A question for Republicans

[ABikerSailor]

They don't.

So your question is loaded lie.

Romney pays 60-65%.

You pay 22%.

That makes you a freeloader.

Apparently, you haven't been "listening" to the news, even Mittens admitted that his rate was around 15 percent. Actual figures show it to be more like 14 percent.

22 percent is more than 14 percent.

You are an idiot.

Apparently, you haven't been thinking.

Mittens is paying a whole lot more and not even getting credit for it. Corporate profits are taxed at 35% and states pile on too.

35 + State + 15 * remaining > 22

Dork.

Hey stupid............he doesn't pay that 35 percent each and every year, and all analysts on the news have said his rate is 14 percent.

Negged for being a partisan douche who doesn't pay attention.

 

[ilia25]

I'd support a Flat Percentage Tax at a fair, low rate that treated all income the same, Investment, Dividend, Salary, be you Rich or Poor. Everybody should Pay Their Share.

That would make the poor paying more and the rich paying less in taxes, than they are paying now.

As for fairness -- do you think it is fair that some hard working suit is making 100 times more than an equally hard working, but a less talented janitor? Some lucky people are just born with more talent than the others -- so why we should reward their luck?

I think there is nothing unfair if a guy making more than a million a year would have their marginal tax rate set at 70%.

This is so funny.

There are very few jobs that pay 1,000,000 a year. Which means you are going to tax capital gains.

Debatable. Concervatives would be the first to point out, that very few millioners have tax rates lower than their secretary.

So the rich are going to take less risks and there will be less need for janitors.

That is very debatable as well -- that those people base there decisions on whether they would pocket 5 millions or 15. As for the risks -- if I'm not mistaken, they can deduct past years losses.

 

[Big Fitz]

That would make the poor paying more and the rich paying less in taxes, than they are paying now.

As for fairness -- do you think it is fair that some hard working suit is making 100 times more than an equally hard working, but a less talented janitor? Some lucky people are just born with more talent than the others -- so why we should reward their luck?

I think there is nothing unfair if a guy making more than a million a year would have their marginal tax rate set at 70%.

This is so funny.

There are very few jobs that pay 1,000,000 a year. Which means you are going to tax capital gains.

Debatable. Concervatives would be the first to point out, that very few millioners have tax rates lower than their secretary.

So the rich are going to take less risks and there will be less need for janitors.

That is very debatable as well -- that those people base there decisions on whether they would pocket 5 millions or 15. As for the risks -- if I'm not mistaken, they can deduct past years losses.

very few secretaries MAKE over 100k too like Buffet's.

 

[JoeB131]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

Better question- why does the government have a right to any of our money?

NOw, not excusing what Romney is doing, but the argument can be made that he already paid taxes on that money when he first earned it as income and paid the top marginal rate on it. So when it collects interest, he should pay tax on it again?

And I think everyone knows, I'm the last person to defend Romney.

But if his assets tanked, and he lost a bunch of the value of his stock, he would be SOL, the government wouldn't pay him a percentage of what he lost, but it will pay him a percentage of what he gained?

I think, inevitably, we are going to have to raise taxes on the rich, including capital gains taxes. But I also think, long before we get anywhere near doing that, we need to go through government, purge out all the waste, fraud, abuse, unneeded expenditures and things we just don't need to be involved in.

 

[logical4u]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

Once people have money that they have already paid taxes on to the gov't, should the gov't tax them again for what they do with the money that they earned?

If people do not invest their money for their future, should the gov't be able to tax them extra and do an "investment plan" for them?

No, the gov't should not tax money that has already been taxed, and is then invested. Any money earned in the form of value or interest should belong to the person that made the risk (the gov't risked nothing). It would be a great incentive for every person to invest in their future.

 

[logical4u]

The Buffett Rule will apply to rich liberals and rich conservatives.

So I AM screaming for all the rich liberals to pay extra.

Why shouldn't Everyone that has Income Pay in? How many with Income currently pay Zero?

Not the working poor with families.

I would give them a break even if I had to pay more.

But you did not answer the question....

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

Please show me the "idle rich".

 

[Utilitarian]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

Once again you dumb ass, they pay the LEGAL rates based on what their income sources are. I don't see you screaming for all the rich Liberals to pay extra.

Wouldn't "idle rich" include "rich liberals?"

 

[ilia25]

Better question- why does the government have a right to any of our money?

No, because the government does not have rights to anything. It is created by the people to provide the services the people want it providing. And it the people, not the government, who decide on a fair way to finance the government services.

So make no mistake, it is not the government versus the people. It is those among us who want the rich and successful to give back more versus those those thinking that those less talented and less successful should left to take care of themselves.

 

[logical4u]

not the working poor with families.

I would give them a break even if i had to pay more.

But you did not answer the question....

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

i did answer your question. I think everyone with income should pay the same percentage, no matter the form of income. If the system is not impartial, there will be those that fall victim to it. That is wrong, chris. It seems that the evidence of the angry mobs that want to pay little or nothing and dump the burden on the unsuspecting, is a conviction of an unjust system. You want to vote a tax increase, go for it. It is only fair that we all pay our fair share, rich or poor. 15% sounds good to me. Don't forget to include all of your benefits and perks as income. the poor can pay their share too, considering the benefits they are getting.

How can the poor pay when they have no money????

In Roman times, they were sold into slavery. Today, they are just set up to be the poor for generations (they never leave the gov't leash).

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The "idle rich" comment more or less discredits any argument of the op.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Personally, I think that Ron Paul has the right idea. Abolish the IRS, repeal the 16th Amendment and let ALL Americans keep ALL of their money. End of argument!

 

[logical4u]

Maybe you should answer the question.

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

In short..........no...........they should pay at a slightly higher rate than the working class, because the rich use more of the public resources, as their limos are heavier (more wear and tear on the roads) as well as they have large houses that need to be guarded by the police and answered to by the fire department.

And that's before we start talking about the public resources that the corporations use.

Personally? I think returning to the Clinton tax code would be the answer, but the greedy pricks in the 1 percent have gotten so used to the tax cuts, they're going to keep lobbying for more and more.

Middle class and the poor can't really afford to have Romney as president or his tax plan.

None of us can afford welfare for the wealthy.

Even the millionaires realize it....

Warren Buffett isn’t the only rich guy who wants to higher taxes on the rich.

A new survey from Spectrem Group found that 68% of millionaires (those with investments of $1 million or more) support raising taxes on those with $1 million or more in income. Fully 61% of those with net worths of $5 million or more support the tax on million-plus earners.

Millionaires Support Warren Buffett’s Tax on the Rich - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Any rich person that wants to pay "their fair share" has a place on their tax form that specifically asks if they would like to give the gov't more than what they owe in taxes. If all the people screaming for other people to pay more, would just check that box and give the gov't more money, it would "solve all our problems".... (not really). Warren Buffet owes milllions in back taxes. You would think if "taxes" were truly important to him, those taxes would be paid on time. It appears there are many in gov't that also owe back taxes. How about if we just get people to pay the taxes they owe, and figure out how short we are on the bills? Then we can send every person living in the country a "bill for their fair share". The wealthy have already paid. The upper 51% have already paid. How about if, now, everybody pays?

 

[JoeB131]

Better question- why does the government have a right to any of our money?

No, because the government does not have rights to anything. It is created by the people to provide the services the people want it providing. And it the people, not the government, who decide on a fair way to finance the government services.

So make no mistake, it is not the government versus the people. It is those among us who want the rich and successful to give back more versus those those thinking that those less talented and less successful should left to take care of themselves.

I have no problem with the government taking care of those who can't take care of themselves.

I have a HUGE problem with the notion that there are people who are essentially living off the government and producing nothing.

Do you really think if we put each and every government program to a national vote, that any more than 10% of them would survive? Come on, the people were taken out of this equation a long time ago.

I don't doubt at some point, taxes will need to go up. But the government needs to get it's house in order first.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

A question for the stupid socialist lefty libtards, should lazy bums who want nothing more than to live off the gov't. dole and do drugs deserve free money others earned? I don't think so! Idiots.

 

[Sunshine]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

A question for the stupid socialist lefty libtards, should lazy bums who want nothing more than to live off the gov't. dole and do drugs deserve free money others earned? I don't think so! Idiots.

Well, it might deserve its own thread. Like this one did.

 

[Avatar4321]

no. we should all pay a flat tax. but progressives insist on a progressive tax.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Why should single mothers get special treatment? Did anyone force them to have kids they can't afford?

Actually, yes. Thanks to "conservatives" there is virtually no public assistance that will cover an abortion. So, if a poor woman becomes pregnant and can't afford the child and she can't afford the abortion, then she ends up with a child she can't afford.

 

[DontBeStupid]

no. we should all pay a flat tax. but progressives insist on a progressive tax.

Actually, we insist on progressive tax rates, but at any given amount, we all agree it should be the same rate regardless of the source of the income.

We actually, you know, kind of agree on this.

 

[kaz]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

If we had the fair tax, then they would.

But with our current tax code, if you tax investment income like income, there will be a whole lot more idle non-rich...

 

[Intense]

Better question- why does the government have a right to any of our money?

No, because the government does not have rights to anything. It is created by the people to provide the services the people want it providing. And it the people, not the government, who decide on a fair way to finance the government services.

So make no mistake, it is not the government versus the people. It is those among us who want the rich and successful to give back more versus those those thinking that those less talented and less successful should left to take care of themselves.

You dictate well. The only problem I see that contradicts your prognosis is Governments addiction to Usurpation. The Consent of the Governed was lost long ago. You think the IRS or the EPA gives a Rats Ass about what you or I think? Don't hold your breath.

Justice V.S. Government, Justice V.S. The People, is more on track. My concern is more how long does it take to recognize wrong doing? How long to take the necessary steps to Rectify wrongs, and set things straight. We all make mistakes. It is a measure of Competence, in how corrective action is implemented.