[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[ilia25]

How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder

How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder, more hours and RISKED everything they have to attempt to earn more?
Fair to those that pay fewer taxes and demand that the power of government confiscate wealth that others have legally earned and give to someone else all with the myth of "fairness".
And income tax PUNISHES those that are willing to take those risks, create jobs and the economic growth that a capitalist system requires.
You get MORE of what you reward and less of what you punish.
Life is not fair and it is a bad lesson to practice and teach "everything should be fair" to our youth.
It has us where we are now, a growing moocher class.

No kidding, "but you didnt build that" ~ Obozo and Elizabeth Warren's.....

 

[Truthseeker420]

Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.

Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck.

I don't smoke. Why should I have to pay the taxes for some corporation to use bridges, roads ,courts, police , fire and other common services paid by taxpayers so some guy can smoke and have tax payers pay for his medical care?

The dual-taxation meme

The dual-taxation meme | Felix Salmon

You do realize that business pay taxes for roads too don't you?

In fact a trucking business pays far more in taxes than you do as well as taxes you don't pay for roads.

Truck drivers tear up a lot of stuff on the road. But that is another thread.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

Polls are only as good as the questions asked. Your poll sucks.

A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional. If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.

Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment. Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth. As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth. In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).

No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country. Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed. But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax. The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians. Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR, but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology. Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become. Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.

Does this mean you feel the same way about George Soros using his great wealth to try and influence the direction of the country as you do the Koch brothers?

Absolutely.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I don't smoke. Why should I have to pay the taxes for some corporation to use bridges, roads ,courts, police , fire and other common services paid by taxpayers so some guy can smoke and have tax payers pay for his medical care?

The dual-taxation meme

The dual-taxation meme | Felix Salmon

You do realize that business pay taxes for roads too don't you?

In fact a trucking business pays far more in taxes than you do as well as taxes you don't pay for roads.

Truck drivers fuck up a lot of shit on the road. But that is another thread.

Yes...so let's tax the shit out of them. And watch the cost of goods rise accordingly.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

Polls are only as good as the questions asked. Your poll sucks.

A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional. If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.

Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment. Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth. As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth. In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).

No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country. Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed. But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax. The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians. Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR, but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology. Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become. Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.

The OP's poll sucks?
Yes, but if it were commissioned by liberals and the poll results the same, you'd be crowing in support of the poll.

I would huh? You're full of shit, but I suspect on some level you know that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Starting with the year 2013, there will be a new long-term capital gains rate of 20% which applies to taxpayers who fall within the new 39.6% tax bracket. The new capital gains tax rates for 2013 and future years are as follows:
0% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 10% and 15% tax brackets,
15% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax brackets, and
20% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 39.6% tax bracket.
Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax for taxpayers with income at or above a certain threshold.

Simple tax questions for the home schooled;

1. Is 20% less than or equal to 39.6%?

2. If 90% of your income over $1 million dollars comes from Dividends then what income rate will you be paying on that 90% of your income?

(a) 39.6%
(b) 20%
(c) Nothing because the "moocher class" doesn't deserve any of MY income.​

3. What was the Dividend Income tax rate before the current increases?

4. What is the difference between Dividend Income and Capital Gains Income?
​

Write your answers on the back of a $1000 bill and send them to the IRS. Don't forget to include your return address.

Dividend tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rates and history since 2003 are there. Bush cut the FIRST 2 INCOME BRACKETS TO 0% AND OBAMA KEPT THEM AT 0%. Again, INCOME BRACKETS YOU DOLT.

Obama increased the upper class taxation to 39.6% and 20% IN REGARDS TO INCOME AND GAINS.

This is data I ALREADY GAVE and YOU MISINTERPRETED TO JUSTIFY YOUR MEDIA MATTERS ARGUMENT ON ROMNEY.

[quoteIn the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.

Meanwhile, the preferential treatment given to qualified dividends is set to disappear completely. As of 2013, individuals will have to pay their income tax rate on all dividend income they receive.

Item 4. Long time versus short time investments.

My last quote shows that under OBAMA AND THE LIBS 20% = 39.6%. aka TAX INCREASES UNDER OBAMA AND THE LIBS ALREADY.

You get a "F -" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.

 

[Sunshine]

Simple tax questions for the home schooled;

1. Is 20% less than or equal to 39.6%?

2. If 90% of your income over $1 million dollars comes from Dividends then what income rate will you be paying on that 90% of your income?

(a) 39.6%
(b) 20%
(c) Nothing because the "moocher class" doesn't deserve any of MY income.​

3. What was the Dividend Income tax rate before the current increases?

4. What is the difference between Dividend Income and Capital Gains Income?
​

Write your answers on the back of a $1000 bill and send them to the IRS. Don't forget to include your return address.

Dividend tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rates and history since 2003 are there. Bush cut the FIRST 2 INCOME BRACKETS TO 0% AND OBAMA KEPT THEM AT 0%. Again, INCOME BRACKETS YOU DOLT.

Obama increased the upper class taxation to 39.6% and 20% IN REGARDS TO INCOME AND GAINS.

This is data I ALREADY GAVE and YOU MISINTERPRETED TO JUSTIFY YOUR MEDIA MATTERS ARGUMENT ON ROMNEY.

[quoteIn the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.

Meanwhile, the preferential treatment given to qualified dividends is set to disappear completely. As of 2013, individuals will have to pay their income tax rate on all dividend income they receive.

Item 4. Long time versus short time investments.

My last quote shows that under OBAMA AND THE LIBS 20% = 39.6%. aka TAX INCREASES UNDER OBAMA AND THE LIBS ALREADY.

You get a "F -" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.

You're not doing so well in English, yourself.

 

[blackhawk]

Polls are only as good as the questions asked. Your poll sucks.

A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional. If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.

Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment. Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth. As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth. In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).

No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country. Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed. But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax. The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians. Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR, but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology. Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become. Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.

Does this mean you feel the same way about George Soros using his great wealth to try and influence the direction of the country as you do the Koch brothers?

Absolutely.

Fair enough.

 

[Sunshine]

So true, when more folks hop in the wagon then pull it, we are so fucked.....

Payroll taxes are pulling the wagon in this country. It's time for the entitled to get off & pay their freight.

The Liberal Left's Dirty Little Secret: The Middle Class and Poor Pay For the Entitlement State - Forbes

If you do not believe me, an influential member of the media elite (from the New York Times editorial board, no less), let this secret slip in a remarkably candid admission. (Note his article appeared after the election):

“The experience of many other developed countries suggests that paying for a government that could help the poor and the middle class cope in our brave new globalized world will require more money from the middle class itself….The United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world.….. Taxes on American households do more to redistribute resources and reduce inequality than the tax codes of most other rich nations…. Insisting on highly progressive taxes that draw most revenue from the rich may result in more inequality than if we relied on a flatter, more ‘regressive’ tax schedule to raise money from everybody (!!!) and pay for a government that could help every American family attain a decent standard of living.”

Gee, I don't know. I've seen how people on the other side of the world live, and I don't believe there is anyone in this country who, if they really wanted a decent standard of living instead of putting every cent they get up their noses, could have it. And yes, I've worked in the projects. That experience taught me that if worse came to worse and I had to live there, I could. Many of those apartments are clean and expensively furnished.

 

[Sunshine]

Thank you for admitting that Mitt Romney paid less in taxes than the middle class and will continue to pay less even with these adjusted rates on the bulk of his income. Nice of you to also admit to being a major part of the problem too. Have a nice day.

TUCK YOUR TAIL AND RUN LIB.

Exactly how'd I prove your point?

Try reading the thread again. You provided essentially the same dividend rate information that proved that wealthy 1%er's like Mitt Romney pay those lower dividend tax rates on the bulk of their income.

Investments and earnings are taxed differently for everyone.

 

[Truthseeker420]

You do realize that business pay taxes for roads too don't you?

In fact a trucking business pays far more in taxes than you do as well as taxes you don't pay for roads.

Truck drivers fuck up a lot of shit on the road. But that is another thread.

Yes...so let's tax the shit out of them. And watch the cost of goods rise accordingly.

Taxes have went down on big trucking companies. Cheap freight and fuel prices are the main reason for the price increase of goods.

 

[Sunshine]

How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder

How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.

I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts in my social circle who decided to make me the subject of the rumor mill when I started back to school at 36. I worked considerably harder than the staff nurses who did not go back to school and get a masters degree while also working the units. I worked considerably harder than the message board denizens who sit on her and grind out their stupidity, and those people could spend their time taking online classes instead of doing this shit, and they would move up in the world too. But they won't even take the first step and go talk to the counselors at the schools to obtain financial aid to go, financial aid that I did not get, but which I would be helping pay for through my taxes and donations to my 3 alma maters.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Payroll taxes are pulling the wagon in this country. It's time for the entitled to get off & pay their freight.

The Liberal Left's Dirty Little Secret: The Middle Class and Poor Pay For the Entitlement State - Forbes

If you do not believe me, an influential member of the media elite (from the New York Times editorial board, no less), let this secret slip in a remarkably candid admission. (Note his article appeared after the election):

“The experience of many other developed countries suggests that paying for a government that could help the poor and the middle class cope in our brave new globalized world will require more money from the middle class itself….The United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world.….. Taxes on American households do more to redistribute resources and reduce inequality than the tax codes of most other rich nations…. Insisting on highly progressive taxes that draw most revenue from the rich may result in more inequality than if we relied on a flatter, more ‘regressive’ tax schedule to raise money from everybody (!!!) and pay for a government that could help every American family attain a decent standard of living.”

Gee, I don't know. I've seen how people on the other side of the world live, and I don't believe there is anyone in this country who, if they really wanted a decent standard of living instead of putting every cent they get up their noses, could have it. And yes, I've worked in the projects. That experience taught me that if worse came to worse and I had to live there, I could. Many of those apartments are clean and expensively furnished.

I haven't 'worked' in Public Housing [PH] ("the projects") but in college I worked as a recreation director for The City and I knew families who lived in PH, later I did searches and made arrests there and I can attest to the fact that the criminal element which lives in such housing is generally - not all - disrespectful of the property, the police and their neighbors. There was PH in the SE corner of San Francisco which included such an element but also families - generally minorities but not all - who worked several jobs, had few benefits, but always sent their kids to school with the best attire they could afford and when work was not in the way attended parent nights at school. Suggesting poverty's sole cause is drug addiction is both callous and ignorant.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No I did not. The information is based on INDIVIDUAL INCOME RATES, NOT DIVIDEND RATES.

The first brackets are associated with LOW INCOME BRACKETS.

DIVIDEND INCOME paid to INDIVIDUALS is subject to LOWER tax rates than other income. Thank you for admitting that you don't understand this topic and are therefore unqualified to participate.

BS. I posted the data and link. It shows wage brackets associated with the Gains rates in the article.

Show me where it specifies 39.6% in tax rates on DIVIDENDS AND GAINS?

If you look back at the data, that 39.6% is associated with a 20% Gains Rate.

STOP SPINNING THE DATA. IT DOESN'T WORK.

20% is a LOWER TAX RATE that 39.6%. If you earn $100,000 from ORDINARY income and $900,000 from DIVIDEND income how much tax are YOU going to pay?

The entire premise is that the BULK of income for the wealthy comes from dividends and capital gains which will be taxed at the LOWER RATE of only 20%. (It was only 15% BEFORE the latest tax increase.)

 

[Derideo_Te]

How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder

How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.

I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts in my social circle who decided to make me the subject of the rumor mill when I started back to school at 36. I worked considerably harder than the staff nurses who did not go back to school and get a masters degree while also working the units. I worked considerably harder than the message board denizens who sit on her and grind out their stupidity, and those people could spend their time taking online classes instead of doing this shit, and they would move up in the world too. But they won't even take the first step and go talk to the counselors at the schools to obtain financial aid to go, financial aid that I did not get, but which I would be helping pay for through my taxes and donations to my 3 alma maters.

So are you expecting someone to polish your halo now?

 

[FA_Q2]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

Polls are only as good as the questions asked. Your poll sucks.

A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional. If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.

Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment. Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth. As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth. In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).

No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country. Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed. But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax. The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians. Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR, but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology. Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become. Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.

And therein lies the problem with your progressive tax system. A flat tax leaves zero room for manipulation. 20% is 20%, there is nothing to manipulate there. Each ‘progressive’ element you add to the system opens the door for further manipulation of the tax rate. Now you have people advocating for changing the top rate for upper earners or eliminating taxes from the bottom earners completely (while continuing to tax the shit out of them through hidden payroll, SS and other taxes). All this is to buy votes or finagle more money out of the rich for campaign funds. The corruption is inherent in a progressive system precisely because it treats people differently and special interest groups are going to latch onto that insanity.

That is precisely why a flat rate income tax is FAR superior. There is no manipulating that system, no special interests and no lobbing that can do a damn thing. The rate is whatever it is. There is no way to tax the poor more or the rich more, all dollars should be the same.

ANY other system is guaranteed to be rife with corruption and special interests. It is unnerving that you cannot see where all the special tax breaks originate from. It is the progressive tax system itself that generates them and you simply cannot have one without the other. It will not happen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
And you wonder why there is no economic growth here. Capital is fleeing this country because capitalists ARE PUNISHED in America by you communists.

Given the gains in the stock market in the last 4 years that would appear to be bullshit.

Its artificial stupid shit even just a guy like me knows the feds are pumping out money that has no value. its god damn monoply money.

If that were true inflation would be through the roof the dollar would be plummeting and interest rates would be skyhigh.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder

How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.

I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts in my social circle who decided to make me the subject of the rumor mill when I started back to school at 36. I worked considerably harder than the staff nurses who did not go back to school and get a masters degree while also working the units. I worked considerably harder than the message board denizens who sit on her and grind out their stupidity, and those people could spend their time taking online classes instead of doing this shit, and they would move up in the world too. But they won't even take the first step and go talk to the counselors at the schools to obtain financial aid to go, financial aid that I did not get, but which I would be helping pay for through my taxes and donations to my 3 alma maters.

And you did all that (allegedly) because you wanted a better income despite knowing that you would pay higher taxes,

thus once again dispelling that notion that the tax system discourages people from trying to better themselves.

 

[Sunshine]

How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.

I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts in my social circle who decided to make me the subject of the rumor mill when I started back to school at 36. I worked considerably harder than the staff nurses who did not go back to school and get a masters degree while also working the units. I worked considerably harder than the message board denizens who sit on her and grind out their stupidity, and those people could spend their time taking online classes instead of doing this shit, and they would move up in the world too. But they won't even take the first step and go talk to the counselors at the schools to obtain financial aid to go, financial aid that I did not get, but which I would be helping pay for through my taxes and donations to my 3 alma maters.

And you did all that (allegedly) because you wanted a better income despite knowing that you would pay higher taxes,

thus once again dispelling that notion that the tax system discourages people from trying to better themselves.

Well there are people on here who piss and moan because their entitlements are so small. They can spend every off hour here, which for some is all the time, or going to school to better, but they refuse. Of course I did it knowing my tax burden would increase. And it did. And this year is no exception because I retired mid year, the IRS is punishing me for working. Next year I get a $200 raise and I can stop having $200/month withheld from SS. So, Jan 1, it's essentially a $400/month raise. I have 3 health insurance policies because I got to keep my work insurance along with Medicare and medigap, so my medicine that costs $100,000/year will be all paid for. My retirement insurance from work is not considered medigap. Was it worth it? Oh HELL yes.

As to your other question, I don't know how to measure 'harder' in percentage. Well, maybe in some circumstances compared to flacid, but not as it applies to work. I'm working harder than the neighborhood housewives if I take 1 class. How much harder taking 4? Or getting 3 degrees? I know that I made one hell of a better living for myself than their husbands made for them.

But I can tell you this, if I were the age of some of the posters on here there is no way I would be wasting precious time here when I could be going to school or moonlighting a little for some extras like travel. Most of my career I had more than one thing going. Sometimes it was moonlighting a shift a week at a hospital, or consulting for pharmaceutical companies. I was always doing something. Now, I have a leisurely life and I can't apologize for it.

s