Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?

[Katzndogz]

Why is it that if an individual receives an income in another country-that individual still pays U.S. Federal income tax. However if an American company makes profits in other countries-they don't pay income tax on that.

Is the educational system so poor that you don't know the answer to this?

 

[AmericanFirst]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

In what way does this not make any sense?

And don't get it twisted. I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

Old news, keep up. Again, we do not need a socialist gov't. to take anybodies hard earned money. I know libs hate the rich and love socialism, but you need to move to europe then so you do not have to put up with economic freedoms. Before you say it, just because the poor are too stupid to become rich doesn't mean they deserve the rich's money.

 

[healthmyths]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

In what way does this not make any sense?

And don't get it twisted. I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

Do you "believe" (NOT THINK.. because evidence indicates YOU don't!)
the wealthy hide their "riches" in their mattresses? Or in their backyard?

Do you KNOW what the "wealthy" do with their income/assets?

What happens when a wealthy person say gets notice that their total
dividends (after the corporations paid corporate taxes AND after the dividends are taxed at 15%) of say $1 million is available?
Do they HIDE THAT million in their mattress or backyard?
OR do they spend oh say 50% of it on clothes,yachts,etc...
What happens to the other 50%??? Hide in mattress or backyard?

WHAT HAPPENS to the wealthys' income AFTER the
1) Federal/
2) State
3) Local
4) sales
5) property taxes are paid?

What do they do with ALL that income after paying taxes on the
remaining money after say spending $500,000?

WHAT DO THEY DO????

 

[RDD_1210]

I fall into the broad category of the rich. And I'm willing to pay more. Just as soon as those paying nothing pay something.

So I assume you supported letting the Bush tax cuts expire?

And how many would still pay zero in federal income taxes, even if that happened?? If its >1, I guess you would tend to think blastoff would still be against it....

So it's all or nothing eh? Even if letting the Bush tax cuts expire meant more people would have paid taxes, if it doesn't result in EVERYONE paying then it's ok to extend them? Do I have that right?

 

[Bern80]

So I assume you supported letting the Bush tax cuts expire?

And how many would still pay zero in federal income taxes, even if that happened?? If its >1, I guess you would tend to think blastoff would still be against it....

So it's all or nothing eh? Even if letting the Bush tax cuts expire meant more people would have paid taxes, if it doesn't result in EVERYONE paying then it's ok to extend them? Do I have that right?

Again the issue with letting the Bush tax cuts expire isn't so much a belief that the rich deserve a tax break. It's a question of whether the government actually needs the extra revenue. As another poster said, it would seem to be wiser to determine how much money the government really needs to spend before we get in a class warfare argument over who and how it should funded.

 

[healthmyths]

You know I don't think EVEN those NASTY NASTY EvIL wealthy people have any problems paying taxes. After all they have been paying taxes and the other 53% haven't!

BUT do you really honestly "feel" anyone that pays taxes especially to the Federal govt. really wants to see their tax dollars used for the following?:

sending $4 billion to foreign countries to develop their oil and
then tells them we'll be their best customer?
GEEZ... if I were wealthy with domestic oil investments..WHY would I want MY
tax dollars going to foreign countries? Why would I want a President encouraging a
foreign oil company by saying "well be their best customers"?
Isn't that just plain stupid??? Why pay my taxes for it to be used against me??

- $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job

WHY would my tax dollars be used to help Chinese prostitutes???

- funds a university study of how much alcohol college freshmen women
require before agreeing to sex!
- Fund a study about "The Association Between Penis Size and Sexual Health
Among Men Who Have Sex with Men",
at least $9.4 million went to a ten-year study if the penis-size research.

GOV’T WASTE: $900,000 SPENT ON GAY MEN PENIS SIZE STUDY. « GILL REPORT – The official website of the Steve Gill Show


=================
Are you truly that stupid NOT to see how ANYONE that pays federal taxes would NOT be upset especially people that already PAY THE MOST in TAXES!!!

 

[RDD_1210]

Why is it that if an individual receives an income in another country-that individual still pays U.S. Federal income tax. However if an American company makes profits in other countries-they don't pay income tax on that.

Is the educational system so poor that you don't know the answer to this?

You showed how smart you are by trying to insult him, why don't you really show off your superior intellect by actually answering his question.

 

[Intense]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

In what way does this not make any sense?

And don't get it twisted. I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

They should be Taxed more, at the same Rate as the rest of us.

 

[RDD_1210]

And how many would still pay zero in federal income taxes, even if that happened?? If its >1, I guess you would tend to think blastoff would still be against it....

So it's all or nothing eh? Even if letting the Bush tax cuts expire meant more people would have paid taxes, if it doesn't result in EVERYONE paying then it's ok to extend them? Do I have that right?

Again the issue with letting the Bush tax cuts expire isn't so much a belief that the rich deserve a tax break. It's a question of whether the government actually needs the extra revenue. As another poster said, it would seem to be wiser to determine how much money the government really needs to spend before we get in a class warfare argument over who and how it should funded.

Oh, I get it. The deficit is only important when it's convenient. And what class warfare argument? Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would have impacted EVERYONE. That's the equal treatment repubs have been looking for.

 

[DiamondDave]

So it's all or nothing eh? Even if letting the Bush tax cuts expire meant more people would have paid taxes, if it doesn't result in EVERYONE paying then it's ok to extend them? Do I have that right?

Again the issue with letting the Bush tax cuts expire isn't so much a belief that the rich deserve a tax break. It's a question of whether the government actually needs the extra revenue. As another poster said, it would seem to be wiser to determine how much money the government really needs to spend before we get in a class warfare argument over who and how it should funded.

Oh, I get it. The deficit is only important when it's convenient. And what class warfare argument? Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would have impacted EVERYONE. That's the equal treatment repubs have been looking for.

What about cutting SPENDING?? You know.. on those redundant agencies, entitlement programs, etc?? You don't just cope with a deficit problem by taxing more on the 50% that pay federal income taxes

 

[Bern80]

So it's all or nothing eh? Even if letting the Bush tax cuts expire meant more people would have paid taxes, if it doesn't result in EVERYONE paying then it's ok to extend them? Do I have that right?

Again the issue with letting the Bush tax cuts expire isn't so much a belief that the rich deserve a tax break. It's a question of whether the government actually needs the extra revenue. As another poster said, it would seem to be wiser to determine how much money the government really needs to spend before we get in a class warfare argument over who and how it should funded.

Oh, I get it. The deficit is only important when it's convenient. And what class warfare argument? Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would have impacted EVERYONE. That's the equal treatment repubs have been looking for.

Well first you obviously don't know the numbers behind the Bush tax cuts, otherwise you probably wouldn't be for rolling them back. Or did you just mean we should roll back the rich part of the tax cuts?

The defecit is not my problem or any other tax payers problem. We didn't create it. Congress did. THEY ARE TO BLAME. But you figure the best course of action to fix it is to hold the tax payers accountable?

 

[RDD_1210]

Again the issue with letting the Bush tax cuts expire isn't so much a belief that the rich deserve a tax break. It's a question of whether the government actually needs the extra revenue. As another poster said, it would seem to be wiser to determine how much money the government really needs to spend before we get in a class warfare argument over who and how it should funded.

Oh, I get it. The deficit is only important when it's convenient. And what class warfare argument? Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would have impacted EVERYONE. That's the equal treatment repubs have been looking for.

What about cutting SPENDING?? You know.. on those redundant agencies, entitlement programs, etc?? You don't just cope with a deficit problem by taxing more on the 50% that pay federal income taxes

Yup, I'm on board with cutting spending. But we're talking about taxes now. Try and stay on topic.

 

[RDD_1210]

Again the issue with letting the Bush tax cuts expire isn't so much a belief that the rich deserve a tax break. It's a question of whether the government actually needs the extra revenue. As another poster said, it would seem to be wiser to determine how much money the government really needs to spend before we get in a class warfare argument over who and how it should funded.

Oh, I get it. The deficit is only important when it's convenient. And what class warfare argument? Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would have impacted EVERYONE. That's the equal treatment repubs have been looking for.

Well first you obviously don't know the numbers behind the Bush tax cuts, otherwise you probably wouldn't be for rolling them back. Or did you just mean we should roll back the rich part of the tax cuts?

The defecit is not my problem or any other tax payers problem. We didn't create it. Congress did. THEY ARE TO BLAME. But you figure the best course of action to fix it is to hold the tax payers accountable?

LOL, of course its our problem. We elected this government, and they made the decisions that put us where we are. This is absolutely our problem. Maybe you're the type that likes to pretend like a problem doesn't exist and hope someone else figures it out. But everyone who lives in this country is a part of the problem.

And I was in favor of letting the tax cuts expire for everyone, not just the rich.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?

Simple. It's their money and not yours. That's the only reason you need.

Can you give me a good reason why you shouldn't be taxed more?

 

[whitehall]

The first reason is that the radical left has determined that middle class businesses that employ a few people are included in the enemies list of the "rich" because they gross $250,000 per year. The rich already pull the income tax wagon while the rest of us ride. Can any leftie tell me why Obama appointed a tax cheat as Treasury secretary?

 

[RDD_1210]

Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?

Simple. It's their money and not yours. That's the only reason you need.

Can you give me a good reason why you shouldn't be taxed more?

Your transformation to complete partisan hack is now complete.

 

[healthmyths]

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.

In what way does this not make any sense?

And don't get it twisted. I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.

They should be Taxed more, at the same Rate as the rest of us.

YOU should get the FACTS as to the real tax rates!
You spout off without knowing what you are writing about!
Down load this table from the IRS that shows the actual taxes paid by various tax returns...

Directly from the IRS tax analysis..
Source::http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html#_grp1

From the above FACTS on taxes paid in 2008!!!

A plumber making an average of $50,000 paid 5.6% of income in taxes!
A teacher making an average of $52,000 paid 9.2% of income in taxes!
Obama PAID on his $1.7 million income 26%!

There were 141 million returns (99.4%) reported $6.798 trillion income
898,912 returns (.6%) reported $1.4 trillion income.

The 141 million paid $688 billion in taxes or 66% of tax revenue
The 898,912 paid $342 billion in taxes or 33.24% of revenue.

BUT ...
the 141 million paid $688 billion in taxes is 10.14% of total income of $6.7 trillion!
while the .6% (898,912) returns paid $342 billion or 23.35% of $1.4 trillion!

SO PLEASE EXPLAIN why those that already pay 200% more then the rest of us MUST pay MORE????
OR is this JUST BEING FAIR???

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Why is it that if an individual receives an income in another country-that individual still pays U.S. Federal income tax. However if an American company makes profits in other countries-they don't pay income tax on that.

Is the educational system so poor that you don't know the answer to this?

What do you think the answer is? Anybody who isn't for corporations paying an income tax for profits in other counties (or eliminating federal income taxes of citizens living in other countries), isn't truly for a "fair tax". If somebody wants everybody to pay the same amount of taxes fine-but apply it across the board.

Also in case your answer is jobs: let's take Walmart as an example (first thing that popped into my head). A Walmart store in Canada and an individual (US citizen) have to each pay Canadian income tax. The individual has to also pay a US income tax-but Walmart does not. Walmart is an American company making a profit. The store in Canada also supply no real jobs in the US.

It's only fair that companies pay taxes for things individuals pay taxes on. Especially if somebody wants to claim that they're "people" too.

 

[Ava]

"Can any con/repub give me good reason why the rich should not be taxed MORE?"

Because the rich have EARNED or inherited their money and you have no legal rights to steal it from them, and it wouldn't even dent the bottom economy bucket, if you did. Sorry, but without the rich, you might not even be able to receive your entitlement check....

 

[Bern80]

LOL, of course its our problem. We elected this government, and they made the decisions that put us where we are. This is absolutely our problem. Maybe you're the type that likes to pretend like a problem doesn't exist and hope someone else figures it out. But everyone who lives in this country is a part of the problem.

I'm not pretending our deficit and debt problem doesn't exist. But suggesting it's really the voters fault is ridiculous. Have you thought about what the problem really is then? It would mean YOU, the voter and known liberal, want government to spend less, but are knowingly electing people that are fiscally irresponsible. I guess I'll meet you part way on that. There are apparently just too many damn liberals in this country. People that tend to believe it is the role of government to do all this shit for people and so elect whatever candidate promises to give them the most.

And I was in favor of letting the tax cuts expire for everyone, not just the rich.

Why? Why is it you feel our government, which I think we would all agree is horribly financially irresponsible and inefficient, still needs more money. That's like trying cure a crack head by giving them more crack.