Let's Tax the Rich More!

[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.

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?

Ummm, no. You just aren't quite capable of grasping the fact that taxing people on their assets, which have already been taxed, is not fair or right or even ethical. That would pretty much be the equivalent of theft. You want to tax people a higher percentage of their earnings, that is fine if necessary. I wasn't arguing for the rich, as you say. That is just you hating the rich and driving class warfare.

If I was arguing so much for the rich, I wouldn't support a flat tax on all forms of income, because that is the type of tax that will actually make the wealthy pay more.

 

[sealybobo]

Um ... no, charity became more appealing under Bush, that's the "tax cuts" you rant about, they aren't really cuts, they are a way to allow the rich to choose which organizations get their money through donations instead. Actually, when Bush got elected the second time I though we were doomed, because he is still a moron. But someone had to have been advising him well, because during that time our welfare system in this state got so damned good I found a way out of the shelters. So no, he made it better. Justifying Obama's theft of trillions by claiming the GOP stoll 700 billion doesn't work on me. I can add you see, so math isn't as alien to me as it is to you.

As for companies only hiring what they need, completely bass-ackwards as hell. In order for a company to grow they have to hire and train first, then grow after, so no, they hire more than they need so long as there is a chance they will grow. I'm not even good enough to run a company on my own and I know that, seems you actually need the schooling.

Now, the part that is truly so fucked up that any true Democrat or liberal would stone you for, "I don't care about all the reasons why we can't. YES WE CAN, and yes we will raise their taxes." ... that is what was wrong with the Republicans and is completely against anything true Democrats and true liberals would EVER say, think, or do. Go back to school, study American history. The Republicans have improved a lot, while the Democrats are deteriorating. Right now they are about even so I support neither, but if the trend continues I will be a Republican supporter in a few years.

Theft? Who's benefitting from Obama's "theft"? American people? Who benefitted from Bush? The top 1%. So because you made it out of poverty under bush, you don't care about the people who fell into it under him? I can do math too, and more people went backwards than went forward. Middle class went further into debt, more people lost their health insurance, etc. What if you got sick? The rich healthcare giants don't give a fuck about you. Pro lifers do, but the corporations don't.

And did you know that after Rockafellor, JP Morgan, J Gould, Carnege, etc. The richest men back in the early 1900's. Did you know that when they were successful in taking over our treasury, they gave away MILLIONS to charity. So what? They gained billions. So they looked like good guys to people like you. So Bush gave billions to charity? He stole trillions from us. And it all went to Haloburton/KBR/Blackwater/Oil companies/etc.

Let me rephrase. The company will only hire as many people as they need, TO GROW. And if the economy is bad, like it is now, then the company cuts back becaue there is no growth in a bad economy.

So who created the bad economy? The GOP. NAFTA. I know, Clinton signed it.

Actually, no, more people did not become homeless and broke under Bush, but a LOT of people got out of the shelters because of donations from the rich while he was in Presidency. You didn't eve read the whole thing, and you cannot make abstract mental connections at all. People did not start "falling" backwards because of Bush, they did because of a world wide recession, a normal occurrence of the economy, he did screw up by spending more money (same exact thing Obama is doing now), but it wasn't his fault. Now, as I said, get back to school, you clearly did not learn how to learn the first time.

You may have gotten out of the shelter, but you are still retarded.

Before President Bush took office, under Democratic leadership, income was on the rise, jobs were expanding, and the economy was booming. Today, the Census Bureau announced that real household income has decreased in 2004, falling for the fourth consecutive year. Since the beginning of the Bush Administration, household income has declined nearly $1,700. Over 1.1 million people fell out of the middle class into poverty in 2004, an increase of 5.4 million people living in poverty since Bush took office. Despite this, Republicans still have no plan to help struggling middle class families. Democrats are fighting to create jobs and keep good paying jobs here at home.

Today, the Census Bureau announced that the number of people without health insurance nationwide increased to 45.8 million, the fourth consecutive annual increase. A total of 800,000 Americans became uninsured last year - many because fewer employers offer health insurance to their workers. As a consequence, American families are paying higher and higher health insurance premium - which are expected to double under Bush's tenure by 2006. Yet, Bush and Congressional Republicans lack a real plan to address the problem.

 

[sealybobo]

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?

Ummm, no. You just aren't quite capable of grasping the fact that taxing people on their assets, which have already been taxed, is not fair or right or even ethical. That would pretty much be the equivalent of theft. You want to tax people a higher percentage of their earnings, that is fine if necessary. I wasn't arguing for the rich, as you say. That is just you hating the rich and driving class warfare.

If I was arguing so much for the rich, I wouldn't support a flat tax on all forms of income, because that is the type of tax that will actually make the wealthy pay more.

It isn't my fault that class warfare is occuring. I didn't wage it. They waged it on us. Started under Reagan when they started attacking the unions, and then with NAFTA and sending jobs overseas without looking out for the American workers. Yes, a bit of protectionism.

We have a progressive tax, not a flat one. I wonder why Bush/Delay/Boehner never tried to come out with a flat tax?

 

[sealybobo]

The wealthiest didn't. The banks that keep the economy going did.

6 or one half dozen, they are one and the same...imo....and if you look in to it, I believe I am correct.

Nope:

Bill Gates - Still worth a fortune, no bailout needed.

Steve Jobs - Still worth a fortune, no bail out needed.

Google - Still making money, no bail out needed.

etc.

Banks are usually owned by more than one person, and they are usually not the top 1%.

Bill Gates keeps lobbying Congress that he needs more foreign worker visa's so he can bring more indians over from india to take jobs away from Americans and pay them less. HB1 Visa's. Google it.

IBM, cut their IT staff's wages by 15%. How can they do that if Bill Gates suggests that we have a shortage of IT people in this country? Wouldn't all the IBM people pick up and leave? What happened to S&D? Its a lie. If they really needed IT people, no fucking way they would dare cut wages 15%. NO WAY!

IBM hits back against over-timers with pay cut • The Register

And Google Google Layoffs - 10,000 Workers Affected
By Daya Baran at November 23, 2008 95 Comments

There is so much you need to learn and we will go round and round all day. I can tell I will get no where with you. And you no where with me.

 

[Iriemon]

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?

Ummm, no. You just aren't quite capable of grasping the fact that taxing people on their assets, which have already been taxed, is not fair or right or even ethical.

That is not necessarily true. Assets are often made up of unrealized capital gains, which are not taxed in most cases.

Lots of states have property taxes. Whether it is fair or ethical is a matter of opinion.

If I was arguing so much for the rich, I wouldn't support a flat tax on all forms of income, because that is the type of tax that will actually make the wealthy pay more.

That is an interesting proposition I'd like to see explained; unless you mean the current tax code is so corroded with loopholes for the rich the current system actually has a degree of regressiveness to it. Then I might see your point, tho I'd disagree with the remedy.

 

[Newby]

Lordy, over 90 posts defending the rich - does anyone here know any rich people I wonder?

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

UBI and the Flat Tax

Social security beats the market!

One man's retirement math: Social Security wins | csmonitor.com

Social security is insurance for all Americans - great and noble thing, you'd think everyone would praise a genuinely Christian and humanitarian project.

Are Obama and his leftist Dems not rich? Yet you seem to have no trouble at all 'supporting' them.

 

[MaggieMae]

So spend more and slow growth more which diminishes tax revenue more so we can spend more.

OK

Now Obama is predicting that his expansion of government spending will result in an increase in GDP but the data contradicts him does it not?

So if GDP continues to decline as a result of government spending, how does the government raise enough revenue?

Higher taxes for everyone that's how and that has been my point all along but you would all rather argue about what rich people pay in taxes rather than the real issue of an out of control spend happy government.

'I Am Dr. Realist'
Economist Nouriel Roubini

...if we didn't have these fiscal deficits, the recession would become a depression. On the other side, I do agree that this is not a free lunch. We are going to add trillions of dollars to our public debt, which is going to go from 40 to 80 percent of the GDP. There are only a few ways in which you can finance that extra public debt. If you rule out default and a capital levy on wealth, you either have the "inflation tax" or you have to painfully cut spending or raise taxes, and either one is not going to be politically palatable.

This is not about deficits. Nice try at deflection though.

The Armey curve is a relationship of the size of government spending and the growth of GDP.

When government spending reaches the tipping point of about 17.5% every dollar more of government spending corresponds to a net decrease in GDP.

And I am for painfully cutting spending because there is so much waste that the pain will not be felt by most of us. In fact most of us will be better off in the long run because in the long run we will have more of our own money to keep.

I was responding specifically to YOUR "Armey" curve which, standing alone, says nothing. However, if you think tax cuts and tax subsidies don't add to the deficit (loss of revenue), you're nuts.

 

[MaggieMae]

Are you saying you don't know how to keep the government out of your pockets?

You need to understand the difference between "ownership" and "control" as well as the difference between "income" and "wealth."

I'm stunned by those comments. I can only presume that Rush figured the majority of his listeners wouldn't have a clue what they were talking about. It's an admission that should be chiseled in stone in front of the capital building.

why be stunned? it makes perfect sense. If you get whacked for taxes on earned income, is it not completely logical to reduce your amount of earned income in favor of what is defined as unearned income thereby keeping more of your own money in your pockets?

It is a simple thing really. For example, my wife and I own a business. We own the building and land. We run our business from the first floor and one part of the property. we live on the second floor. We take salaries from the business on which we pay all the usual taxes but we keep those salaries as low as possible. The business pays us 42K a year in rental income on which we pay no Social security or payroll taxes and on which we get generous tax deductions for property repairs. We take the rest of our income as a dividend from our stock holdings in our business and avoid SS taxes etc on that income as well. we max out a retirement plan and have another business that manages our property. Now business A pays business B to manage the property and we get to have a second retirement plan that we max out and another source of dividend income. We also rent our barn to the management co and receive more income that we avoid payroll taxes on.

Pretty cool huh?

So I presume you like the Tax Code as written. None of this flat tax nonsense, eh?

 

[MaggieMae]

because you idiot, i was never in favor of Iraq or Afghanistan and i thought you weren't either.

So you're in favor of unnecessary wars as long as it's a Dimocrat in charge right?

Bush and the GOP didn't need the two wars to break pork records:

In 2006, Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion “to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994.” In 2005, Congress inserted 15,877 pork projects into spending bills.

Where were you tea baggers then?

31,709 Earmarks Later, Bush Decides Pork Is A Problem
In 2006, Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion “to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994.” In 2005, Congress inserted 15,877 pork projects into spending bills. In his weekend radio address, President Bush called on Congress to reform this earmarking process:

[O]ne of the best ways we can impose more discipline on federal spending is by addressing the problem of earmarks. … My administration will soon lay out a series of reforms that will help make earmarks more transparent, that will hold the members who propose earmarks more accountable, and that will help reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills.

Pork is a problem. But Bush should also address reform in his own administration. Bush’s earmarks are much tougher to find, often appearing “only in closely held supplements separate from the public budget books. … [A]s head of the executive branch, the president often doesn’t need earmarks: Once federal agencies get funding from Congress, his appointees are fairly free to steer sums to places, programs and vendors as the administration decides.” A few examples of Bush’s bacon:

– “While the Education Department’s budget would be cut, Mr. Bush propose[d] a 16% increase to $204 million for teaching sexual abstinence in high schools, a popular cause for social conservatives.”

– Rep. Anne Northup (R-KY), “a target of Democrats in this year’s midterm elections,” secured “a $3.5 million research grant for a local surgical team. The funds came not from congressional earmarks but from Pentagon accounts, according to the report.”

– Bush requested “$10 million for Preserve America grants for communities’ historic preservation efforts and $50 million for the Helping America’s Youth Initiative — also among programs championed by Mrs. Bush.”

Bush may say he’s against pork, but in his six years as President, Bush has never once vetoed any of Congress’s pork-laden spending bills.

This was from 2006, before the Dems took over Congress. NOT ONE VETO when the GOP were breaking pork records. And don't blame Bush 100%, because it was Tom Delay's GOP and also Dennis Hastert.

Think Progress » 31,709 Earmarks Later, Bush Decides Pork Is A Problem

So can you see why we don't think you are being genuine? You are against pork when the Dems are in charge. You are against the social programs we like. Well, you lost the election, so we are cutting waste (the programs you like) and we are funding programs we like.

And did you see the part where Bush hid pork in Pentagon spending? Obama is transparent. At least a lot more than Bush was. Just like Clinton had a surplus. At least compared to the GOP Presidents he did.

And I never voted for Bush so what's your point?

Of course you didn't... heh heh

 

[MaggieMae]

I kind of like living in a country where thanks to SS we don't have hordes of the disable, survivors or old folks living under freeways.

I think Skull would prefer to move the elders of his family into his barn and charge them rent.

 

[MaggieMae]

Sealy you idiot how do you tax money when you don't know how much money if any is there? The big draw of Both the Cayman Islands and the Swiss banks is that once your money is in there no one can find out about it.

Sure they can.

Coca-Cola, Oracle, Intel Use Cayman Islands to Avoid U.S. Taxes - Bloomberg.com

Someone was describing the physical aspects of this huge 5-story building (above) in the Caymens, and the "offices" there consist of little desks lined up side by side with signs on top identifying the company. It it wasn't such a gross picture, it might be fodder for Saturday Night Live.

Also, the Swiss government has cooperated with the US government in releasing at least a partial list of invidividual accounts held in UBS, to the tune of over $50 billion in hidden cash.

 

[MaggieMae]

I see that some of my comments have been misread here.

My position is that a government should only collect enough in taxable revenue to protect its people from foreign invasion. They should not reallocate these funds into investments in individuals or corporations that fail miserably at contributing to the nation.

Our country focuses more on bailing out failure companies and people who will never push for any level of success. Betting on the failures is not the way to stay number one in the world.

Instead, this post was designed to point out how the target of annual income levels as earning the label of "rich" is ignorant and designed to oppress those in the middle class from using their hard efforts to make a better life for their families.

I think people should have the right to rise and fall on their own merits, the same should be true for companies. When a company or person falls and you bail them out that is socialism or communism, when you say to someone 'hey I will buy your company and make it better, or hey I could find you another job' that's capitalism as it should be. Not the corporate socialist paradise Obama wants to turn the USA into.

The new bankruptcy law (recently upheld) makes it very hard for individuals to just get "bailed" out. And the government doesn't just buy up failing companies willy-nilly. Without a bailout of the financial institutions, the entire credit cycle which PRIVATE ENTERPRISE needs to survive would have collapsed. Bailout of the auto industries was deemed necessary because it isn't just Detroit that would fall, it is the tens of thousands of SMALL BUSINESSES that support the auto industry (glass manufacturers, computer chips, rubber widgets, and a plethora of other "parts" that go into vehicles you wouldn't even think of).

 

[Care4all]

I'm stunned by those comments. I can only presume that Rush figured the majority of his listeners wouldn't have a clue what they were talking about. It's an admission that should be chiseled in stone in front of the capital building.

why be stunned? it makes perfect sense. If you get whacked for taxes on earned income, is it not completely logical to reduce your amount of earned income in favor of what is defined as unearned income thereby keeping more of your own money in your pockets?

It is a simple thing really. For example, my wife and I own a business. We own the building and land. We run our business from the first floor and one part of the property. we live on the second floor. We take salaries from the business on which we pay all the usual taxes but we keep those salaries as low as possible. The business pays us 42K a year in rental income on which we pay no Social security or payroll taxes and on which we get generous tax deductions for property repairs. We take the rest of our income as a dividend from our stock holdings in our business and avoid SS taxes etc on that income as well. we max out a retirement plan and have another business that manages our property. Now business A pays business B to manage the property and we get to have a second retirement plan that we max out and another source of dividend income. We also rent our barn to the management co and receive more income that we avoid payroll taxes on.

Pretty cool huh?

So I presume you like the Tax Code as written. None of this flat tax nonsense, eh?

a flat tax may be the only way to make our tax structure fair. If everyone gets a specific deduction per person, then taxed equally on every dollar we earn from working, investing, or inherriting above such....it could work....

there will still be ways to mask your earnings through things like investing in the stock market, like the hiltons owning a kazillion shares of Hilton stocks, where their net worth or gain is never taxed if they don't sell it, the person inherriting should at least be taxed on the capital gains though...

and how would things like tax free municiple bonds work? They couldn't under a true flat tax, there would be no tax shelters, right?

Skull, is a perfect example of why those with capital and money have an advantage in working our tax code, to their advantage, while 60% of Americans use the Short Form, with no loopholes, when filing.

this is not skull's fault though...he is just using the system the very wealthiest got put in place....

care

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

Strawman. Never said anything of the sort. I commented on your having no moral objection to just taking from me what I have earned. How does it make sense if you take from me until I end up slaving to be one of the poor because you give my money to someone who isn't slaving to prop them up at an artificial level they have not earned?

You want to help the poor? There's no right way to do the wrong thing. Stealing from those who have is wrong.

How often has it ever happened that a wealthy business owner, for example, winds up being a "slave" to the poor? You spout a worst-case scenario as gospel. Talk about "strawman" commentary. Yours beats all.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

These morons and their class envy think they are going to somehow alter the lifestyles of the wealthy. Fact is, the wealthy will just come up with other ways to maintain the status quo. The first thing to go is their investment capital. That's the money they use to invest in ventures that keep people in the construction industry employed.

In effect, they're just screwing the little guy and deluding themselves that they aren't.

The new Democrat way: instead of spending taxes on education programs and job training, things like that, just tax the hell out of the rich and hand it to the poor in the way of welfare.

I'm poor, but if they raise the taxes on the rich I think I'll stay poor. I am already getting a bonus from Obama this month thanks to being on state medical insurance (Medicaid) ... hell, if they keep that up I may as well stay on it as long as I can.

Have taxes been raised yet? How about screaming when it happens? But as you say, you're poor, and you won't meet the "rich" formula anyway which is basically no more than 4% higher than it is now for those earning over $250K per year.

And how do you get a "bonus" via Medicaid? You must also be collecting SSI, so please don't get everyone else all excited who will NOT be qualified for a "bonus" unless they are a Social Security recipient. Millions of people who are eligible for Medicaid are not.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why did the very wealthiest need our bail out money if they are so smart and wise and handle their money so well?

Why are we trying to PROTECT THEM, if that is what this is all about...?

I think because poor people dont' provide jobs and opportunites for anyone else.

Whoa...going a little off track here. The banking crisis can hardly be summed up by a one-sentence analysis (Care4all), and the "wealthy" hardly provided jobs and opportunities as they should have. Wages have remained flat, benefits greatly reduced or eliminated, full-time jobs split into two part-time, and...well, the list is endless.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think because poor people dont' provide jobs and opportunites for anyone else.

No, we just do all the work.

Let us know if the rich ever want to trade positions.

Bet you that we won't complain as much as they do and THEY will complain more than we do. BET!!!

You have this hang up that rich people are the "office staffers", don't you. Here's the facts: Most of the truly wealthy people started off with very little, most who are handed a fortune blow it long before they are old enough to retire and wind up broke as a joke with no punchline. "Office staffers", the morons who sit on their asses all day doing nothing but getting paid for it just because they have a degree, are not rich, they are actually middle class. These office staffers could be blamed for the state of the economy, most won't live within their means and know too little about budgeting money, so they get credit and spend money that doesn't even exist. The rich people, the truly wealthy, then have to bail them out all the time to keep their employees since they were conned into thinking that a degree actually means something. Some are now hiring people like me, though I remain freelance I still get the calls from business owners looking to get something fixed that a person with a degree fucked up. I could get wealthy, I'm just happy where I am and trying to increase my workload isn't something I am yet ready to handle (baby steps as they say). I was well off before, just at the middle class level, and lost it all ... and I mean ALL of it. So I have seen this from all sides, all angles, and guess what? The richest of the rich were the ones that were there to help, not the middle class who were in too much debt to cover their own asses. Tax the rich more and fewer people like me will be able to get anywhere.[/QUOTE]

Of course that is COMPLETELY untrue. I wonder how many people in the top tier tax bracket of 39% in the 90's were complaining so loudly then? I sure never heard any of it, and I worked and played in Los Angeles and mingled with rich, not-so-rich, and poor all the time. I wonder if these conversations would even be had if Bush hadn't insisted that "he was going to give back some of that surplus to the people" and instituted two major tax cuts? Now that Obama wants to roll it back to the level under Clinton, my God, you'd think the ozone layer had burst through for all the yelping we're hearing from the Greedy Brigade. And the MOST ironic part is those who were "rich" then are even "richer" now and can well afford to pay the higher rate.

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

Ummm, no. You just aren't quite capable of grasping the fact that taxing people on their assets, which have already been taxed, is not fair or right or even ethical. That would pretty much be the equivalent of theft. You want to tax people a higher percentage of their earnings, that is fine if necessary. I wasn't arguing for the rich, as you say. That is just you hating the rich and driving class warfare.

If I was arguing so much for the rich, I wouldn't support a flat tax on all forms of income, because that is the type of tax that will actually make the wealthy pay more.

Someone who owns a starter castle gets to write off his interest on a multi-million dollar mortgage; gets to write off a portion of sales tax on his new yacht(s); gets to use depreciation tables. It amounts to subsidizing the wealthy, since most middle-income homeowners don't EARN enough to use those deductions.

I'm sick of wealthy people whining that they're taxed too much, when they have at their disposal subsidies not employed by lesser affluent people. Most of them wind up paying far less in taxes, and in many cases none at all. (See Limbaugh's classic explanation, previously posted.)

 

[sealybobo]

No, we just do all the work.

Let us know if the rich ever want to trade positions.

Bet you that we won't complain as much as they do and THEY will complain more than we do. BET!!!

You have this hang up that rich people are the "office staffers", don't you. Here's the facts: Most of the truly wealthy people started off with very little, most who are handed a fortune blow it long before they are old enough to retire and wind up broke as a joke with no punchline. "Office staffers", the morons who sit on their asses all day doing nothing but getting paid for it just because they have a degree, are not rich, they are actually middle class. These office staffers could be blamed for the state of the economy, most won't live within their means and know too little about budgeting money, so they get credit and spend money that doesn't even exist. The rich people, the truly wealthy, then have to bail them out all the time to keep their employees since they were conned into thinking that a degree actually means something. Some are now hiring people like me, though I remain freelance I still get the calls from business owners looking to get something fixed that a person with a degree fucked up. I could get wealthy, I'm just happy where I am and trying to increase my workload isn't something I am yet ready to handle (baby steps as they say). I was well off before, just at the middle class level, and lost it all ... and I mean ALL of it. So I have seen this from all sides, all angles, and guess what? The richest of the rich were the ones that were there to help, not the middle class who were in too much debt to cover their own asses. Tax the rich more and fewer people like me will be able to get anywhere.[/QUOTE]

Of course that is COMPLETELY untrue. I wonder how many people in the top tier tax bracket of 39% in the 90's were complaining so loudly then? I sure never heard any of it, and I worked and played in Los Angeles and mingled with rich, not-so-rich, and poor all the time. I wonder if these conversations would even be had if Bush hadn't insisted that "he was going to give back some of that surplus to the people" and instituted two major tax cuts? Now that Obama wants to roll it back to the level under Clinton, my God, you'd think the ozone layer had burst through for all the yelping we're hearing from the Greedy Brigade. And the MOST ironic part is those who were "rich" then are even "richer" now and can well afford to pay the higher rate.

I'm lost. Do you agree with me or not?

And Obama isn't ending Bush's tax cuts. He's just letting them expire as they are supposed to. Obama can do NOTHING and the bush tax breaks will end in 2011.

Now will the GOP fight to have them made permanent? Of course.

What hangup do I have?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm stunned by those comments. I can only presume that Rush figured the majority of his listeners wouldn't have a clue what they were talking about. It's an admission that should be chiseled in stone in front of the capital building.

why be stunned? it makes perfect sense. If you get whacked for taxes on earned income, is it not completely logical to reduce your amount of earned income in favor of what is defined as unearned income thereby keeping more of your own money in your pockets?

It is a simple thing really. For example, my wife and I own a business. We own the building and land. We run our business from the first floor and one part of the property. we live on the second floor. We take salaries from the business on which we pay all the usual taxes but we keep those salaries as low as possible. The business pays us 42K a year in rental income on which we pay no Social security or payroll taxes and on which we get generous tax deductions for property repairs. We take the rest of our income as a dividend from our stock holdings in our business and avoid SS taxes etc on that income as well. we max out a retirement plan and have another business that manages our property. Now business A pays business B to manage the property and we get to have a second retirement plan that we max out and another source of dividend income. We also rent our barn to the management co and receive more income that we avoid payroll taxes on.

Pretty cool huh?

So I presume you like the Tax Code as written. None of this flat tax nonsense, eh?

As usual you presume incorrectly.

I would support a flat tax if it was less than the total percentage I pay now.

I would support a national sales tax if it was less than the total percentage I pay now.

I am for the abolition of Social Security and I am for people keeping that portion of their money to do with as they see fit.