Taxes: 1%ers -> PAY UP!!!

[rightwinger]

Beats me. The Man isn't keeping me down.

Who is this "man"?

Like I said, I don't know. Any failures I have in life are mine. I'm not looking to rationalize them by blaming them on someone else.

If a corporate executive makes a decision that eliminates your job....have you failed?

If the money you earn is now worth 20% less.....have you failed?

If the taxes and cost to heat your home go up beyond your capabilities to pay.....have you failed?

There are thousands of decisions made every day that affect your life. These decisions are made at high corporate and government levels that do not care how they affect you. The super rich got that way not because they took risks but because they made sure there were no risks in their investments.

Government shelters the wealthy by providing protections on their investments, restraining trade, tax incentives, shelters, labor and environmental give backs.

 

[rightwinger]

no i am not defending paris, geez you're dishonest.

Let's look at this way. Let's say your grandfather bought a 1957 chevy convertible brand new and he babied that car and kept it in like brand new condition. Now let's say he passed that car on to you, now let's say your neighbor came down the road and said "you know mr peepers, that's a lovely 1957 chevy convertible you have sitting in your garage, and i see you have another car, 2 in fac,t sitting in your driveway, and well i have no car and seeings as how you didn't do anything to earn that 1957 chevy convertible anyway i think i'll take it. Besides you're worthless."

how would you react? I'd tell the guy to piss off.

NO ONE suggested taking anything away? How on earth are you righties even injecting that into this converstation???

raising taxes because you feel they aren't paying enough = taking money away from , duh!

We are borrowing money to pay for the taxes we cut. Over ten years we have nothing to show for that tax cut. The decade 2000-2010 is known as an economic lost decade. Minimal job growth, no overall increase in the stock market, devalued dollar.

All that tax cut did was add to the deficit

Now we hear...."Trust us....it will work this time"

 

[Bern80]

The problem is the definition of fair. People like truth and the OP don't know what that is. Fair to them is the more you make the more you pay in taxes. I still don't understand how that fits any defintion of fair. How does being more succesfull somehow obligate one to shoulder more of the tax of burden?

Was the tax rate for this sector fair under reagan?

I don't know and I don't care. Maybe it was fair then maybe it wasn't. I know you libs love using that type of excuse, but justifying an unfair system now by citing an unfair system in the past is a pretty weak argument.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Are you sure you're not envious? Because it sure does sound like you are.

Envious of what? How do you figure? They should receive tax breaks because they are rich, but the middle class doesn't deserve big tax breaks? Isn't it their turn? The tax breaks did nothing for the economy whatsoever, so why not give a break to people who can put the money to use instead of sitting on it and hiding it offshore?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

raising taxes because you feel they aren't paying enough = taking money away from , duh!

When did I say anything about raising ANYONE'S taxes. Project much?

 

[ConHog]

NO ONE suggested taking anything away? How on earth are you righties even injecting that into this converstation???

raising taxes because you feel they aren't paying enough = taking money away from , duh!

We are borrowing money to pay for the taxes we cut. Over ten years we have nothing to show for that tax cut. The decade 2000-2010 is known as an economic lost decade. Minimal job growth, no overall increase in the stock market, devalued dollar.

All that tax cut did was add to the deficit

Now we hear...."Trust us....it will work this time"

Please show me where I have argued that this tax cut is necessary. I have not done so. In fact unlike most on this board, I'm willing to admit that I am economist and so don't have a valid opinion on THAT subject. But I will say that most of the data I have seen says you don't raise taxes to get out of a recession. By the way do you think the wars may have caused part of our financial problems rather than the tax cuts?

All I was addressing in this thread was Peepers silly claim that those rich who are stupid , worthless, and haven't earned their wealth should just shut up and pay more. Who cares how they got their money, and who cares what they do with it once they have it, we don't just take people's shit in this country because we don't like them.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

All I was addressing in this thread was Peepers silly claim that those rich who are stupid , worthless, and haven't earned their wealth should just shut up and pay more.

Um, I never said anything of the sort.

Who cares how they got their money, and who cares what they do with it once they have it, we don't just take people's shit in this country because we don't like them.

Damn, man. Did you take reading comprehension classes in college... did you GO to college? I did not suggest taking anything from anyone. Stop being dishonest.

 

[rightwinger]

raising taxes because you feel they aren't paying enough = taking money away from , duh!

We are borrowing money to pay for the taxes we cut. Over ten years we have nothing to show for that tax cut. The decade 2000-2010 is known as an economic lost decade. Minimal job growth, no overall increase in the stock market, devalued dollar.

All that tax cut did was add to the deficit

Now we hear...."Trust us....it will work this time"

Please show me where I have argued that this tax cut is necessary. I have not done so. In fact unlike most on this board, I'm willing to admit that I am economist and so don't have a valid opinion on THAT subject. But I will say that most of the data I have seen says you don't raise taxes to get out of a recession. By the way do you think the wars may have caused part of our financial problems rather than the tax cuts?

All I was addressing in this thread was Peepers silly claim that those rich who are stupid , worthless, and haven't earned their wealth should just shut up and pay more. Who cares how they got their money, and who cares what they do with it once they have it, we don't just take people's shit in this country because we don't like them.

I agree...two wars at $2 bil a week is killing our economy. Time to pull the plug and let Iraq and Afghanistan make it on their own. We can't afford to be policemen for unstable governments forever.

I am perfectly willing to give the top 1% their tax cut back once the deficit has been paid down and the economy is on sound footing

 

[daveman]

Who is this "man"?

Like I said, I don't know. Any failures I have in life are mine. I'm not looking to rationalize them by blaming them on someone else.

If a corporate executive makes a decision that eliminates your job....have you failed?

If the money you earn is now worth 20% less.....have you failed?

If the taxes and cost to heat your home go up beyond your capabilities to pay.....have you failed?

There are thousands of decisions made every day that affect your life. These decisions are made at high corporate and government levels that do not care how they affect you. The super rich got that way not because they took risks but because they made sure there were no risks in their investments.

Government shelters the wealthy by providing protections on their investments, restraining trade, tax incentives, shelters, labor and environmental give backs.

I'm not saying other people's decisions/actions don't have an effect. But you can sit around bitching and moaning that someone needs to do something to help you, or you can get off your ass and make it happen yourself.

 

[daveman]

Are you sure you're not envious? Because it sure does sound like you are.

Envious of what? How do you figure? They should receive tax breaks because they are rich, but the middle class doesn't deserve big tax breaks? Isn't it their turn? The tax breaks did nothing for the economy whatsoever, so why not give a break to people who can put the money to use instead of sitting on it and hiding it offshore?

Ummm...who said only the rich should get tax breaks?

 

[ConHog]

We are borrowing money to pay for the taxes we cut. Over ten years we have nothing to show for that tax cut. The decade 2000-2010 is known as an economic lost decade. Minimal job growth, no overall increase in the stock market, devalued dollar.

All that tax cut did was add to the deficit

Now we hear...."Trust us....it will work this time"

Please show me where I have argued that this tax cut is necessary. I have not done so. In fact unlike most on this board, I'm willing to admit that I am economist and so don't have a valid opinion on THAT subject. But I will say that most of the data I have seen says you don't raise taxes to get out of a recession. By the way do you think the wars may have caused part of our financial problems rather than the tax cuts?

All I was addressing in this thread was Peepers silly claim that those rich who are stupid , worthless, and haven't earned their wealth should just shut up and pay more. Who cares how they got their money, and who cares what they do with it once they have it, we don't just take people's shit in this country because we don't like them.

I agree...two wars at $2 bil a week is killing our economy. Time to pull the plug and let Iraq and Afghanistan make it on their own. We can't afford to be policemen for unstable governments forever.

I am perfectly willing to give the top 1% their tax cut back once the deficit has been paid down and the economy is on sound footing

Agree with the first sentence

Disagree with the second.


Here's an idea, instead of taking away cuts, just actively go what is actually owed already, but doesn't get paid...

 

[SuMar]

Flat tax sounds pretty fair.

 

[rightwinger]

Please show me where I have argued that this tax cut is necessary. I have not done so. In fact unlike most on this board, I'm willing to admit that I am economist and so don't have a valid opinion on THAT subject. But I will say that most of the data I have seen says you don't raise taxes to get out of a recession. By the way do you think the wars may have caused part of our financial problems rather than the tax cuts?

All I was addressing in this thread was Peepers silly claim that those rich who are stupid , worthless, and haven't earned their wealth should just shut up and pay more. Who cares how they got their money, and who cares what they do with it once they have it, we don't just take people's shit in this country because we don't like them.

I agree...two wars at $2 bil a week is killing our economy. Time to pull the plug and let Iraq and Afghanistan make it on their own. We can't afford to be policemen for unstable governments forever.

I am perfectly willing to give the top 1% their tax cut back once the deficit has been paid down and the economy is on sound footing

Agree with the first sentence

Disagree with the second.


Here's an idea, instead of taking away cuts, just actively go what is actually owed already, but doesn't get paid...

Well if you don't want to give them back their tax cut that is your right. I say let them earn it. Let them bring back jobs, let them spur the economy.
Right now, they are just sitting on their money and holding back

 

[cad]

I agree...two wars at $2 bil a week is killing our economy. Time to pull the plug and let Iraq and Afghanistan make it on their own. We can't afford to be policemen for unstable governments forever.

I am perfectly willing to give the top 1% their tax cut back once the deficit has been paid down and the economy is on sound footing

Agree with the first sentence

Disagree with the second.


Here's an idea, instead of taking away cuts, just actively go what is actually owed already, but doesn't get paid...

Well if you don't want to give them back their tax cut that is your right. I say let them earn it. Let them bring back jobs, let them spur the economy.
Right now, they are just sitting on their money and holding back

so you want to let them "earn' the right to keep the money they earned?

interesting way to look at it.

 

[daveman]

so you want to let them "earn' the right to keep the money they earned?

interesting way to look at it.

That mindset is driven by the notion that ALL money belongs to the government.

 

[editec]

so you want to let them "earn' the right to keep the money they earned?

interesting way to look at it.

That mindset is driven by the notion that ALL money belongs to the government.

Or perhaps it is driven by the notion that we ought to pay our bills instead of leaving them to be paid by our progeny?

 

[daveman]

so you want to let them "earn' the right to keep the money they earned?

interesting way to look at it.

That mindset is driven by the notion that ALL money belongs to the government.

Or perhaps it is driven by the notion that we ought to pay our bills instead of leaving them to be paid by our progeny?

Conservatives have always believed that. The Democrats at the GOP, however, have not.

 

[cad]

so you want to let them "earn' the right to keep the money they earned?

interesting way to look at it.

That mindset is driven by the notion that ALL money belongs to the government.

Or perhaps it is driven by the notion that we ought to pay our bills instead of leaving them to be paid by our progeny?

so in that case, we should all pay higher taxes. let all the tax cuts expire.

what do you suggest the rates should be?

 

[boedicca]

This is why we have to repeal the 16th Amendment and go to a VAT.

No. VAT is a hidden tax added at all stages of production and distribution - and is incredibly abused by politicians.

The tax sounds simple, but don't be fooled. Because both upper- and lower-income families pay the tax at an equal rate, the VAT is considered regressive; that is, it hits the poor harder than the better-off. So it is the practice in countries such as Britain to exempt food, which lower-income families spend a greater proportion of their income on. The technical term is "zero rating," meaning that exempt items are taxed at a "zero rate."

However, wait until the folks at the IRS get their hands on the regulations for the application of the new tax. They will undoubtedly turn to their more experienced British counterparts for guidance.

"Food of the kind used for human consumption," to a British bureaucrat, is something "the average person, knowing what it is and how it is used, would consider it to be food or drink; and it is fit for human consumption. . . . The term includes . . . products like flour, which, although not eaten by themselves, are generally recognized food ingredients . . . [but] would not usually include . . . dietary supplements, food additives and similar products, which, although edible, are not generally regarded as food."

And so, in the United Kingdom, according to the regulations of Her Majesty's Inland Revenue Service, crackers made from tapioca starch carry no tax; prawn crackers made from cereals do. Frozen yogurt that needs to be thawed before eating is zero rated, frozen yogurt bears the tax. Get it? If you don't, too bad—Her Majesty's tax collectors are not in the habit of offering an explanation for their regulations.

Irwin Stelzer: Small Bras and the Value-Added Tax - WSJ.com



It would be better to have a Flat Fair Tax or a simple National Sales Tax that is obvious to the end tax payer how much he is paying.

 

[ConHog]

This is why we have to repeal the 16th Amendment and go to a VAT.

No. VAT is a hidden tax added at all stages of production and distribution - and is incredibly abused by politicians.

The tax sounds simple, but don't be fooled. Because both upper- and lower-income families pay the tax at an equal rate, the VAT is considered regressive; that is, it hits the poor harder than the better-off. So it is the practice in countries such as Britain to exempt food, which lower-income families spend a greater proportion of their income on. The technical term is "zero rating," meaning that exempt items are taxed at a "zero rate."

However, wait until the folks at the IRS get their hands on the regulations for the application of the new tax. They will undoubtedly turn to their more experienced British counterparts for guidance.

"Food of the kind used for human consumption," to a British bureaucrat, is something "the average person, knowing what it is and how it is used, would consider it to be food or drink; and it is fit for human consumption. . . . The term includes . . . products like flour, which, although not eaten by themselves, are generally recognized food ingredients . . . [but] would not usually include . . . dietary supplements, food additives and similar products, which, although edible, are not generally regarded as food."

And so, in the United Kingdom, according to the regulations of Her Majesty's Inland Revenue Service, crackers made from tapioca starch carry no tax; prawn crackers made from cereals do. Frozen yogurt that needs to be thawed before eating is zero rated, frozen yogurt bears the tax. Get it? If you don't, too bad—Her Majesty's tax collectors are not in the habit of offering an explanation for their regulations.

Irwin Stelzer: Small Bras and the Value-Added Tax - WSJ.com



It would be better to have a Flat Fair Tax or a simple National Sales Tax that is obvious to the end tax payer how much he is paying.

Simple national sales tax 10%, at the retail level. No deductions, no refunds, no loopholes, Just that simple, you buy something you pay 10% national sales tax, if you choose to save your money, that's your business.