'Taxing the Rich'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do conservatives and libertarians cry for the rich, do you really think they need your tears? Or your assist? The well to do should pay their fair share, they do fine and since they benefit most from the society that supports them and from the consumers, each of us, who are the primary support of a robust economy, they too should pay, not hide behind you wingnuts and your inane analogies which ignore reality.

"The vast majority of academic studies on who becomes rich have found that intelligence and merit are only a part of the reason -- social factors play a huge role as well. Studies of Fortune 500 companies have found that American executives are seeing exploding pay, but there is no correlation between their pay and a company's profitability. In fact, companies with the greatest inequality of pay suffer worse product quality. And many studies have found that societies with the greatest equality generally enjoy the fastest rates of economic growth.

Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"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


As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State


"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy
 
Quite frankly we should have a "consumption tax" system.

Hear hear!

Direct taxation is anathema to liberty. The most startling oxymoron is a leftist speaking of a supposed "right to privacy." There is NO infringement of privacy that equals the requirement of the 1040/

A pack of cigarettes in Chicago would go from 12 dollars a pack down to 3 dollars.

They are that much? Dayum... The black market must be hopping.

Its funny man, because I smoke and I started buying my smokes online from Europe. The ATF put an end to that when they started seizing my shipments.

Its total nonsense...

Its like a fucking criminal racket....

These crazy criminals want people to buy smokes from the state at their sin-tax rate.
 
Why do conservatives and libertarians cry for the rich, do you really think they need your tears? Or your assist? The well to do should pay their fair share, they do fine and since they benefit most from the society that supports them and from the consumers, each of us, who are the primary support of a robust economy, they too should pay, not hide behind you wingnuts and your inane analogies which ignore reality.

"The vast majority of academic studies on who becomes rich have found that intelligence and merit are only a part of the reason -- social factors play a huge role as well. Studies of Fortune 500 companies have found that American executives are seeing exploding pay, but there is no correlation between their pay and a company's profitability. In fact, companies with the greatest inequality of pay suffer worse product quality. And many studies have found that societies with the greatest equality generally enjoy the fastest rates of economic growth.

Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"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


As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State


"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy

We don't cry for them. We simply abhore the likes of people like you that think you are entitled to their money simply because they have more of it.
 
fine... simplify the tax system... no loopholes or deductions anywhere... say a flat and straight 12% tax on every dollar earned by every citizen, NO EXCEPTIONS... problem solved, right OP?

I wouldn't hold your breath.
 
\


The underlying assumption that a high tax rate would have resulted in the same 277% increase income as did the lower tax rate is specious. High tax rates discourage risk taking. So, if your objective is to make the Wealthy Less Wealthy, then by all means, increase taxes, slow down economic growth, and destroy the environment for job creation which was spurred in the actual scenario.

How would it slow down economic growth if the richest 400 people didn't get richer? Are they the only ones that matter?
 
\


The underlying assumption that a high tax rate would have resulted in the same 277% increase income as did the lower tax rate is specious. High tax rates discourage risk taking. So, if your objective is to make the Wealthy Less Wealthy, then by all means, increase taxes, slow down economic growth, and destroy the environment for job creation which was spurred in the actual scenario.

How would it slow down economic growth if the richest 400 people didn't get richer? Are they the only ones that matter?

Do you believe in equal treatment by government and under law?
 
Why do conservatives and libertarians cry for the rich, do you really think they need your tears? Or your assist? The well to do should pay their fair share, they do fine and since they benefit most from the society that supports them and from the consumers, each of us, who are the primary support of a robust economy, they too should pay, not hide behind you wingnuts and your inane analogies which ignore reality.

"The vast majority of academic studies on who becomes rich have found that intelligence and merit are only a part of the reason -- social factors play a huge role as well. Studies of Fortune 500 companies have found that American executives are seeing exploding pay, but there is no correlation between their pay and a company's profitability. In fact, companies with the greatest inequality of pay suffer worse product quality. And many studies have found that societies with the greatest equality generally enjoy the fastest rates of economic growth.

Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"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


As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State


"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy

leninsmile4pv.jpg


NOTE: Making Lenin smile is NOT a good thing.
 
Why do conservatives and libertarians cry for the rich, do you really think they need your tears? Or your assist? The well to do should pay their fair share, they do fine and since they benefit most from the society that supports them and from the consumers, each of us, who are the primary support of a robust economy, they too should pay, not hide behind you wingnuts and your inane analogies which ignore reality.

"The vast majority of academic studies on who becomes rich have found that intelligence and merit are only a part of the reason -- social factors play a huge role as well. Studies of Fortune 500 companies have found that American executives are seeing exploding pay, but there is no correlation between their pay and a company's profitability. In fact, companies with the greatest inequality of pay suffer worse product quality. And many studies have found that societies with the greatest equality generally enjoy the fastest rates of economic growth.

Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"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


As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State


"Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, is a network of over 700 business leaders and wealthy individuals in the top 5% of income and/or wealth in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for fair taxes and corporate accountability. If you're in the top 5% (over $200,000 household income and/or over $1 million net assets) and you care about economic justice, please join Responsible Wealth today!" Responsible Wealth | United for a Fair Economy

I cry for everyone thats being fucked by government....

I'm mature enough not to loathe someone because they have more than I do.

If people don't have a pot to piss in its THEIR fault not someone elses.

Most "rich" people (250k+) were poor before they were rich.

My mother is a CFO now.... We were poor when I was growing up but my mother and my father slowly progressed financially, now they're "well to do."

I value hard work and have respect for those who take risks in life.... I have little respect for those who cry about being poor but are unwilling to put forth any effort to financially better themselves...

So, instead of buying a 5 dollar lotto ticket, buy a stock or invest that 5 dollars in something.
 
Most "rich" people (250k+) were poor before they were rich.

Sure, if you only declare two categories of people "rich and poor", yeah. But if you include a middle class you're full of shit.

Nor do I see your point anyway. We tax the rich at a higher rate because they can afford to pay more. I'd love to be in the top tax bracket, wouldn't you?
 
Do you believe in equal treatment by government and under law?

How is the treatment unequal? Their 20,000th dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as my 20,000th dollar earned.

Yeah right, 47% of the working populace isn't taxed at all.

The uber wealthy actually pay 99% of the tax revenue received by government.

I think its quite funny how that notion is almost never acknowledged.
 
\


The underlying assumption that a high tax rate would have resulted in the same 277% increase income as did the lower tax rate is specious. High tax rates discourage risk taking. So, if your objective is to make the Wealthy Less Wealthy, then by all means, increase taxes, slow down economic growth, and destroy the environment for job creation which was spurred in the actual scenario.

How would it slow down economic growth if the richest 400 people didn't get richer? Are they the only ones that matter?



How would it help the economy to take away everything that they earn?

The highest tax rates do not apply to just the top 400 taxpayers - they apply to people making over $379K per year. Many of these are entrepreneurs / small business owners. Tax them more, they will invest less and create fewer jobs.
 
Yeah right, 47% of the working populace isn't taxed at all.

That's not even true.

The uber wealthy actually pay 99% of the tax revenue received by government.

Nor is that.

Yes it is true...

Why the fuck you think all these dolts cant wait until April or May for their fucking tax returns???

Why the fuck do you think the government sends you a check??

How about 47% don't pay any income tax???

Yeah I forgot to include that - so I was wrong there but now I'm right.

Go look it up if you don't believe me.....
 
\


The underlying assumption that a high tax rate would have resulted in the same 277% increase income as did the lower tax rate is specious. High tax rates discourage risk taking. So, if your objective is to make the Wealthy Less Wealthy, then by all means, increase taxes, slow down economic growth, and destroy the environment for job creation which was spurred in the actual scenario.

How would it slow down economic growth if the richest 400 people didn't get richer? Are they the only ones that matter?



How would it help the economy to take away everything that they earn?

The highest tax rates do not apply to just the top 400 taxpayers - they apply to people making over $379K per year. Many of these are entrepreneurs / small business owners. Tax them more, they will invest less and create fewer jobs.

Correct...

Its a breath of fresh air hearing an individual say that.
 
Do you believe in equal treatment by government and under law?

How is the treatment unequal? Their 20,000th dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as my 20,000th dollar earned.

By definition, unequal treatment.... making some pay, while others do not... some receiving entitlement handouts, at the expense of contributors...

The system of treatment, even if applied to each person, that is unequal in nature, is by definition unequal...

You sir, are for selective equal treatment by government... like so many of your leftist ilk... equal treatment when it suits you, unequal treatment when it suits you...

Now let's see... if someone decided that it is 'fair' to disallow access to government systems, buildings, or facilities for those who pay nothing into the system... you would consider that unequal treatment and scream bloody murder... if you only received X amount of access to the legal system based on the tax dollars you paid in, you would consider that unequal treatment and scream bloody murder (even though you could say that they receive the same amount of benefits per dollar taxed as anyone else)...

You can twist and turn like every other lefty on this... but you know you are wrong... you're just to ignorant or too stubborn in your mantra to admit it
 
How would it help the economy to take away everything that they earn?

it wouldn't. Considering no one is suggesting we do that - I fail to see your point.
The highest tax rates do not apply to just the top 400 taxpayers - they apply to people making over $379K per year.

The highest tax rates usually DON'T apply to the uber rich - that's the point. A doctor who worked his way through medical school and residency and applied himself to the fullest and now works 80 hour weeks as a highly paid specialist pays a higher rate than most of the uber rich because his income is earned income while most of theirs is capital gains.

Many of these are entrepreneurs / small business owners. Tax them more, they will invest less and create fewer jobs.

If your business nets over 400k a year its probably not a SMALL business. If you define a "small" business has having 500 or fewer employees (which is kinda a liberal definition) - the average income of small businesses is around 250k
Answers.com - What was the average income for small business owners in 2005
 
Yeah right, 47% of the working populace isn't taxed at all.

That's not even true.

The uber wealthy actually pay 99% of the tax revenue received by government.

Nor is that.

Yes it is true...

Why the fuck you think all these dolts cant wait until April or May for their fucking tax returns???

Why the fuck do you think the government sends you a check??

How about 47% don't pay any income tax???

Yeah I forgot to include that - so I was wrong there but now I'm right.

Go look it up if you don't believe me.....


I apologize for not being able to read your mind and basing my reply on what you actually wrote, my bad.

Why the fuck you think all these dolts cant wait until April or May for their fucking tax returns???
I'm starting to wonder if YOU pay taxes. The due date is in April, not May, and someone who was trying to file as early as possible could probably get theirs done in February.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top