Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:28 AM

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:31,701
Points:2,878,605
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:29,509
Points:2,924,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2015 3:04:48 PM

mudtoe - "There is only one person who is too dumb to see what's going on around them, and I'll clue you in, it ain't me, and it ain't all the other business owners."

Tell that to Costco.

"My reality (and a business owner's reality): People pay what they have to to get the goods and services that they want, including labor, and they don't believe it's in their best interests to pay more than they have to. They may pay more for better quality in some circumstances, but they won't pay more for the same quality they can get for less."

IOW, you're satisfied with mediocre quality and mediocre growth.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,505
Points:2,001,885
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2015 10:39:57 AM

rjh: "Reality: according to you, everyone running a business is too dumb to see what's going on around them."


There is only one person who is too dumb to see what's going on around them, and I'll clue you in, it ain't me, and it ain't all the other business owners. My reality (and a business owner's reality): People pay what they have to to get the goods and services that they want, including labor, and they don't believe it's in their best interests to pay more than they have to. They may pay more for better quality in some circumstances, but they won't pay more for the same quality they can get for less.


mudtoe



[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/16/2015 10:48:31 AM EST]
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,760
Points:1,590,285
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2015 9:38:11 AM

NAFTA was suppose to battle the trade imbalance between the Americas & the Far East by strengthening our position to send more product there. It did not happen. US-Canada works maybe So-SO. US-Mexico is a nightmare of problems . On top of that it did nothing to balance out the trade deficit with the Far East.
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,663
Points:142,285
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2015 1:04:14 AM

I'm a politician's worst nightmare - I remember things. NAFTA was supposed to REDUCE immigration by providing jobs in Mexico.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,091
Points:334,405
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 12:55:59 PM

Maybe it's time to take a critical look at NAFTA to discern what role it has played (and is playing) in encouraging migrants to come here. It's not the whole story, but it's a good place to start.

Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,816
Points:3,167,925
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 12:21:30 PM

Marty......we agree !!! Don't forget Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador. Venezuela.

Actually things have improved somewhat in Mexico, and quite a lot in Colombia. A lot of Colombia's progress has been since the government squelched the cocaine cartels. Busted them up and shut them down. Everyday life for citizens has gotten better, more secure, and the local economies have improved.
Christmas lights in Medellin
Medellin Colombia offers an unlikely model for urban renaissance
‘Social urbanism’ experiment breathes new life into Colombia’s Medellin
Hoping that "social urbanism" is nothing like "urban socialism"......

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 1/14/2015 12:22:46 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,509
Points:2,924,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 12:20:35 PM

mudtoe - "Guess you will never know because nobody running a business is dumb enough to listen to you."

Reality: according to you, everyone running a business is too dumb to see what's going on around them.

"Liberalism and the left killed patriotism by constantly slamming the values upon which this country was founded and by increasingly punishing the success those values made possible."

The only value you're supporting appears to be greed.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,509
Points:2,924,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 12:20:19 PM

SemiSteve - "So if conservatives had their way the USA would be undesirable to migrate to?"

Actually, the goal should be to keep the disaffected at home to create pressure for positive change back where they came from.

After all, that's how we got positive change here.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 1/14/2015 12:20:54 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,509
Points:2,924,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 12:19:58 PM

SoylentGrain - "There's a reason why poor people in almost every on other country on the planet would and do risk their lives to get inside US borders."

Probably much the same reason why they try so hard to get into Europe.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,091
Points:334,405
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 11:07:46 AM

Maybe we could work towards making conditions better in countries like Mexico and Columbia, so people wouldn't want to leave there.


Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,505
Points:2,001,885
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 10:58:47 AM

SocialistSteve: "And where is the sense of loyalty and patriotism to the nation which set the very stage and made it possible for them to become so rich?"


Liberalism and the left killed patriotism by constantly slamming the values upon which this country was founded and by increasingly punishing the success those values made possible.



mudtoe
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,505
Points:2,001,885
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 10:54:29 AM

rjh: "Which only means that the economy will continue to stagnate, and the rich won't get as rich as they could if they behaved differently."


Guess you will never know because nobody running a business is dumb enough to listen to you.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,340
Points:3,900,715
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 10:38:08 AM

<<So if conservatives had their way the USA would be undesirable to migrate to?

Is that the goal?

To make us as undesirable as possible>>

Cmon steve, are you trying to set yourself up to ridicule?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,074
Points:464,005
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 10:09:37 AM

So if conservatives had their way the USA would be undesirable to migrate to?

Is that the goal?

To make us as undesirable as possible?
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,340
Points:3,900,715
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 9:30:38 AM

"You really have no idea, do you."

You are right. We (including you) REALLY have no idea.

"There's a reason why poor people in almost every on other country on the planet would and do risk their lives to get inside US borders."

There are lots of reasons!

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,091
Points:334,405
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 9:15:42 AM

Hard Times Generation

Take a look at some of the so-called poor.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,437
Points:25,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 8:08:41 AM

"You really have no idea, do you. "

There's a reason why poor people in almost every on other country on the planet would and do risk their lives to get inside US borders.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,509
Points:2,924,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 1:42:37 AM

SoylentGrain - "Imagine the worst you've seen in Des Moines and magnify that by several billion. That's what some other places on the planet are like."

You really have no idea, do you.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,437
Points:25,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 1:17:30 AM

"You think not? Ever hear of "the homeless"? "

Imagine the worst you've seen in Des Moines and magnify that by several billion. That's what some other places on the planet are like.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,509
Points:2,924,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 1:10:09 AM

flyboyUT - "You ask why do we need to simplify the tax code - ARE YOU KIDDING ME???????? Do you have any idea at all just how long it is on just the Federal Level?"

It's bad enough that the IRS can't keep track of their own regulations.

"Did you volunteer and spend four years in the military? Did you spend a whole lot of that time going in and out of a combat area? How many times was the helicopter you were flying in shot full of holes? How many of your friends didn't make it home?

Don't you dare imply that working hard and living on less than what one makes and saving for a comfortable retirement and then hoping to leave a nice chunk to our kids is somehow unpatriotic. That is not acceptable at all my friend!!!!!!"

Except that none of that seems to have anything to do with what Steve was saying.

"Steve on of the biggest problems the so called poor have in this country is they eat too much. That is not a problems with the poor in the rest of the world."

Actually, one of their biggest problems is that too much of what they eat is unhealthy. Some of the poor in other countries have the same problem.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,509
Points:2,924,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 1:06:25 AM

SoylentGrain - "Both will tell you poverty stinks, literally. The poor areas of these countries smell of humanity. Not is a good way. The stench is almost unbearable. There's no place in the US with people living in those conditions."

You think not? Ever hear of "the homeless"?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,509
Points:2,924,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 14, 2015 1:05:59 AM

flyboyUT - "RJ you are right we never did have a fair tax on the federal level as I'm talking about. Does that mean we should never have a fair tax?"

No, but it does mean that "You know fairness used to be defined by everyone paying the same" isn't a valid argument.

"Fair to me is what is your total income regardless of source (which includes govt handouts and welfare etc). Then just multiply that number by a flat % and send the amount of tax based to total earnings. No deductions or exemptions or special deals or anything for anyone. Just every one pays the exact same percentage on income regardless of source. That is what fair means to me."

How is it "fair" to make the poor, who may make barely enough to survive, pay taxes at the same rate as the rich, who already have so much that the taxes they pay will make no difference in how they live?

Now if such a tax includes a personal exemption that attempts to align with the poverty level, then, yeah, a single tax rate could make sense. I'd also make any exemption for children on a sliding scale, with reductions for more than 2 children.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,216
Points:1,643,080
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 11:08:20 PM

Steve yo said - "But there would be if the greedy completely had their way. And that's where it is headed eventually unless we can manage to turn it around; because they have us in a race to the bottom."

HORSEFEATHERS!!!!

The so called poor in this country live in homes that the average person could only dream of when I was a kid. The so called poor in this country have computers and electronic games galore and big screen TV's and a host of other things that not even the rich had when I was a kid. Steve not very long back the poor didn't have things like cable TV and central heating and Air Conditioning. Not even the middle class had them as they were too expensive. My folks raised four kids in a 1200 sqft home that did have central heat but no AC. We considered ourselves well off.

Steve on of the biggest problems the so called poor have in this country is they eat too much. That is not a problems with the poor in the rest of the world.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 1/13/2015 11:10:36 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,216
Points:1,643,080
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 10:58:57 PM

Chiefaz - I hope your sitting down cause I agree with most all of what you said.
.
.

Steve I didn't respond to all of you post because it would have taken too long.

You ask why do we need to simplify the tax code - ARE YOU KIDDING ME???????? Do you have any idea at all just how long it is on just the Federal Level?

This is old information - it is out of date on the low side but it gives you some idea of what I'm talking about!
.
.
>>>• April 21, 2010 | 5:34 p.m

By Mary Kate Cary, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Tax Day revisited: I wrote on Tax Day about the miseries of paying one’s taxes, and bemoaned the fact that paying for professional help on taxes has become a new government unfunded mandate.
This morning, going through a recent issue of the Economist, I came across some more evidence in what lawyers would call the “parade of horribles” concerning our taxes:
The federal tax code, which was 400 pages long in 1913, has swollen to about 70,000. Americans now spend 7.6 billion hours a year grappling with an incomprehensible tangle of deductions, loopholes and arcane reporting requirements. That is the equivalent of 3.8 million skilled workers toiling full-time, year-round, just to handle the paperwork. By this measure, the tax-compliance industry is six times larger than car-making.
An incredible 82 percent of taxpayers are so flummoxed that they pay for help. Some 60 percent hire an accountant or tax preparer, while another 22 percent use tax software.
The Economist points out that “even the head of the Internal Revenue Service, Douglas Shulman, gets someone else to do his taxes.” I don’t know how the Economist reporters know that, but if that’s true it’s exhibit A in why we need tax reform.<<<
.
.
Steve that over 70,000 pages of rules FIVE YEARS ago ---- and you ask why we need to "reform" this godawfull incredible mess???? Man you have got to get the heck out of your ivory tower and get a life my friend.

.
.
.
.
Steve this is a direct quote of what you said -- "And recall that the rich in the 1950's, even as they paid a 90% income tax, were still living in the lap of luxury, wanting for nothing, and enjoying extravagances unknown to the common worker. And still they could not spend everything they had and typically left huge inheritances to their offspring."

My reply is that is not true - that no one paid 90% taxes as you just said they did.
.
.
.Then you say something equally or even more 'out to lunch' concerning the patriotism of Americans. Well I am comfortably well off and I plan on leaving somewhere around a seven figure amount to my kids. Does this mean I am not a patriot?

Did you volunteer and spend four years in the military? Did you spend a whole lot of that time going in and out of a combat area? How many times was the helicopter you were flying in shot full of holes? How many of your friends didn't make it home?

Don't you dare imply that working hard and living on less than what one makes and saving for a comfortable retirement and then hoping to leave a nice chunk to our kids is somehow unpatriotic. That is not acceptable at all my friend!!!!!!

You and I are recipients of the sacrifices our parents and grand parents and so on made both in the service of their country and in living a life that built this country and the wealth they were allowed to keep from the federal and state tax laws confiscating it to pass on to their kids to use to build and grow. Yet somehow that to you is somehow wrong - why?



[Edited by: flyboyUT at 1/13/2015 11:01:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,074
Points:464,005
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 10:54:38 PM

"There's no place in the US with people living in those conditions. "

But there would be if the greedy completely had their way. And that's where it is headed eventually unless we can manage to turn it around; because they have us in a race to the bottom.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,437
Points:25,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 9:50:31 PM

"You talk about poor people, you haven't seen poor people."

My wife had employees in India. She's been there. My stepson is in China, now. You are right. People in this country don't have a clue what poverty is.

Both will tell you poverty stinks, literally. The poor areas of these countries smell of humanity. Not is a good way. The stench is almost unbearable. There's no place in the US with people living in those conditions.
Profile Pic
Chiefaz
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:3,642
Points:1,534,445
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 9:16:54 PM

SemiSteve
You are so full of it.
The big corporations made this a great country and produced the jobs that made this the richest country in the world.
That wealth was spread to all persons in this country.
You talk about poor people, you haven't seen poor people.
Our poor are rich compared to other countries.
Find something to write about that you know something about.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,074
Points:464,005
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 8:54:04 PM

" That is why one of the presidents cut out a lot of the garbage and reduced the rates."

But you keep saying that's what we need to do. Simplify the code.

But if that was already done why do you think it needs to be done again?

It is true that nobody ever paid 90% of their income as tax. That is because the 90% rate only applied to the amount over a certain level. It was a graduated rate. The first 10K or so is not taxed at all. You keep it all. So does the 1%. The next 20K or so has a low rate. Then the next 50K or so has a higher rate. Only the amounts over, say 200K, (or whatever the level was in the 50's) were taxed at the 91% rate.

When you add it all up the EFFECTIVE rate was much lower than 90%.

People got to keep much more of what they earned up to a certain level. So the rich get to keep far more than what the poor do. Which is only right. They had much greater income.

I see you carefully avoided commenting on the rest of my post. Too much to the point for you? I can understand if you have no good reply to this:

"And where is the sense of loyalty and patriotism to the nation which set the very stage and made it possible for them to become so rich? How lucky they are to be a part of this great nation! Where is their sense of appreciation for the government whose policies made their own success possible? And when that government is struggling under such a heavy load of debt why do they not heed the call to help out and shoulder the responsibility, as no one else can, to help pay down the debt? Is this not blatant greed to take what they can get and to give back as little as possible?"

I say it is exactly that. Blatant greed.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,216
Points:1,643,080
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 7:19:58 PM

Steve no one ever paid a 90% income tax. That is what one part of the law said but one should look at all of it and the ways to get out of paying this rate abounded. That is why one of the presidents cut out a lot of the garbage and reduced the rates.

RJ you are right we never did have a fair tax on the federal level as I'm talking about. Does that mean we should never have a fair tax?

Fair to me is what is your total income regardless of source (which includes govt handouts and welfare etc). Then just multiply that number by a flat % and send the amount of tax based to total earnings. No deductions or exemptions or special deals or anything for anyone. Just every one pays the exact same percentage on income regardless of source. That is what fair means to me.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,074
Points:464,005
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 7:05:02 PM

fly: "What the IRS numbers show is that far from being skewed toward the rich, the tax code has continued to get more progressive, to the point where by 2012 the top 1% of income earners accounted for 38% of all federal income taxes."

The reason the top 1% paid 38% of the taxes is because they receive so much of the wealth generated in the USA. While Middle Class earners are losing out and becoming the new impoverished as their jobs are cut, downsized, offshored, automated and their incomes are stagnant at best when compared to inflation, the rich continue to increase the wealth gap.

"The top 1% of income earners received approximately 23% of the pre-tax income in 2012, versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980.[15][16][17] A 2011 study by the CBO[18] found that the top earning 1 percent of households increased their income by about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[18] Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[19]"

Income Inequality in the USA

And recall that the rich in the 1950's, even as they paid a 90% income tax, were still living in the lap of luxury, wanting for nothing, and enjoying extravagances unknown to the common worker. And still they could not spend everything they had and typically left huge inheritances to their offspring.

Shouldn't it fall upon each generation to make their own way? Isn't it the conservatives who tell us that handing people money is like giving a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish? Don't they say that the real lessons in life come from having to make one's own way? That the greatness of America lies in those self-made success stories where the individual began with nothing? How many of those stories were told at the RNC 2012? If so, why are they so bent on having way more money than one can spend in a lifetime and then leaving it to their children, which would spoil them, in their own view?

And where is the sense of loyalty and patriotism to the nation which set the very stage and made it possible for them to become so rich? How lucky they are to be a part of this great nation! Where is their sense of appreciation for the government whose policies made their own success possible? And when that government is struggling under such a heavy load of debt why do they not heed the call to help out and shoulder the responsibility, as no one else can, to help pay down the debt? Is this not blatant greed to take what they can get and to give back as little as possible?

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 1/13/2015 7:05:45 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,509
Points:2,924,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 6:58:33 PM

flyboyUT - "Maybe - just maybe if these coddled, non-self supporting leeches, that call themselves "students" were to actually join society they might find out what it means to be an adult and be responsible for themselves. But I expect them to waste their time and our money in their so called college years then join a really worthless group of malcontents like "occupy -- anything but a job" and demand that those who actually do work and contribute things of value pay for their so called education."

No, probably most of them will go into management and become overpaid corporate executives. The rest will either become lawyers or politicians (or both).

"In 2001, for example, the top 1% accounted for 17.4% of all income reported to the IRS. In 2009, their share was slightly lower at 17.2%. Over those same years, share of income taxes paid by this group went from 33% to 36%."

I note that, even though they say the data is on "the distribution of income earned and taxes paid for 2012", they only give the income stats up to 2009. Is that because the reality doesn't support their thesis?

"You know fairness used to be defined by everyone paying the same. As in everyone pays the same % of income on taxes."

When did we ever have an "everyone pays the same" tax rate on income?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,509
Points:2,924,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 6:57:06 PM

StArrow68 - "Fact is that less than half the population is paying all the taxes with many of the other half living on the government dole."

Only if you consider income tax to be "all the taxes".
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,509
Points:2,924,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 6:56:48 PM

mudtoe - "And neither they nor I believe you. And since it's their money (and mine) we will continue to do what we think is best with our private property, liberal dogma be damned."

Which is your dogma. Which only means that the economy will continue to stagnate, and the rich won't get as rich as they could if they behaved differently.

Though reduced gas prices might make up for some of your bad behavior.

"Socialiststeve doesn't care. As long as the wealthy are still wealthy, and more importantly as long as they have wealth which can be used to oppose the liberal agenda, they aren't paying enough. The goal isn't fairness as you and I understand the term; the goal is to dis-empower those whom he sees as enemies of the left by confiscating their assets."

Deep into paranoia there.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,509
Points:2,924,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 6:56:10 PM

SoylentGrain - "Well, just look at the Forbes 400 list. With the exception of just a few who inherited their fortunes, most product something of value, have science backgrounds, and did it themselves. Forbes 400 Wealthiest"

I note that, of the top 10, 4 are Waltons, rich because of what Sam did with armies of underpaid workers.

"The largest portion of all cash flowing into the companies owned by "rich" people goes right back out the door within one or two weeks in the form of salaries to "the ordinary working man"."

Possibly. Exactly how much of the total is that "largest portion"? 20%? 30%?

"Take a look at the graph. Recession early 2001. Tax cuts for the wealthy went into effect 22 through 04 and even later."

And the unemployment rate rose through the middle of 2003. The unemployment rate was below 4% when Bush was elected. It was almost 7% by the time that Obama was elected.

"Remember wage and price controls of the late 197's? That should have been a learning experience. Obviously, not."

There is a bit of a difference between "wage controls" and "wage and price controls".

"Which way do you want it? If you make it easier to "enjoy the profits of their own labor " that translates to a tax liability. If taxed at current rates that "enjoyment" disappears real quick."

So you're claiming that more money isn't more money?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,505
Points:2,001,885
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 5:41:07 PM

flyboy: "So Steve the top 1% earn less than 18% of income yet pay more than 30% of Federal taxes it appears. "



Socialiststeve doesn't care. As long as the wealthy are still wealthy, and more importantly as long as they have wealth which can be used to oppose the liberal agenda, they aren't paying enough. The goal isn't fairness as you and I understand the term; the goal is to dis-empower those whom he sees as enemies of the left by confiscating their assets. If you doubt my conclusions, consider, have you ever heard SS grumble about the wealth accumulated by the friends of the left, such as people like Soros or the wealthy liberal elite in the entertainment industry? Somehow those people area always conveniently exempt from the left's war on success.



mudtoe



[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/13/2015 5:42:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,216
Points:1,643,080
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 3:18:35 PM

Steve the facts belie your ideology.
.
.
>>>Always several years behind the times, the IRS has only now put out data on the distribution of income earned and taxes paid for 2012. The data are nonetheless instructive, since 2012 was the last year before Obama engineered his tax hikes on the rich.

What the IRS numbers show is that far from being skewed toward the rich, the tax code has continued to get more progressive, to the point where by 2012 the top 1% of income earners accounted for 38% of all federal income taxes.

That's up from 33.2% in 2001, well before the "unfair" Bush tax cuts took effect, and far above the 29.5% average from 1986 to 2000.

And no, this increase isn't simply the result of a greater concentration of wealth.

In 2001, for example, the top 1% accounted for 17.4% of all income reported to the IRS. In 2009, their share was slightly lower at 17.2%. Over those same years, share of income taxes paid by this group went from 33% to 36%.

At the other end of the spectrum, the bottom half of all taxpayers was responsible for just 2.78% of federal income taxes in 2012, which is down from 4.9% in 2001.

In other words, by the Democrats' own definition of fairness, the tax code had become much fairer throughout the Bush administration and Obama's first term in office.<<<

So Steve the top 1% earn less than 18% of income yet pay more than 30% of Federal taxes it appears. While this is going on the lower half of taxpayers paid only less than 3% of taxes.

You know fairness used to be defined by everyone paying the same. As in everyone pays the same % of income on taxes. Fair means if the rate is 10% and you make ten million you pay one million just as if you make 10,000 you pay a thousand. Now that is fair by the real definition of the word - as in treat everyone equally.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,505
Points:2,001,885
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 1:58:24 PM

SS: " but the real solution is to lift government restraints on private worker owned coop businesses and make it easier for people to work for themselves as a group and enjoy the profits of their own labor rather than be forced to give away the results of their productivity to the greedy. "


Duh..... It's called a partnership arrangement and any group of people can form a legal partnership business anytime they want.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,216
Points:1,643,080
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 1:21:54 PM

Steve if they choose to do that - fine - its a free country. But dont expect others to subsidize their hobby.

This seems to fit dont you think.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,437
Points:25,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 12:38:38 PM

"I wonder how many great researchers, artists, musicians and authors over the ages, whose contributions are now timeless, did not earn much while they lived and spent their lives as paupers..."

Great reason to get that Master is Art or Music.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,216
Points:1,643,080
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 12:30:52 PM

Steve I talk about borrowing way beyond your means to repay in order to go to worthless classes and you expand it to include borrowing for anything by responsible folks who actually do repay the loans. Nice try but that dog aint gonna hunt.

I have no problem borrowing for things that will be of value - like a home. When I did take out home loans I repaid them in less than 15 years. When I took out a loan for the one vehicle I borrowed money for I repaid it in a tad less than one year.

Steve I do admit I borrowed money for college. The last quarter I was in school I borrowed about 1300 bucks. But I repaid it in less than a year.

Now how about all those so called "occupy idiots" who have racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to 'study' such tripe as I showed with absolutely no intention of paying it back. But they will demand that the taxpayers pay it for them and give them a 'free' education.

Now the stocks and loans - I do believe you are rather in error. When I buy stocks/mutual funds I purchase a part ownership of the various companies. They pay me for this ownership through dividends and increases in value of the part of the company I own. I dont loan them money at all.

Steve I say again - when humanly possible pay cash (which might be an electronic transfer of money you know) or do without. If one must borrow money do it for a valid reason and plan to repay the loan in a fraction of the time allowed.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,074
Points:464,005
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 12:14:42 PM

I wonder how many great researchers, artists, musicians and authors over the ages, whose contributions are now timeless, did not earn much while they lived and spent their lives as paupers...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,074
Points:464,005
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 12:09:36 PM

Fly: " Maybe if they did what generations of other people did and pay cash for it and work and save up money until they could pay cash for it they might take courses that were worth something in the job market and actually left college with little to no debt and an education that could be used to facilitate getting a real job."

Now that was a really foolish thing to suggest. If nobody borrowed for anything the economy would be 1/7th the size of what it is now. And there would be no Stock Market for your investments. Because that is really companies borrowing from a lot of investors. And it would be pretty scary storing and carrying around lots of cash. When you think of a world without borrowing you must agree it is a silly idea.

Now tell us. What college subjects are the only ones which should be studied? Only the ones that lead to lucrative careers? And who is to say which those are? You?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,216
Points:1,643,080
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 11:41:05 AM

Remember what I said about absolutely worthless college classes. This is a classic example it seems.
.
.
>>>A philosophy professor at Vanderbilt University is teaching an undergraduate course this spring semester called “Police Violence and Mass Incarceration.”

The course involves discussions of recent violence in Ferguson, Mo., and New York City and how the elite, well-off students feel about allegations of police brutality in the deaths of two black men, Michael Brown and Eric Garner. Course readings include the writings of philosophers such as John Locke as well as a bunch of current-day bloggers.
.
.
The price for one year of undergraduate tuition, room and board and mandatory fees at Vanderbilt is about $54,600 (not including a $704 “first year experience fee”).

The ritzy school’s endowment of over $4 billion equates to $317,179 per student and is larger than the entire annual gross domestic product of Belize and Liberia — combined.<<<
.
.
.
.

Now tell me just how will borrowing 50-60K per year to study garbage like this is worth the effort and wasted time. I'm sure potential future employers will be impressed by such a great education...... in totally worthless garbage!!!!
.
.
Maybe - just maybe if these so called 'students' had to actually work and save the money and pay for their college as they went --- they just might go to a less expensive school and take courses that might actually pay off in the job market.....
.
.
Maybe - just maybe if these coddled, non-self supporting leeches, that call themselves "students" were to actually join society they might find out what it means to be an adult and be responsible for themselves. But I expect them to waste their time and our money in their so called college years then join a really worthless group of malcontents like "occupy -- anything but a job" and demand that those who actually do work and contribute things of value pay for their so called education.
.
.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,216
Points:1,643,080
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 11:19:44 AM

Steve says --- " Greed and power of finance companies places students in deep debt before they even begin to earn.". So Steve who held a gun to the heads of these so called students and forced them to take out loans to take really relevant classes like social studies and feminist issues and black issues. Maybe if they did what generations of other people did and pay cash for it and work and save up money until they could pay cash for it they might take courses that were worth something in the job market and actually left college with little to no debt and an education that could be used to facilitate getting a real job.
.
.
Then Steve you top it off saying - " but the real solution is to lift government restraints on private worker owned coop businesses and make it easier for people to work for themselves as a group and enjoy the profits of their own labor rather than be forced to give away the results of their productivity to the greedy."

You just need to add a few words to that sentence at the end… Like "… give away the results of their productivity to the greedy." GOVERNMENT and MOOCHERS ON THE TAXPAYERS.

Steve I see hope for you to come in from the dark side ----- couldn’t resist the teasing and fun changes…….
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,760
Points:1,590,285
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 9:25:56 AM

"The economy is so choked by low wages and inactivity that demand for products is below optimal."

The economy is so choked full of stupid lazy people that cant learn from their mistakes & better themselves to get past a minimum wage job.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,437
Points:25,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 9:14:51 AM

"Greed and power of finance companies places students in deep debt before they even begin to earn."

What you are referring to was a government program. Banks were encouraged (even coerced) into making such loans.

"Since the rich will not voluntarily pay more than they have to they must be taxed more to pay for the mess created by greed and abuse of power."

And how do you think confiscating from the "rich" is going to get money to jump into your pocket?

"Setting arbitrary wage controls could help;"

Remember wage and price controls of the late 197's? That should have been a learning experience. Obviously, not.

"but the real solution is to lift government restraints on private worker owned coop businesses and make it easier for people to work for themselves as a group and enjoy the profits of their own labor rather than be forced to give away the results of their productivity to the greedy. "

Which way do you want it? If you make it easier to "enjoy the profits of their own labor " that translates to a tax liability. If taxed at current rates that "enjoyment" disappears real quick.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,074
Points:464,005
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 7:37:09 AM

If everybody that got an education made plenty of money there would never have been Occupy Wall Street. Greed and power of finance companies places students in deep debt before they even begin to earn.

The economy is so choked by low wages and inactivity that demand for products is below optimal. This bad cycle puts too many on the dole; further depressing economic activity and choking off growth. It is a self perpetuating death spiral for the middle class.

Since the rich will not voluntarily pay more than they have to they must be taxed more to pay for the mess created by greed and abuse of power.

Setting arbitrary wage controls could help; but the real solution is to lift government restraints on private worker owned coop businesses and make it easier for people to work for themselves as a group and enjoy the profits of their own labor rather than be forced to give away the results of their productivity to the greedy.
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:16,525
Points:3,716,150
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Jan 13, 2015 6:09:45 AM

no
Profile Pic
StArrow68
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:6,327
Points:2,080,790
Joined:Apr 2003
Message Posted: Jan 12, 2015 9:08:54 PM

No way to convince those that won't listen. Works both ways. Fact is that less than half the population is paying all the taxes with many of the other half living on the government dole. Get an education and earn real money and you will get the benefit of paying lots of taxes.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,505
Points:2,001,885
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 12, 2015 9:04:54 PM

rjh: "And the economy will continue to stagnate, and the rich won't get as rich as they could if they behaved differently. "


And neither they nor I believe you. And since it's their money (and mine) we will continue to do what we think is best with our private property, liberal dogma be damned.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,437
Points:25,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 12, 2015 7:40:09 PM

"What makes you think that all, or even most, of the rich are "productive"? Making lots of money isn't what makes you productive."

Well, just look at the Forbes 400 list. With the exception of just a few who inherited their fortunes, most product something of value, have science backgrounds, and did it themselves. Forbes 400 Wealthiest

"And much of that is the ordinary working man, not the wealthy. But it's the wealthy that benefit the most."

The largest portion of all cash flowing into the companies owned by "rich" people goes right back out the door within one or two weeks in the form of salaries to "the ordinary working man".

"And that's BS. Unemployment was below 5% before those tax cuts. They pushed it up over 6%."

Take a look at the graph. Recession early 2001. Tax cuts for the wealthy went into effect 22 through 04 and even later.
Historic unemployment
Post a reply Back to Topics