payroll taxes? Sales taxes? Etc. When you factor those taxes, including state taxes, into the equation the 'rich' are not so overpaying as some would make it seem. They make a lot, they pay a lot. The tax cuts enacted under W have clearly served no purpose in 'creating jobs' nor stimulating the economy, much less helping make it robust and healthy, so they should be allowed to expire for those making over, say $450K (an arbitrary threshold which matches was previously discussed).
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,185
Points:21,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 9:27:44 AM

CBO Paper
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 9:11:42 AM

Can you fix you link?

The best solution I have seen on this thread was from airfresh. A flat tax on anything over, say $50K. Fair AND progressive.

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 10/23/2014 9:12:55 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,185
Points:21,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 9:04:12 AM

CBO doesn't agree with you, weasel pit.

CBO article

The reality is the US tax code is brutially progressive. The more money you make the higher the real tax rate and the higher the real dollars paid.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 8:32:29 AM

The rich pay over 70% of the taxes now.

How much of the income do they take in?

"Add all the rest property taxes, taxes on vehicles, planes and other toys that the rich like and their contribution to the country is tremendous."

You're forgetting to add-in all of the tax breaks they get, thus an effective tax rate lower than what most American families pay...
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,539
Points:139,585
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 1:46:52 AM

I don't object to a progressive tax system, even though most of my work career I've been in the higher tax brackets.

I object to worthless, mathematically challenged, demagogues claiming they can spend trillions of dollars on all sorts of stupid things, then claiming it won't cost "us" anything because they'll just tax the "rich."

The math doesn't work, even if you define "rich" as anyone with a paying job.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,174
Points:1,524,820
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 6:42:03 PM

RJ - why exempt any income. Do these folks who you wish to exempt not use the services of the govt? Fair means everyone pays the same percentage on their income ---- regardless of source.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,375
Points:2,800,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 5:49:31 PM

teacher_tim - "How about everyone pays the exact same flat tax rate on everything? The more you make, the more you pay, regardless of source. Everything from dividends and capital gains to welfare and WIC is taxed exactly the same. If there is money coming in to an individual, they pay a set tax rate on it, just like everyone else. No exemptions, no tax breaks for ANYTHING."

So, increase the burden on the poor, make it harder for them to get ahead, just so the rich have even more money?

The only way a flat tax makes sense is if there's a substantial individual exemption. Say, the first $30,000 of income is exempt from income tax, indexed to inflation. Keep it simple.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,375
Points:2,800,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 5:46:17 PM

Chiefaz - "The rich pay over 70% of the taxes now. And that's only the income taxes."

Only if you consider anyone making over $100,000 "rich".

"If we could get the bottom 50%, probably including you, pay some taxes, we would be much better off. It's called sharing the bounty and sharing the burden."

If we could get the wealthy to share the "bounty", by paying those who do the actual work more, there'd be no need to raise taxes.



[Edited by: rjhenn at 10/22/2014 5:51:53 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,174
Points:1,524,820
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 12:53:41 PM

Yeaaaaaaaaa for Tim - I am for it.....

Everyone pays the exact same rate on any kind of incoming in. Now that sounds fair.

NO exceptions, special types of income, deductions or none of that.

The tax system or forms could be real simple - What was your total income regardeless of source - multiply it by the country wide everyone's equal % and send it in.

Simple and fair. We all benefit from living here and we should all pay to operate it. No more free rides for anyone.

Oh yeah - one more minor change - the penalty for failing to pay your taxes will be expulsion from the country.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 10/22/2014 12:54:42 PM EST]
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,359
Points:827,710
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 12:28:44 PM

"The rich are the only group which can afford to pay more taxes without feeling it."

So now you're saying that we should pay based on what we feel would be appropriate. Or is it that some arbitrary "doesn't bother me" quotient would be better?

How about everyone pays the exact same flat tax rate on everything? The more you make, the more you pay, regardless of source. Everything from dividends and capital gains to welfare and WIC is taxed exactly the same. If there is money coming in to an individual, they pay a set tax rate on it, just like everyone else. No exemptions, no tax breaks for ANYTHING.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,486
Points:1,432,185
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 12:20:30 PM

Weaselspit
The rich pay over 70% of the taxes now. And that's only the income taxes.
Add all the rest property taxes, taxes on vehicles, planes and other toys that the rich like and their contribution to the country is tremendous.
If we could get the bottom 50%, probably including you, pay some taxes, we would be much better off. It's called sharing the bounty and sharing the burden.
Ever get your white bard straightened out?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 3:47:52 PM

"I thought this was supposed to be a discussion about the rich paying taxes."

Me too.

I don't see why we anybody would e opposed to the rich returning to the levels of taxes they were paying prior to W. Those taxation levels certainly weren't hurting the economy, and clearly the cuts haven't benefitted the economy...

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 3:44:34 PM

I thought this was supposed to be a discussion about the rich paying taxes.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 3:03:29 PM

"Evidently you haven't either after your Sept personal note to RJHenn!"

Are you still spamming this thread?

You can lead a horse to water....
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,486
Points:1,432,185
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 12:11:43 PM

Weaselspit
Evidently you haven't either after your Sept personal note to RJHenn!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,305
Points:439,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 10:58:12 AM

The rich are the only group which can afford to pay more taxes without feeling it.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,481
Points:545,005
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 9:32:10 AM

Just ignoring you ;)

You manage to figure out that tricky white board function yet?

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 10/21/2014 9:32:50 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,486
Points:1,432,185
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 10:29:28 PM

Weaselspit
You must be sleeping, no reply?
Post a reply Back to Topics