Agree or not: The rich benefit the most from tax money?

[Dr Gregg]

That isn't government's business. If society wants to tell basketball players and movie stars that they are shitheads for making multiple millions a year, that's fine. Keep government and assholes like Barack Hussein Obama out of citizen's pockets and make that jerk and his wife stay home and quit wasting my money going to fucking Haiti or campaign stops.

Yea, I'm the crazy one, sure. You voted for an anti capitalist dickhead and you sit patiently for any of his bullshit ideas to pay off and trickle down to you......... but you aren't crazy.

Your last couple posts says it all

 

[DiamondDave]

Very simple, it's not fair.

Life isn't fair, and it never has been. Not once in the history of humankind.

And much more unfair for the common folks than the rich

Government does not and should not exist to equalize outcome and redistribute to ensure that equalized outcome

Freedom.. enjoy it.. the positives AND the negatives that come from it.. because the lack of freedom is worse

 

[Gadawg73]

Competition for the dollar that the wealthy have causes the very young entrepreneur to work 70 hours a week to get that dollar. Competition in the universities and tech schools causes the best of the graduates to go after the high paying jobs. The hardest working of those top grads get the most $ over the long run.
Government and taxes have nothing to do with it UNTIL they enter the picture and fuck it up sideways.
Low taxes raises more $ for government over time.
People keep asking for "my share of he pie".
I strive to MAKE THE PIE BIGGER so more can benefit and get a bigger slice.

 

[Dr Gregg]

On a percentage basis, i doubt it's close:

- Everyone utilizes the military for safety. We don't really have a choice in the matter. Rich people don't access or use any more military services than middle-class/poor people do.
- Most people access the public school system. If you're going to say that it benefits the employer, then you have to consider just as much of a benefit to the employee.
- Same as the education system, everyone benefits from the infrastructure system. An employer couldn't benefit from the infrastructure if his/her employee doesn't.
- Student loan programs are generally available to everyone and pretty much fits under the same umbrella as the education system. If the employee hasn't benefitted from the education that the loan and school system provided, then the employer can't.
- Maybe there are some technologies that benefit employers more than employees, like machines or techniques that make an employees job easier, but that's still a benefit to the employee as well.
- Like everything else mentioned, patents are available to anyone, meaning anyone with a patent worthy product can get one and then use it to grow a business. In fact, you might argue that this helps the poor/middle class more in that it prevents an evil rich person from stealing their idea/product.

Ever thought about how the middle-class and pool benefit from rich people? For one, there's actually some tax money to spend on things that everyone accesses. If someone has a multi-million dollar home, they're going to pay higher property taxes which are applied to schools in the area. If there were no rich people in the area, the schools would suffer from less tax money.

Further, if there were no rich people who needed people to work for them in order to get/keep their business running, then those people lose a source of income.

I really can't wrap my head around the concept that rich people are a bad thing. The overwhelming majority of rich people are rich because they're smart/talented and have provided a good or service to the public that is wanted, and in the process, they employ millions of people to provide said good or service. What's so horrible about that?

Never said they were. Excessive richness, maybe. HOrding more and more of the profits while not increasing their worker's salary seems to be not a good thing. T
\
What I can't wrap my head around is people claiming its unfair that billionaires have to pay more in taxes, like they are really suffering for paying more, while having 20 100K cars, multiple houses and vacation homes, and plenty more money for whatever they want.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Then why in hell did you even bring them up?

Just as a response to your non-sequitur.

I have absolutely NFI what in hell you're talking about.

Not only did the incredibly condescending OP had virtually zero do do with income taxes (those most talked about when taxes for the "wealthy" are brought up), it gives a list of services that nobody is ever asked as to whether they want them or not. IOW, they're forced upon us as a matter of course, so claiming that they're a defacto benefit to the eeeevil wealthy, more so than anyone else, is as dopey a premise that there is.

I didn't respond to the OP because I thought it was stupid.

I responded to your non-sequitur with one of my own simply because I was bored, and wandered through the thread.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Then why in hell did you even bring them up?

Just as a response to your non-sequitur.

I have absolutely NFI what in hell you're talking about.

Not only did the incredibly condescending OP had virtually zero do do with income taxes (those most talked about when taxes for the "wealthy" are brought up), it gives a list of services that nobody is ever asked as to whether they want them or not. IOW, they're forced upon us as a matter of course, so claiming that they're a defacto benefit to the eeeevil wealthy, more so than anyone else, is as dopey a premise that there is.

Dude, lying and making shit up again. WTF was condescending about the OP

 

[DiamondDave]

On a percentage basis, i doubt it's close:

- Everyone utilizes the military for safety. We don't really have a choice in the matter. Rich people don't access or use any more military services than middle-class/poor people do.
- Most people access the public school system. If you're going to say that it benefits the employer, then you have to consider just as much of a benefit to the employee.
- Same as the education system, everyone benefits from the infrastructure system. An employer couldn't benefit from the infrastructure if his/her employee doesn't.
- Student loan programs are generally available to everyone and pretty much fits under the same umbrella as the education system. If the employee hasn't benefitted from the education that the loan and school system provided, then the employer can't.
- Maybe there are some technologies that benefit employers more than employees, like machines or techniques that make an employees job easier, but that's still a benefit to the employee as well.
- Like everything else mentioned, patents are available to anyone, meaning anyone with a patent worthy product can get one and then use it to grow a business. In fact, you might argue that this helps the poor/middle class more in that it prevents an evil rich person from stealing their idea/product.

Ever thought about how the middle-class and pool benefit from rich people? For one, there's actually some tax money to spend on things that everyone accesses. If someone has a multi-million dollar home, they're going to pay higher property taxes which are applied to schools in the area. If there were no rich people in the area, the schools would suffer from less tax money.

Further, if there were no rich people who needed people to work for them in order to get/keep their business running, then those people lose a source of income.

I really can't wrap my head around the concept that rich people are a bad thing. The overwhelming majority of rich people are rich because they're smart/talented and have provided a good or service to the public that is wanted, and in the process, they employ millions of people to provide said good or service. What's so horrible about that?

Never said they were. Excessive richness, maybe. HOrding more and more of the profits while not increasing their worker's salary seems to be not a good thing. T
\
What I can't wrap my head around is people claiming its unfair that billionaires have to pay more in taxes, like they are really suffering for paying more, while having 20 100K cars, multiple houses and vacation homes, and plenty more money for whatever they want.

Hey.... why not charge you $7 a gallon for milk, and joe lazyass down the street $1.25?? That's fair, right?
Why not give a portion of your test score up to the party girls who stayed up all night smoking crack and sucking dick that way she can benefit from your effort?

 

[Oddball]

Just as a response to your non-sequitur.

I have absolutely NFI what in hell you're talking about.

Not only did the incredibly condescending OP had virtually zero do do with income taxes (those most talked about when taxes for the "wealthy" are brought up), it gives a list of services that nobody is ever asked as to whether they want them or not. IOW, they're forced upon us as a matter of course, so claiming that they're a defacto benefit to the eeeevil wealthy, more so than anyone else, is as dopey a premise that there is.

I didn't respond to the OP because I thought it was stupid.

I responded to your non-sequitur with one of my own simply because I was bored, and wandered through the thread.

I was not and is not a non sequitur, as the premise is that the given services and institutions are forced upon us all, so sniveling about whether or not the reviled "rich" benefit from them more is inane and worthy of ridicule as such.

 

[Oddball]

Just as a response to your non-sequitur.

I have absolutely NFI what in hell you're talking about.

Not only did the incredibly condescending OP had virtually zero do do with income taxes (those most talked about when taxes for the "wealthy" are brought up), it gives a list of services that nobody is ever asked as to whether they want them or not. IOW, they're forced upon us as a matter of course, so claiming that they're a defacto benefit to the eeeevil wealthy, more so than anyone else, is as dopey a premise that there is.

Dude, lying and making shit up again. WTF was condescending about the OP

The entire tone of it is condescending, as are you, dickweed.

 

[Dr Gregg]

I was not and is not a non sequitur, as the premise is that the given services and institutions are forced upon us all, so sniveling about whether or not the reviled "rich" benefit from them more is inane and worthy of ridicule as such.

Sniveling? Yes, the dude's typical response, anybody states and opinion or asks other's for their opinion on it is "sniveling"


Lying and making even more shit up. Intellectually dishonest scum

 

[Dr Gregg]

I have absolutely NFI what in hell you're talking about.

Not only did the incredibly condescending OP had virtually zero do do with income taxes (those most talked about when taxes for the "wealthy" are brought up), it gives a list of services that nobody is ever asked as to whether they want them or not. IOW, they're forced upon us as a matter of course, so claiming that they're a defacto benefit to the eeeevil wealthy, more so than anyone else, is as dopey a premise that there is.

Dude, lying and making shit up again. WTF was condescending about the OP

The entire tone of it is condescending, as are you, dickweed.

LIke I said, making shit up once again.
And your posts are not condescending?

Trolling fail

 

[Oddball]

I was not and is not a non sequitur, as the premise is that the given services and institutions are forced upon us all, so sniveling about whether or not the reviled "rich" benefit from them more is inane and worthy of ridicule as such.

Sniveling? Yes, the dude's typical response, anybody states and opinion or asks other's for their opinion on it is "sniveling"


Lying and making even more shit up. Intellectually dishonest scum

You specialize in both sniveling and condescension.

Now, if you want to point out some of these alleged lies, bring it peckerwood.

 

[Dr Gregg]

I was not and is not a non sequitur, as the premise is that the given services and institutions are forced upon us all, so sniveling about whether or not the reviled "rich" benefit from them more is inane and worthy of ridicule as such.

Sniveling? Yes, the dude's typical response, anybody states and opinion or asks other's for their opinion on it is "sniveling"


Lying and making even more shit up. Intellectually dishonest scum

You specialize in sniveling.

Now, if you want to point out some of these alleged lies, bring it peckerwood.

as usual, you turn a decent discussion into pathetic partisan hackery and name calling, what trolls do

Do you even read most of your posts? epitome of condescending

 

[Oddball]

It's not a decent discussion, as the entire premise is flawed beyond description.

But don't let that stop you from yet another session of justifying you ethos of the looter.

 

[Old Rocks]

Seems to me that the 47% that doesn't pay any Federal Income tax would benefit the most.

Yeah, living in poverty is wonderful. The rich got their riches thanks in part to our government, infrastructure, and stability, which is what my point was.

And the rich are hardly suffering from their higher % of taxes being paid. I don't understand why so many complain about the rich paying so much in taxes when I assume most of the people making those complaints aren't rich themselves.

Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities - washingtonpost.com

NEW YORK, June 26 -- Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

 

[Some Guy]

Never said they were. Excessive richness, maybe. HOrding more and more of the profits while not increasing their worker's salary seems to be not a good thing. T
\
What I can't wrap my head around is people claiming its unfair that billionaires have to pay more in taxes, like they are really suffering for paying more, while having 20 100K cars, multiple houses and vacation homes, and plenty more money for whatever they want.

I'd like to know what you consider hording. To me, it would be someone like Bill Gates building up Microsoft, making billions, then completely shutting down shop and burning all the knowledge that his company ever amassed. You never see that though. Someone who founds a company, makes a ton of money then retires will sell their company so someone else can continue to run the company that provides a valuable good/service.

The bottom line is that someone is in position to make all that money for reason. No one would give them money if they didn't provide something valuable in return. Pro athletes make a lot of money because people love to watch them perform; same for musicians. CEOs of big companies make a lot of money because they are the leaders of companies that provide goods/services that people want.

No one is advocating having rich people pay the same amount as everyone else, just the same percentage. If someone makes $10,000,000 per year and is taxed at 20%, they'd still be paying $2,000,000 in taxes; much more than the guy who makes $50k per year and pays $10k in taxes.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's not a decent discussion, as the entire premise is flawed beyond description.

But don't let that stop you from yet another session of justifying you ethos of the looter.

Poor Dooodeee........ crying such big crocodile tears for those poor, poor billionaires that have to pay 17% or less of their income in taxes. Those jerks on the factory floor should have to pay double that. Oh............. they are.

 

[martybegan]

Seems to me that the 47% that doesn't pay any Federal Income tax would benefit the most.

Yeah, living in poverty is wonderful. The rich got their riches thanks in part to our government, infrastructure, and stability, which is what my point was.

And the rich are hardly suffering from their higher % of taxes being paid. I don't understand why so many complain about the rich paying so much in taxes when I assume most of the people making those complaints aren't rich themselves.

Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities - washingtonpost.com

NEW YORK, June 26 -- Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

Simple solution would be a gradually progressive flat tax. Take out ALL deductions, increase the rate gradually. I'm talking 15% up to amount X, then 20% to amount Y then 25% above that. Simple and still progressive, but not confiscating.

 

[Oddball]

It's not a decent discussion, as the entire premise is flawed beyond description.

But don't let that stop you from yet another session of justifying you ethos of the looter.

Poor Dooodeee........ crying such big crocodile tears for those poor, poor billionaires that have to pay 17% or less of their income in taxes. Those jerks on the factory floor should have to pay double that. Oh............. they are.

Billionaires pay the same rates of taxation for things like roads, schools, police and fire services.....None of which are provided for via federal income taxes, numbskull.

But you intellectual looters keep it up with the cheap rationalizations for your legalized thievery.

 

[martybegan]

Never said they were. Excessive richness, maybe. HOrding more and more of the profits while not increasing their worker's salary seems to be not a good thing. T
\
What I can't wrap my head around is people claiming its unfair that billionaires have to pay more in taxes, like they are really suffering for paying more, while having 20 100K cars, multiple houses and vacation homes, and plenty more money for whatever they want.

I'd like to know what you consider hording. To me, it would be someone like Bill Gates building up Microsoft, making billions, then completely shutting down shop and burning all the knowledge that his company ever amassed. You never see that though. Someone who founds a company, makes a ton of money then retires will sell their company so someone else can continue to run the company that provides a valuable good/service.

The bottom line is that someone is in position to make all that money for reason. No one would give them money if they didn't provide something valuable in return. Pro athletes make a lot of money because people love to watch them perform; same for musicians. CEOs of big companies make a lot of money because they are the leaders of companies that provide goods/services that people want.

No one is advocating having rich people pay the same amount as everyone else, just the same percentage. If someone makes $10,000,000 per year and is taxed at 20%, they'd still be paying $2,000,000 in taxes; much more than the guy who makes $50k per year and pays $10k in taxes.

There is some validity that 20% to a person making $300,000 is different than 20% to a person making $45,000.00 To me there is nothing wrong with some progressiveness in the tax code.

My issue is that if people who tend to want to tax the rich more REALLY want to tax them more, like 50-75% of income over value X. To me that is confiscation, not taxation. But thats what would be needed to achive the "equality" they are looking for.