A question for Republicans

[bigrebnc1775]

You're not 'screaming', you're whining.

Tax 'em out of the country. Great idea, idiot boy.

You did not answer the question....

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

Why are you using Sean Connery for your avatar? He is, after all, rich an, therefore, evil!

I mean you really should find a mendicant Arthur to use if you want to make a statement!

That's different he's not an American.

 

[Sunshine]

You did not answer the question....

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

Why are you using Sean Connery for your avatar? He is, after all, rich an, therefore, evil!

I mean you really should find a mendicant Arthur to use if you want to make a statement!

That's different he's not an American.

But he sure has made a lot of moolah here!

 

[beagle9]

Once people have money that they have already paid taxes on to the gov't, should the gov't tax them again for what they do with the money that they earned?

If people do not invest their money for their future, should the gov't be able to tax them extra and do an "investment plan" for them?

No, the gov't should not tax money that has already been taxed, and is then invested. Any money earned in the form of value or interest should belong to the person that made the risk (the gov't risked nothing). It would be a great incentive for every person to invest in their future.

Yes, but the government who has no income other than what is taken from us, looks out into the world of what is going on all around it, and it views how many people are being outcasted these days in response to what the rich consider is just doing business by them, and so these people are being thrown upon the governments doorstep for it to then take care of, while the rich donot look back or think about them anymore once rid of them. This can be in result of technology changing so fast, thus causing people to become outdated in certain fields that are moving at lightening speed these days, outsourcing by the rich to make extreme profits from by doing so, extreme greed, bad risk taking and etc. that can cause thousands to be set upon the doorstep of the government looking for help in a heart beat anymore, not to mention what went on for the rich in concerns of the illegals in this nation, where they (the rich business men) were working them under cover (if the shoe fits then wear it), and getting government to go along with it, where as government was subsidizing these peoples needs at the expense of working class Americans jobs and higher taxes because of, while those same working class Americans were being cast upon the doorstep of the government for it to then take care of.

Now what should the government do in all of this? Allow the rich to make billions, yet have not enough itself coming in afterwards, in order to take care of the millions who have been cast aside by the rich once they have been used up and thrown away for what ever reason? No it shouldn't, but what is the proper response by government in these situations encountered these days? Anyone !

You really shouldn't post drunk, Puppy dog.

No one has been cast aside by the rich. The rich got that way from hard work, good ideas and sound business practice,. but you try to paint them as somehow evil. It's liberal dogma to paint certain wealthy people as evil.
You could at least, be consistent.
Exxon is evil! They enjoy an 8.4% profit margin. Apple is good at at 34.2%. Google is good with a 25.7% margin but Walmart is bad at 3.8%

As far as raising taxes on the evil rich, could you somehow justify taxing the man who makes a $50 million salary $12 million while the guy making $50 thousand pays $8K?

If you would follow me on here, you would see that I donot cast anyone who has made their money legally as being evil (no matter if rich or other), but I do point out the ones (if the show fits then wear it) who did enguage in evil greed, that had swollen into a significant number over the years, and that did cast many onto the government assistance roles, in which is right now a fact you choose to ignore.

Please read carefully before you post OK.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why are you using Sean Connery for your avatar? He is, after all, rich an, therefore, evil!

I mean you really should find a mendicant Arthur to use if you want to make a statement!

That's different he's not an American.

But he sure has made a lot of moolah here!

It's just different Evil American rich do not equal Brittish rich.

 

[Sunshine]

Yes, but the government who has no income other than what is taken from us, looks out into the world of what is going on all around it, and it views how many people are being outcasted these days in response to what the rich consider is just doing business by them, and so these people are being thrown upon the governments doorstep for it to then take care of, while the rich donot look back or think about them anymore once rid of them. This can be in result of technology changing so fast, thus causing people to become outdated in certain fields that are moving at lightening speed these days, outsourcing by the rich to make extreme profits from by doing so, extreme greed, bad risk taking and etc. that can cause thousands to be set upon the doorstep of the government looking for help in a heart beat anymore, not to mention what went on for the rich in concerns of the illegals in this nation, where they (the rich business men) were working them under cover (if the shoe fits then wear it), and getting government to go along with it, where as government was subsidizing these peoples needs at the expense of working class Americans jobs and higher taxes because of, while those same working class Americans were being cast upon the doorstep of the government for it to then take care of.

Now what should the government do in all of this? Allow the rich to make billions, yet have not enough itself coming in afterwards, in order to take care of the millions who have been cast aside by the rich once they have been used up and thrown away for what ever reason? No it shouldn't, but what is the proper response by government in these situations encountered these days? Anyone !

You really shouldn't post drunk, Puppy dog.

No one has been cast aside by the rich. The rich got that way from hard work, good ideas and sound business practice,. but you try to paint them as somehow evil. It's liberal dogma to paint certain wealthy people as evil.
You could at least, be consistent.
Exxon is evil! They enjoy an 8.4% profit margin. Apple is good at at 34.2%. Google is good with a 25.7% margin but Walmart is bad at 3.8%

As far as raising taxes on the evil rich, could you somehow justify taxing the man who makes a $50 million salary $12 million while the guy making $50 thousand pays $8K?

If you would follow me on here, you would see that I donot cast anyone who has made their money legally as being evil (no matter if rich or other), but I do point out the ones (if the show fits then wear it) who did enguage in evil greed, that had swollen into a significant number over the years, and that did cast many onto the government assistance roles, in which is right now a fact you choose to ignore.

Please read carefully before you post OK.

Joe Kennedy?

Who had his beautiful mentally ill (not retarded) daughter, Rosemary, lobotomized so she wouldn't ruin his sons' political careers!~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy

 

[beagle9]

What you fail to comprehend is that a person making more, paying the same percentage as someone making less, is paying progressively more, even at the same rate, he's just paying at the same rate. He is being Taxed when he spends it too. Progressively more, because he spends more. Everyone needs to start paying in, that is the big problem today, too many pay zero income tax, even though they earn taxable income. That's a scam in itself.

It is a scam. And if companies paid workers better wages, then it would not be a problem. Right?

If workers were actually worth more money, they would earn more. I would guess that you actually pay your boss to let you hang around.

Has nothing to do alot these days with worth, but more so to do with greed.. Greed has become a huge problem in America now, so what to do about that, is truly what the whole issue is about anymore. There are many ideas, but no one knows who is right in those ideas or who is wrong, so the debates rage on....

 

[Sunshine]

It is a scam. And if companies paid workers better wages, then it would not be a problem. Right?

If workers were actually worth more money, they would earn more. I would guess that you actually pay your boss to let you hang around.

Has nothing to do alot these days with worth, but more so to do with greed.. Greed has become a huge problem in America now, so what to do about that, is truly what the whole issue is about anymore. There are many ideas, but no one knows who is right in those ideas or who is wrong, so the debates rage on....

So tell us what is your secret to not being 'greedy.'

What about covetous. You seem pretty covetous.

 

[beagle9]

if workers were actually worth more money, they would earn more. I would guess that you actually pay your boss to let you hang around.

has nothing to do alot these days with worth, but more so to do with greed.. Greed has become a huge problem in america now, so what to do about that, is truly what the whole issue is about anymore. There are many ideas, but no one knows who is right in those ideas or who is wrong, so the debates rage on....

so tell us what is your secret to not being 'greedy.'

what about covetous. You seem pretty covetous.

huh?

 

[Oldstyle]

Should the idle rich, who don't work, pay taxes at a lower rate than people who do work?

Under our tax system you pay a different rate for capital gains and wages...the theory being that if you tax both at the same rate then you are in fact taxing income when it was first made at a high rate and then taxing it again when it is invested and makes a profit. For people who do work and then invest their wages in stocks or other investments (which are many Americans...not just the "idle rich", whoever they are...) then what you are calling for is to charge them the same rate on their investment income as they paid on their wages, something that will SEVERELY dampen any impetus for people to invest in the growth of the economy.

But you don't see that...do you, Chris? You're so worried that some rich guy is making money from investments that you haven't stopped to think about the outcome of your proposed actions. That is a nutshell is why progressives and economics are such a bad match.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Lowering the capital gains taxes encourages people to invest more of their money.

Not entirely true. What encourages people to invest is the return they get on that investment.

 

[Unkotare]

Troll thread

 

[ilia25]

Do you really think if we put each and every government program to a national vote, that any more than 10% of them would survive? Come on, the people were taken out of this equation a long time ago.

Around 80% of all government spending goes to military, Medicare and social security. I don't think people would want to cut those. And the rest, like NASA, or road repair many would also consider important.

Stories about huge government wasteful spending are greatly exaggerated.

 

[Intense]

Do you really think if we put each and every government program to a national vote, that any more than 10% of them would survive? Come on, the people were taken out of this equation a long time ago.

Around 80% of all government spending goes to military, Medicare and social security. I don't think people would want to cut those. And the rest, like NASA, or road repair many would also consider important.

Stories about huge government wasteful spending are greatly exaggerated.

 

[Liability]

Do you really think if we put each and every government program to a national vote, that any more than 10% of them would survive? Come on, the people were taken out of this equation a long time ago.

Around 80% of all government spending goes to military, Medicare and social security. I don't think people would want to cut those. And the rest, like NASA, or road repair many would also consider important.

Stories about huge government wasteful spending are greatly exaggerated.

Like there's not a shit load of waste in military, medicare and even in social security ...

When we "agree" to spend so massively on shit that we have no damn business spending any money on at all, there is indeed a whole lot that can and should be cut.

 

[Listening]

Do you really think if we put each and every government program to a national vote, that any more than 10% of them would survive? Come on, the people were taken out of this equation a long time ago.

Around 80% of all government spending goes to military, Medicare and social security. I don't think people would want to cut those. And the rest, like NASA, or road repair many would also consider important.

Stories about huge government wasteful spending are greatly exaggerated.

Give me a hatchet and I'll carve up SS and medicare.

There is a lot of waste and fraud in both.

Don't kid yourself.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oy! WHo're you trying to snow here???

25% goes to military, which is constitutional and a specific job of the feds.

20% goes to Social Security which is NOT constitutional for the feds to do.

29% or so goes towards all healthcare, education, welfare and other social spending which is not constitutional for the feds to do

So there's almost 50% that can be cut out of the budget and get us back to a constitutional position.

Let me ask you something. What do you think will happen if you decrease government spending by 50%? Our budgetary spending deficit would vanish overnight and we'd have probably a surplus of some degree or other. This would shore up the dollar, and if we left taxes where they are for a SHORT period of time, we'd be able to pay off a lot of debt fast. Or you could just cut taxes back to where we are breaking even on spending and allow that money to go back to the states to do with as they see fit, or even the citizenry who would hopefully reinvest and get our nation's business back on it's feet.

Government waste is not vastly exaggerated.

 

[beagle9]

Do you really think if we put each and every government program to a national vote, that any more than 10% of them would survive? Come on, the people were taken out of this equation a long time ago.

Around 80% of all government spending goes to military, Medicare and social security. I don't think people would want to cut those. And the rest, like NASA, or road repair many would also consider important.

Stories about huge government wasteful spending are greatly exaggerated.

Like there's not a shit load of waste in military, medicare and even in social security ...

When we "agree" to spend so massively on shit that we have no damn business spending any money on at all, there is indeed a whole lot that can and should be cut.

Maybe not completely cut, but sure looked at a whole hec of alot closer, or better yet looked at way more than what has been going on in the past.

It all depends on who is helping who in it all. that allows a blind eye to be turned away from these issues, just like they are in each election and/or by the dearly elected afterwards.

 

[ilia25]

I'd support a Flat Percentage Tax at a fair, low rate that treated all income the same, Investment, Dividend, Salary, be you Rich or Poor. Everybody should Pay Their Share.

That would make the poor paying more and the rich paying less in taxes, than they are paying now.

As for fairness -- do you think it is fair that some hard working suit is making 100 times more than an equally hard working, but a less talented janitor? Some lucky people are just born with more talent than the others -- so why we should reward their luck?

I think there is nothing unfair if a guy making more than a million a year would have their marginal tax rate set at 70%.

Is 13% of 25,000 dollars less than 13% of 2.5 million dollars? With withholding, who's going to notice? Just withhold the fat 13% and let them keep the rest. Sounds very fair to me if you tax income.

Flat tax does not address the issue of inequality. Inequality is only good to the extent that it motivates people to work harder. Beyond that it is bad for society as a whole (and for the rich people if they know what's good for them).

Flat tax creates too much of inequality. There are studies that suggest that the optimal top marginal tax rate should be 70%. Optimal means less inequality with little impact on motivation.

 

[ilia25]

Better question- why does the government have a right to any of our money?

No, because the government does not have rights to anything. It is created by the people to provide the services the people want it providing. And it the people, not the government, who decide on a fair way to finance the government services.

So make no mistake, it is not the government versus the people. It is those among us who want the rich and successful to give back more versus those those thinking that those less talented and less successful should left to take care of themselves.

You dictate well. The only problem I see that contradicts your prognosis is Governments addiction to Usurpation.

That is why we have the democracy -- specifically to address that problem.

 

[ilia25]

Do you really think if we put each and every government program to a national vote, that any more than 10% of them would survive? Come on, the people were taken out of this equation a long time ago.

Around 80% of all government spending goes to military, Medicare and social security. I don't think people would want to cut those. And the rest, like NASA, or road repair many would also consider important.

Stories about huge government wasteful spending are greatly exaggerated.

Like there's not a shit load of waste in military, medicare and even in social security ...

Example?