tax breaks for the rich vs cuts for the people

[Jarhead]

The top 10% pay more in taxes than the other 90% combined. They've sacrificed. They've invested. They've risked their money on business ventures, hiring, etc, etc.

With great risk comes great reward. Without great reward, why would anyone take a great risk, such as founding a company like WalMart or Microsoft? Not everyone can be a union gov't employee with a cushy and almost guaranteed lifelong income. Some people roll the dice and start business.

But unless the Great Risk = Great Reward equation, no one would risk inventions, innovations, etc, etc.

You libs just need to get over your extreme envy of the wealthy and realize that.

Innovation and jobs come from rich people and profits. Without that reward, why would anyone do anything more than a stable, gov't union job?

Microsoft was founded in 1976. The top tax rate in 1976 was 70%.

Thanks for making a claim and then proving yourself wrong all in one post.

lol

and thanks to DiamondDave for foolishly agreeing with you.

I guess if we want the kind of 'risk taking' that gave us a company like Microsoft and all the innovation and advancement that came with it,

we should RAISE the top tax rates.

Care to comment on the amounts of deductions, what was considered income, etc?? It was not as simple as a 70% tax rate on the upper earners and companies.... but nice try

Still does not justify unequal treatment based on income or any other basis, by our government, in a supposed free society

You can tell who has been in a position to make financial decisions strictly by their knowledge, or lack thereof as it pertains to operating costs vs revenue...

NYCarbineer....based on his response to my post about tax shelters has absolutely no idea how cost benefit analysis is applied to the decision to "take a risk"...

In other words, he is out of his league with this debate.

Thus why the silliness of his 1976 Microsoft post....

 

[martybegan]

Microsoft was founded in 1976. The top tax rate in 1976 was 70%.

Thanks for making a claim and then proving yourself wrong all in one post.

lol

and thanks to DiamondDave for foolishly agreeing with you.

I guess if we want the kind of 'risk taking' that gave us a company like Microsoft and all the innovation and advancement that came with it,

we should RAISE the top tax rates.

Disingenuous post....

in 1976 tax shelters were still deemed as legal and acceptable.....

Go away.

You honestly believe that the only reason Bill Gates and Paul Allen built Microsoft is because of tax shelters???

LOL, that is mentally retarded.

Actually a valid point. While the book rate was at 70% I wonder what the actual % paid in taxes was back then compared to now, for various tax types. No one seems to discuss that.

 

[Jarhead]

Disingenuous post....

in 1976 tax shelters were still deemed as legal and acceptable.....

Go away.

You honestly believe that the only reason Bill Gates and Paul Allen built Microsoft is because of tax shelters???

LOL, that is mentally retarded.

Actually a valid point. While the book rate was at 70% I wonder what the actual % paid in taxes was back then compared to now, for various tax types. No one seems to discuss that.

It is more than a valid point.
It is the EXACT reason innovation was not stymied during the 70% tax rate years.
Anyone who was in business back then knows this.....and of course it is never discussed....it only hurts the liberal side of the debate.
And when it is boriught up? Well...first it is referred to as mentrally retarded by NY Carbineer....and then the lohgic is ignored.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Microsoft was founded in 1976. The top tax rate in 1976 was 70%.

Thanks for making a claim and then proving yourself wrong all in one post.

lol

and thanks to DiamondDave for foolishly agreeing with you.

I guess if we want the kind of 'risk taking' that gave us a company like Microsoft and all the innovation and advancement that came with it,

we should RAISE the top tax rates.

Care to comment on the amounts of deductions, what was considered income, etc?? It was not as simple as a 70% tax rate on the upper earners and companies.... but nice try

Still does not justify unequal treatment based on income or any other basis, by our government, in a supposed free society

You can tell who has been in a position to make financial decisions strictly by their knowledge, or lack thereof as it pertains to operating costs vs revenue...

NYCarbineer....based on his response to my post about tax shelters has absolutely no idea how cost benefit analysis is applied to the decision to "take a risk"...

In other words, he is out of his league with this debate.

Thus why the silliness of his 1976 Microsoft post....

Why are you trolling?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Go away.

You honestly believe that the only reason Bill Gates and Paul Allen built Microsoft is because of tax shelters???

LOL, that is mentally retarded.

Actually a valid point. While the book rate was at 70% I wonder what the actual % paid in taxes was back then compared to now, for various tax types. No one seems to discuss that.

It is more than a valid point.
It is the EXACT reason innovation was not stymied during the 70% tax rate years.
Anyone who was in business back then knows this.....and of course it is never discussed....it only hurts the liberal side of the debate.
And when it is boriught up? Well...first it is referred to as mentrally retarded by NY Carbineer....and then the lohgic is ignored.

Why wasn't innovation stymied in the 90's?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The top 10% pay more in taxes than the other 90% combined. They've sacrificed. They've invested. They've risked their money on business ventures, hiring, etc, etc.

With great risk comes great reward. Without great reward, why would anyone take a great risk, such as founding a company like WalMart or Microsoft? Not everyone can be a union gov't employee with a cushy and almost guaranteed lifelong income. Some people roll the dice and start business.

But unless the Great Risk = Great Reward equation, no one would risk inventions, innovations, etc, etc.

You libs just need to get over your extreme envy of the wealthy and realize that.

Innovation and jobs come from rich people and profits. Without that reward, why would anyone do anything more than a stable, gov't union job?

Microsoft was founded in 1976. The top tax rate in 1976 was 70%.

Thanks for making a claim and then proving yourself wrong all in one post.

lol

and thanks to DiamondDave for foolishly agreeing with you.

I guess if we want the kind of 'risk taking' that gave us a company like Microsoft and all the innovation and advancement that came with it,

we should RAISE the top tax rates.

Care to comment on the amounts of deductions, what was considered income, etc?? It was not as simple as a 70% tax rate on the upper earners and companies.... but nice try

Still does not justify unequal treatment based on income or any other basis, by our government, in a supposed free society

So you would prefer to replace the current tax structure with the 1976 tax structure?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Go away.

You honestly believe that the only reason Bill Gates and Paul Allen built Microsoft is because of tax shelters???

LOL, that is mentally retarded.

Actually a valid point. While the book rate was at 70% I wonder what the actual % paid in taxes was back then compared to now, for various tax types. No one seems to discuss that.

It is more than a valid point.
It is the EXACT reason innovation was not stymied during the 70% tax rate years.
Anyone who was in business back then knows this.....and of course it is never discussed....it only hurts the liberal side of the debate.
And when it is boriught up? Well...first it is referred to as mentrally retarded by NY Carbineer....and then the lohgic is ignored.

Why don't you prove there are currently no tax breaks for research and development NOW, then.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The top 10% pay more in taxes than the other 90% combined. They've sacrificed. They've invested. They've risked their money on business ventures, hiring, etc, etc.

With great risk comes great reward. Without great reward, why would anyone take a great risk, such as founding a company like WalMart or Microsoft? Not everyone can be a union gov't employee with a cushy and almost guaranteed lifelong income. Some people roll the dice and start business.

But unless the Great Risk = Great Reward equation, no one would risk inventions, innovations, etc, etc.

You libs just need to get over your extreme envy of the wealthy and realize that.

Innovation and jobs come from rich people and profits. Without that reward, why would anyone do anything more than a stable, gov't union job?

Microsoft was founded in 1976. The top tax rate in 1976 was 70%.

Thanks for making a claim and then proving yourself wrong all in one post.

lol

and thanks to DiamondDave for foolishly agreeing with you.

I guess if we want the kind of 'risk taking' that gave us a company like Microsoft and all the innovation and advancement that came with it,

we should RAISE the top tax rates.

Disingenuous post....

in 1976 tax shelters were still deemed as legal and acceptable.....

And when did 'tax shelters' end?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not according to the left. They're food... hosts for them to be parasites on till they die, then a new host will come about for the parasitic left to glom onto.

I'm asking what sacrifice the Rich should make towards balancing the budget,

since to balance the budget, sacrifices MUST be made.

So far the answer, from conservatives here, via silence, is NONE.

Are you in agreement? Do you believe the Rich should be exempted from sacrifice needed to balance the budget?

Should all of that sacrifice fall on the non-Rich?

They shouldn't have to make any sacrifice to balance the budget. No one should, regardless of income level. The people didn't engage in this runaway spending. Congress did that. It's their mess to fix and they have no right to make anyone pay for it.

The big ticket items necessary to balance the budget are:

Cut Medicaid

Cut Medicare

Cut Social Security

Cut the Military Budget.

Now how in the world can you accomplish those without anyone having to make a sacrifice?

 

[Bern80]

I'm asking what sacrifice the Rich should make towards balancing the budget,

since to balance the budget, sacrifices MUST be made.

So far the answer, from conservatives here, via silence, is NONE.

Are you in agreement? Do you believe the Rich should be exempted from sacrifice needed to balance the budget?

Should all of that sacrifice fall on the non-Rich?

They shouldn't have to make any sacrifice to balance the budget. No one should, regardless of income level. The people didn't engage in this runaway spending. Congress did that. It's their mess to fix and they have no right to make anyone pay for it.

The big ticket items necessary to balance the budget are:

Cut Medicaid

Cut Medicare

Cut Social Security

Cut the Military Budget.

Now how in the world can you accomplish those without anyone having to make a sacrifice?

What will have to be sacrificed is relative. Aside from the military, those are things government should have never gotten into in the first place. Those programs bread dependence in government by people instead of dependence on themselves which ultimately made the nation weaker. People will have to make sacrifices, IF they don't learn how to provide those same things for themselves. Government is not required to secure a retirement fund, nor are they required to provide for your medical expenses. The private sector has the capability of handling those things and do it better.

 

[Political Junky]

The Maddow Blog - Rick Scott and Tax Cuts for Dummies

Governor Scott won the election in November with his own many millions and a lot of Tea Party love. He has since been busy turning down federal funding for high-speed rail and fighting against health reform. As we noted on the show last night, Mr. Scott's new budget cuts $1.75 billion in funding for education -- the Times attributes the difference to the end of federal stimulus support -- and includes roughly the same amount on corporate and property tax breaks.

"So K through 12 education gets absolutely eviscerated in the state of Florida, and the money that is saved by the state no longer spending the money on the schools doesn't close the state budget gap at all," Rachel Maddow said. "It leaves it roughly exactly as is and instead gives the saved money away in the form of tax cuts. So, you get all of the pain and none of the gain." Who gets the win on that?

 

[DiamondDave]

Maddowblog...??? Seriously??? LOL

 

[DiamondDave]

Microsoft was founded in 1976. The top tax rate in 1976 was 70%.

Thanks for making a claim and then proving yourself wrong all in one post.

lol

and thanks to DiamondDave for foolishly agreeing with you.

I guess if we want the kind of 'risk taking' that gave us a company like Microsoft and all the innovation and advancement that came with it,

we should RAISE the top tax rates.

Care to comment on the amounts of deductions, what was considered income, etc?? It was not as simple as a 70% tax rate on the upper earners and companies.... but nice try

Still does not justify unequal treatment based on income or any other basis, by our government, in a supposed free society

So you would prefer to replace the current tax structure with the 1976 tax structure?

lol

I would prefer that the government stop pussyfooting and playing around with complex systems that are so complex that it takes teams of lawyers to figure them out.... and I would prefer that assholes like you don't try and take the base numbers at face value as some ignorant talking point for your wingery, without any understanding of the facts behind it

 

[Rozman]

If the Liberal Democrats feel the tax system is unfair by all means let them handover more of THEIR money to the government to fund the liberal programs that they hold so dearly.

In fact they should put up or just shut up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Care to comment on the amounts of deductions, what was considered income, etc?? It was not as simple as a 70% tax rate on the upper earners and companies.... but nice try

Still does not justify unequal treatment based on income or any other basis, by our government, in a supposed free society

So you would prefer to replace the current tax structure with the 1976 tax structure?

lol

I would prefer that the government stop pussyfooting and playing around with complex systems that are so complex that it takes teams of lawyers to figure them out.... and I would prefer that assholes like you don't try and take the base numbers at face value as some ignorant talking point for your wingery, without any understanding of the facts behind it

You didn't answer the question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Question remains largely unanswered.

If there must be sacrifice to balance the budget, what do conservatives want the Rich to sacrifice?

Or should the sacrifice fall on everyone but the Rich?

 

[DiamondDave]

The Question remains largely unanswered.

If there must be sacrifice to balance the budget, what do conservatives want the Rich to sacrifice?

Or should the sacrifice fall on everyone but the Rich?

I am not saying to even cut the taxes on the 'rich'... just put everyone's taxes on every dollar at the rate you wish to keep charging the 'rich' (see how much you like big govt spending then)

What do we sacrifice in terms of spending... all those bullshit things government was not intended to do... all entitlements, all subsidies, all political vacations, all public service announcements, etc...

 

[DiamondDave]

So you would prefer to replace the current tax structure with the 1976 tax structure?

lol

I would prefer that the government stop pussyfooting and playing around with complex systems that are so complex that it takes teams of lawyers to figure them out.... and I would prefer that assholes like you don't try and take the base numbers at face value as some ignorant talking point for your wingery, without any understanding of the facts behind it

You didn't answer the question.

I prefer neither.. as each is bullshit and complex with so many loopholes.... Could be I pay 36% then compared to 38% now, could be I pay 40% then compared to 38% now.. hard to say what it would actually be for my situation... but this is not about MY situation.. what it is about is a completely equal % system that taxes each dollar earned the same.... and with such a thing, having the ability to also shrink the oversized and overbloated IRS

 

[Bern80]

If the Liberal Democrats feel the tax system is unfair by all means let them handover more of THEIR money to the government to fund the liberal programs that they hold so dearly.

In fact they should put up or just shut up.

I like this idea too. We just add a line to tax forms when it's time to do tax returns. The Federal Government Donation line. You're to right in an amount you like. If you feel government just doesn't have enough money and has to have more, knock yourself and give them more then what you owe in taxes. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would give more than they owe since they feel it's so important right?

 

[rightwinger]

If the Liberal Democrats feel the tax system is unfair by all means let them handover more of THEIR money to the government to fund the liberal programs that they hold so dearly.

In fact they should put up or just shut up.

I like this idea too. We just add a line to tax forms when it's time to do tax returns. The Federal Government Donation line. You're to right in an amount you like. If you feel government just doesn't have enough money and has to have more, knock yourself and give them more then what you owe in taxes. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would give more than they owe since they feel it's so important right?

How about we just elect officials who represent our views?