Let's Tax the Rich More!

[MatthewAycock]

A scary element of the recent election was related to the division of what classifies "rich". Unfortunately, both parties GREATLY missed the mark by focusing the debate on annual earnings, something that is both naive and archaic in nature.

With an income tax system that is progressive, we inhibit growth of individuals from one class to a higher class through taxation on earnings. We do this by labeling them as wealthy if they earn more than a certain dollar amount per year without regard to their actual net worth.

If we want a progressive tax system, it should be based, at least partially, on the net worth of the individual. Currently, someone worth $1 billion that earns $100k per year will pay less in taxes than someone worth -$200k (student loans perhaps) that earns $250k per year. This makes it very difficult for the one who assumed significant debt to be a success to become one.

I like the national sales tax concept, but only as a replacement. We already have too much taxation. If we had both a sales tax and an income tax, we would end up with only 1% of our earnings that we decide how to use.

 

[KittenKoder]

That's actually logical.

 

[Iriemon]

A scary element of the recent election was related to the division of what classifies "rich". Unfortunately, both parties GREATLY missed the mark by focusing the debate on annual earnings, something that is both naive and archaic in nature.

With an income tax system that is progressive, we inhibit growth of individuals from one class to a higher class through taxation on earnings.

If that is your logic, then aren't we by lowering taxes on the poorer encouraging growth in that lower classes?

Isn't that what we want to do?

We do this by labeling them as wealthy if they earn more than a certain dollar amount per year without regard to their actual net worth.

If we want a progressive tax system, it should be based, at least partially, on the net worth of the individual. Currently, someone worth $1 billion that earns $100k per year will pay less in taxes than someone worth -$200k (student loans perhaps) that earns $250k per year. This makes it very difficult for the one who assumed significant debt to be a success to become one.

I like the national sales tax concept, but only as a replacement. We already have too much taxation. If we had both a sales tax and an income tax, we would end up with only 1% of our earnings that we decide how to use.

You raise an interesting point on an asset based tax as a partial supplement. Particularly since many assets that were generated in a system where the Govt incurred debt to finance the lower taxes, it makes sense that those who benefitted most from that policy pay for fixing it.

 

[Gunny]

That's actually logical.

Did it hurt?

 

[Gunny]

A scary element of the recent election was related to the division of what classifies "rich". Unfortunately, both parties GREATLY missed the mark by focusing the debate on annual earnings, something that is both naive and archaic in nature.

With an income tax system that is progressive, we inhibit growth of individuals from one class to a higher class through taxation on earnings.

If that is your logic, then aren't we by lowering taxes on the poorer encouraging growth in that lower classes?

Isn't that what we want to do?

We do this by labeling them as wealthy if they earn more than a certain dollar amount per year without regard to their actual net worth.

If we want a progressive tax system, it should be based, at least partially, on the net worth of the individual. Currently, someone worth $1 billion that earns $100k per year will pay less in taxes than someone worth -$200k (student loans perhaps) that earns $250k per year. This makes it very difficult for the one who assumed significant debt to be a success to become one.

I like the national sales tax concept, but only as a replacement. We already have too much taxation. If we had both a sales tax and an income tax, we would end up with only 1% of our earnings that we decide how to use.

You raise an interesting point on an asset based tax as a partial supplement. Particularly since many assets that were generated in a system where the Govt incurred debt to finance the lower taxes, it makes sense that those who benefitted most from that policy pay for fixing it.

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

 

[sealybobo]

That's actually logical.

Did it hurt?

I say make Bush's unfair tax breaks to the rich permanent, but then close all those loopholes where they keep their money in Switzerland (UBS) or the Caymen Islands.

One or the other. Compromise. Can't have both. You pick Gunny. Which one does your master have to give up? Neither is not an option.

Yea yea yea, we know, it'll lead to us companies being less competitive and it'll raise the prices of goods. Yea yea yea, we know. Heard it a million times. We aren't afraid. S&D and free markets will take care of that. They'll have to find another way to cut costs, like cut down on executive bonus'.

Now pick. Which tax break to the rich needs to go. One can stay.

 

[KittenKoder]

That's actually logical.

Did it hurt?

I say make Bush's unfair tax breaks to the rich permanent, but then close all those loopholes where they keep their money in Switzerland (UBS) or the Caymen Islands.

One or the other. Compromise. Can't have both. You pick Gunny. Which one does your master have to give up? Neither is not an option.

Yea yea yea, we know, it'll lead to us companies being less competitive and it'll raise the prices of goods. Yea yea yea, we know. Heard it a million times. We aren't afraid. S&D and free markets will take care of that. They'll have to find another way to cut costs, like cut down on executive bonus'.

Now pick. Which tax break to the rich needs to go. One can stay.

If Bush had given them tax breaks ... but since he didn't the money does belong back in the US anyway.

 

[sealybobo]

A scary element of the recent election was related to the division of what classifies "rich". Unfortunately, both parties GREATLY missed the mark by focusing the debate on annual earnings, something that is both naive and archaic in nature.

With an income tax system that is progressive, we inhibit growth of individuals from one class to a higher class through taxation on earnings.

If that is your logic, then aren't we by lowering taxes on the poorer encouraging growth in that lower classes?

Isn't that what we want to do?

We do this by labeling them as wealthy if they earn more than a certain dollar amount per year without regard to their actual net worth.

If we want a progressive tax system, it should be based, at least partially, on the net worth of the individual. Currently, someone worth $1 billion that earns $100k per year will pay less in taxes than someone worth -$200k (student loans perhaps) that earns $250k per year. This makes it very difficult for the one who assumed significant debt to be a success to become one.

I like the national sales tax concept, but only as a replacement. We already have too much taxation. If we had both a sales tax and an income tax, we would end up with only 1% of our earnings that we decide how to use.

You raise an interesting point on an asset based tax as a partial supplement. Particularly since many assets that were generated in a system where the Govt incurred debt to finance the lower taxes, it makes sense that those who benefitted most from that policy pay for fixing it.

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

You're broke. Who's digging in your pockets? You most likely benefit from the progressive tax. See, you are the perfect example of someone who argues outside of his own tax bracket. I love it!

When McCain said Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes, you do know he wasn't talking to you, right?

 

[KittenKoder]

If that is your logic, then aren't we by lowering taxes on the poorer encouraging growth in that lower classes?

Isn't that what we want to do?



You raise an interesting point on an asset based tax as a partial supplement. Particularly since many assets that were generated in a system where the Govt incurred debt to finance the lower taxes, it makes sense that those who benefitted most from that policy pay for fixing it.

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

You're broke. Who's digging in your pockets? You most likely benefit from the progressive tax. See, you are the perfect example of someone who argues outside of his own tax bracket. I love it!

When McCain said Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes, you do know he wasn't talking to you, right?

Actually, raising taxes is bad for the economy, always has been, always will be. Raise it on the rich only and they will find ways to screw us more while no one will ever want to get rich, thus growth fails and we become third world. It's a razors edge and you fail to see that.

 

[sealybobo]

Did it hurt?

I say make Bush's unfair tax breaks to the rich permanent, but then close all those loopholes where they keep their money in Switzerland (UBS) or the Caymen Islands.

One or the other. Compromise. Can't have both. You pick Gunny. Which one does your master have to give up? Neither is not an option.

Yea yea yea, we know, it'll lead to us companies being less competitive and it'll raise the prices of goods. Yea yea yea, we know. Heard it a million times. We aren't afraid. S&D and free markets will take care of that. They'll have to find another way to cut costs, like cut down on executive bonus'.

Now pick. Which tax break to the rich needs to go. One can stay.

If Bush had given them tax breaks ... but since he didn't the money does belong back in the US anyway.

What do you mean IF? Bush's tax break to the rich gets bigger and bigger every year. Remember in 2001 or 2002 getting $300? That was our portion. But the following year, people who made more than us got another tax break. Then the following year the people who only make a little more than us got cut off too, but the people who make more than them got an even bigger tax break. And so on and so on every year until 2011. So now, the mega rich are the only ones who get Bush's tax break.

They end in 2011. Obama didn't end those breaks because we are in a recession.

Do you seriously not know about this tax cut?

 

[Newby]

A scary element of the recent election was related to the division of what classifies "rich". Unfortunately, both parties GREATLY missed the mark by focusing the debate on annual earnings, something that is both naive and archaic in nature.

With an income tax system that is progressive, we inhibit growth of individuals from one class to a higher class through taxation on earnings.

If that is your logic, then aren't we by lowering taxes on the poorer encouraging growth in that lower classes?

Isn't that what we want to do?

We do this by labeling them as wealthy if they earn more than a certain dollar amount per year without regard to their actual net worth.

If we want a progressive tax system, it should be based, at least partially, on the net worth of the individual. Currently, someone worth $1 billion that earns $100k per year will pay less in taxes than someone worth -$200k (student loans perhaps) that earns $250k per year. This makes it very difficult for the one who assumed significant debt to be a success to become one.

I like the national sales tax concept, but only as a replacement. We already have too much taxation. If we had both a sales tax and an income tax, we would end up with only 1% of our earnings that we decide how to use.

You raise an interesting point on an asset based tax as a partial supplement. Particularly since many assets that were generated in a system where the Govt incurred debt to finance the lower taxes, it makes sense that those who benefitted most from that policy pay for fixing it.

The poor don't pay taxes.

 

[Iriemon]

A scary element of the recent election was related to the division of what classifies "rich". Unfortunately, both parties GREATLY missed the mark by focusing the debate on annual earnings, something that is both naive and archaic in nature.

With an income tax system that is progressive, we inhibit growth of individuals from one class to a higher class through taxation on earnings.

If that is your logic, then aren't we by lowering taxes on the poorer encouraging growth in that lower classes?

Isn't that what we want to do?

We do this by labeling them as wealthy if they earn more than a certain dollar amount per year without regard to their actual net worth.

If we want a progressive tax system, it should be based, at least partially, on the net worth of the individual. Currently, someone worth $1 billion that earns $100k per year will pay less in taxes than someone worth -$200k (student loans perhaps) that earns $250k per year. This makes it very difficult for the one who assumed significant debt to be a success to become one.

I like the national sales tax concept, but only as a replacement. We already have too much taxation. If we had both a sales tax and an income tax, we would end up with only 1% of our earnings that we decide how to use.

You raise an interesting point on an asset based tax as a partial supplement. Particularly since many assets that were generated in a system where the Govt incurred debt to finance the lower taxes, it makes sense that those who benefitted most from that policy pay for fixing it.

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

How does it make more sense to penalize those who are at the bottom rung trying to work their way out of poverty instead?

 

[onecut39]

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

You're broke. Who's digging in your pockets? You most likely benefit from the progressive tax. See, you are the perfect example of someone who argues outside of his own tax bracket. I love it!

When McCain said Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes, you do know he wasn't talking to you, right?

Actually, raising taxes is bad for the economy, always has been, always will be. Raise it on the rich only and they will find ways to screw us more while no one will ever want to get rich, thus growth fails and we become third world. It's a razors edge and you fail to see that.

Even when taxes were a marginal 90%, wwe had no shortage of millionairs.

Even when taxes were a marginal 90%, we had no9 shortage of millionairs.

 

[Newby]

If that is your logic, then aren't we by lowering taxes on the poorer encouraging growth in that lower classes?

Isn't that what we want to do?



You raise an interesting point on an asset based tax as a partial supplement. Particularly since many assets that were generated in a system where the Govt incurred debt to finance the lower taxes, it makes sense that those who benefitted most from that policy pay for fixing it.

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

How does it make more sense to penalize those who are at the bottom rung trying to work their way out of poverty instead?

How are they being penalized, they don't pay taxes?

 

[KittenKoder]

If that is your logic, then aren't we by lowering taxes on the poorer encouraging growth in that lower classes?

Isn't that what we want to do?



You raise an interesting point on an asset based tax as a partial supplement. Particularly since many assets that were generated in a system where the Govt incurred debt to finance the lower taxes, it makes sense that those who benefitted most from that policy pay for fixing it.

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

How does it make more sense to penalize those who are at the bottom rung trying to work their way out of poverty instead?

I will repeat what Newby said, because it's true:

The poor don't pay taxes.

There is a bottom line, if you earn less than that you pay nothing in income taxes.

 

[auditor0007]

A scary element of the recent election was related to the division of what classifies "rich". Unfortunately, both parties GREATLY missed the mark by focusing the debate on annual earnings, something that is both naive and archaic in nature.

With an income tax system that is progressive, we inhibit growth of individuals from one class to a higher class through taxation on earnings. We do this by labeling them as wealthy if they earn more than a certain dollar amount per year without regard to their actual net worth.

If we want a progressive tax system, it should be based, at least partially, on the net worth of the individual. Currently, someone worth $1 billion that earns $100k per year will pay less in taxes than someone worth -$200k (student loans perhaps) that earns $250k per year. This makes it very difficult for the one who assumed significant debt to be a success to become one.

I like the national sales tax concept, but only as a replacement. We already have too much taxation. If we had both a sales tax and an income tax, we would end up with only 1% of our earnings that we decide how to use.

So the billionaire who has already paid taxes on the money he/she earned should be taxed again on it because they have more than everyone else? Why don't we just say that people in the US will only be permitted to accumulate a net worth of $1 million. After that, all assests are taxed at 100% since they already have everything they need. Sorry, I'm not buying into that.

What I will buy into however, is a flat tax rate across the board on all earnings (wages, capital gains dividends, everything), along with an inheritance tax equal to the going rate.

 

[sealybobo]

If that is your logic, then aren't we by lowering taxes on the poorer encouraging growth in that lower classes?

Isn't that what we want to do?



You raise an interesting point on an asset based tax as a partial supplement. Particularly since many assets that were generated in a system where the Govt incurred debt to finance the lower taxes, it makes sense that those who benefitted most from that policy pay for fixing it.

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

How does it make more sense to penalize those who are at the bottom rung trying to work their way out of poverty instead?

You would have to adopt the conservative mindset in order to understand.

They want to give all the tax breaks to the rich and they think it'll trickle down. Only problem is, people at the bottom suffer. But they don't care, because they believe in Darwin's survival of the fittest. The weak get eaten and the strong survive. Since this is natural, they don't see it as immoral.

Since we are better than that, I like bottom up economics better than trickle down.

And I don't buy it that it'll raise prices and cost people their jobs. Companies only hire as many people as they need to get the job done, no more or less.

And the only thing that brings wages up is a good economy. If 95% of us have money to spend, guess what? The economy runs great.

 

[Newby]

Sure, let's figure out a way to penalize people for saving their money as well. Geez ... you people NEVER quit where it comes to digging in MY pockets and spending MY money.

How does it make more sense to penalize those who are at the bottom rung trying to work their way out of poverty instead?

I will repeat what Newby said, because it's true:

The poor don't pay taxes.

There is a bottom line, if you earn less than that you pay nothing in income taxes.

I think I read/heard somewhere that something like 48% do not pay taxes, but I'd have to verify that b/c I'm not sure if it's really that high. And that's a big problem if it is that high, because then that 48% have absolutely no stake in what the feds do or how high they make the taxes. In fact the opposite is true, and they are voting to raise taxes and to keep all the free goodies coming. It's the basis, in my opinion, of what the Democratic party stands for. Vote for us, we'll take care of you, give you everything you need and pay for it all by taking the money from all the 'haves', and when it's a voting block of 48% and growing, then the stage it set and the pandering begins. It's a lousy system that we've allowed to evolve in this country.

 

[sealybobo]

A scary element of the recent election was related to the division of what classifies "rich". Unfortunately, both parties GREATLY missed the mark by focusing the debate on annual earnings, something that is both naive and archaic in nature.

With an income tax system that is progressive, we inhibit growth of individuals from one class to a higher class through taxation on earnings. We do this by labeling them as wealthy if they earn more than a certain dollar amount per year without regard to their actual net worth.

If we want a progressive tax system, it should be based, at least partially, on the net worth of the individual. Currently, someone worth $1 billion that earns $100k per year will pay less in taxes than someone worth -$200k (student loans perhaps) that earns $250k per year. This makes it very difficult for the one who assumed significant debt to be a success to become one.

I like the national sales tax concept, but only as a replacement. We already have too much taxation. If we had both a sales tax and an income tax, we would end up with only 1% of our earnings that we decide how to use.

So the billionaire who has already paid taxes on the money he/she earned should be taxed again on it because they have more than everyone else? Why don't we just say that people in the US will only be permitted to accumulate a net worth of $1 million. After that, all assests are taxed at 100% since they already have everything they need. Sorry, I'm not buying into that.

What I will buy into however, is a flat tax rate across the board on all earnings (wages, capital gains dividends, everything), along with an inheritance tax equal to the going rate.

How about we just up how much we ORIGINALLY tax the rich and then we won't tax them again? Because you said we tax them twice on it. Do we?

And don't we get taxed multiple times on our money too? You pay an income tax, and if you put your money away and gain interest, don't you pay money on the interest you make? And if you buy a home, you pay taxes, and if you sell it, don't you have to pay taxes on the money you get from selling the home?

And this is happening to poor/middle class people. Why the hell are you crying for rich people when it is you that is getting fucked?

And why did you start at $1 million? That's not rich. When we talk rich, we're talking about people who have $20 million. At least thats who I'm talking about.

We have a progressive tax system. And we will always have a progressive tax system. It makes sense.

Is our tax system fucked up? Hell yea, but not because it is unfair to the rich people who make the tax laws. But boy do they got you arguing for them though, don't they?

 

[sealybobo]

How does it make more sense to penalize those who are at the bottom rung trying to work their way out of poverty instead?

I will repeat what Newby said, because it's true:

The poor don't pay taxes.

There is a bottom line, if you earn less than that you pay nothing in income taxes.

I think I read/heard somewhere that something like 48% do not pay taxes, but I'd have to verify that b/c I'm not sure if it's really that high. And that's a big problem if it is that high, because then that 48% have absolutely no stake in what the feds do or how high they make the taxes. In fact the opposite is true, and they are voting to raise taxes and to keep all the free goodies coming. It's the basis, in my opinion, of what the Democratic party stands for. Vote for us, we'll take care of you, give you everything you need and pay for it all by taking the money from all the 'haves', and when it's a voting block of 48% and growing, then the stage it set and the pandering begins. It's a lousy system that we've allowed to evolve in this country.

What free goodies?

If you ask me, the system takes care of the poor, as it should, and it certainly benefits the rich, so who's getting fucked?

The middle class!!!!! We're paying all the taxes. The rich have loopholes and write offs and they get their taxes back. Hell, they probably make money on the scam.

How would we know?

Albert Einstein
The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.

And yet you guys think you have all the answers? Or you know for sure that the rich are paying too much? What a bunch of suckers. House slaves! Sheep!!!!