Can one of you libs please explain something to me...

[Moonglow]

Collectively, yes 'the rich' pay more; the concern lies with individual contribution as compared to the 'non rich'.

The perception is that the 'working class' (i am assuming you and I are each members) contribute more on an individual basis yet reap less benefits and do more of the dirty work.

Yea, I would love to have more tax breaks but if I get more breaks then someone else has to pick up the difference. Yet the bottom half pay nothing so I have to pick up their slack.

How is it "fair" to punish me with higher taxes because someone making less than me pays less or none at all? Is it my fault they didn't strive to be all they could?

money is not everything for the value of success.

 

[Disenchanted61]

33% Of my earnings go towards Federal, State and local. I am beneath "middle class"
economic status. The wealthy avoid their tax obligations in oversea's tax shelter's
and have access to loopholes that the general population once had, before Reagan
changed that.
Corporation's have the the added benefit of of entitlement
by socializing their loses with public money; "Too big to fail."
The higher the socio economic status one has, the more entitled they are to keep their profits/earnings.

 

[Moonglow]

Troll harder fool.

And there we go. A coward's response.

You don't care about this issue. Clearly you don't. All you care about is being able to attack liberals for being "evil" and wanting to "punish" the rich.

Your partisanship is blinding.

And it is not just liberals giving the poor tax cuts, republicans have done it also.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Troll harder fool.

And there we go. A coward's response.

You don't care about this issue. Clearly you don't. All you care about is being able to attack liberals for being "evil" and wanting to "punish" the rich.

Your partisanship is blinding.

You didn't address the issue you attacked me. So I called you on it. Your next post did address it so I responded accordingly.

You get what you give. And I do care because this issue affects me just like it does you.

 

[DontBeStupid]

It wold still be your fault. The idea that companies can pay you whatever wage the prefer is pure ignorance. Corporations have to compete for employees. They have to pay the market wage.

Ah yes. Companies and the rich can never take responsibility for anything, can they? It's always the other guy's fault.

Why don't you look up how wages have increased over the past decade or two and then we can talk about how it's the workers' fault, ok?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Collectively, yes 'the rich' pay more; the concern lies with individual contribution as compared to the 'non rich'.

The perception is that the 'working class' (i am assuming you and I are each members) contribute more on an individual basis yet reap less benefits and do more of the dirty work.

Yea, I would love to have more tax breaks but if I get more breaks then someone else has to pick up the difference. Yet the bottom half pay nothing so I have to pick up their slack.

How is it "fair" to punish me with higher taxes because someone making less than me pays less or none at all? Is it my fault they didn't strive to be all they could?

money is not everything for the value of success.

it is if you want to run a successful business.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

I don't remember the year, but it was April just before deadline day, when Bob Dole gave an interview.

He was asked "How many tax forms should the average US taxpayor complete?"

Dole's answer "As many as they can."

I took this advice to heart.

 

[Moonglow]

Yea, I would love to have more tax breaks but if I get more breaks then someone else has to pick up the difference. Yet the bottom half pay nothing so I have to pick up their slack.

How is it "fair" to punish me with higher taxes because someone making less than me pays less or none at all? Is it my fault they didn't strive to be all they could?

money is not everything for the value of success.

it is if you want to run a successful business.

sure, but Jesus was successful and never ran a business.

 

[rdean]

You guys are always saying the rich need to pay their fair share when it comes to taxes. Why?

Despite having multiple loopholes and tax shelters they are the ones paying the lions share of our nations bills while nearly half pay nothing. It seems to me that this argument has to sound silly to most people since so many pay nothing at all. And I'm not referring to state, local or sales tax.

So who isn't paying their share? I say the bottom half.

The number of rich going off to war is near zero. They don't defend their own money. When you put money into a bank, you pay for them to keep that money safe. The rich have no right to just squeeze money from this country. Bank customers don't set the rate they pay, why should the rich?

Don't bother trying to argue because this is just common sense and for not being able to figure this out only proves you are about as smart as a walnut.

How can I argue with that? It had 0 to do with my tax question.

Idiot

See what I'm saying about "walnut"?

 

[yidnar]

Troll harder fool.

And there we go. A coward's response.

You don't care about this issue. Clearly you don't. All you care about is being able to attack liberals for being "evil" and wanting to "punish" the rich.

Your partisanship is blinding.

And it is not just liberals giving the poor tax cuts, republicans have done it also.

liberal leaders have never i repeat ...HAVE NEVER !! given anyone tax cuts unless they were forced to by majority votes in congress by conservatives !!

 

[DontBeStupid]

You didn't address the issue you attacked me. So I called you on it.

I corrected you and challenged your assertion. Clearly that struck a nerve as you have only posted once in response to me where you didn't insult me.

But like I said, I don't think you care about this issue. If you did you would look at it from both sides and you clearly have zero desire to do that.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You didn't address the issue you attacked me. So I called you on it.

I corrected you and challenged your assertion. Clearly that struck a nerve as you have only posted once in response to me where you didn't insult me.

But like I said, I don't think you care about this issue. If you did you would look at it from both sides and you clearly have zero desire to do that.

I don't care yet I nearly lost my business and my marriage to keep employees?

Troll fail......

 

[Foxfyre]

The issue is not who contributes more. Certainly the rich contribute far more in philanthrophy, savings (for others to borrow), investments (to help other businesses grow), employment (so others can have jobs), and purchases (providing customers for others to sell to) than do the poor while paying the most in federal income taxes.

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the federal income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. The bottom 50% percent pay little or no federal income tax leaving the middle 40% to pay the remaining 32% of the tax.

And believe it or not, considering that the term 'rich' is a fluid and moving target in the last two years, most of those most hurt by 'raising taxes on the rich, will be in that middle 40%.

The 'poor' save little, invest little, buy less stuff, and provide jobs for nobody while using up resources and more often than not, receiving subsidy from taxpayers. And the 'poor' among that bottom 50% is a relative term as much as 'rich' is a relative term in the top 50%.

In recent years, credits, deductions, and subsidies for low and middle-income families allow a family of four making as much as $50,000 owe no federal income tax as long as there are two children younger than 17. But they use the same public services as all the rest of us use.

I like the concept of Hermain Cain's 9 - 9 - 9 plan. A 9% sales tax, a 9% income tax (on ALL income) and a 9% corporate tax. I'm not sold on the 9% sales tax part of that, but I am strongly in favor of a flat tax paid by all wage earners earning above a reasonable personal exemption. I want the federal government to be scaled back so that no more than 10% of our income, above that threshhold, will be necessary to fund it.

It God is happy with 10%, the federal government ought to be happy with 10%.

 

[Disenchanted61]

The issue is not who contributes more. Certainly the rich contribute far more in philanthrophy, savings (for others to borrow), investments (to help other businesses grow), employment (so others can have jobs), and purchases (providing customers for others to sell to) than do the poor while paying the most in federal income taxes.

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the federal income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. The bottom 50% percent pay little or no federal income tax leaving the middle 40% to pay the remaining 32% of the tax.

And believe it or not, considering that the term 'rich' is a fluid and moving target in the last two years, most of those most hurt by 'raising taxes on the rich, will be in that middle 40%.

The 'poor' save little, invest little, buy less stuff, and provide jobs for nobody while using up resources and more often than not, receiving subsidy from taxpayers. And the 'poor' among that bottom 50% is a relative term as much as 'rich' is a relative term in the top 50%.

In recent years, credits, deductions, and subsidies for low and middle-income families allow a family of four making as much as $50,000 owe no federal income tax as long as there are two children younger than 17. But they use the same public services as all the rest of us use.

I like the concept of Hermain Cain's 9 - 9 - 9 plan. A 9% sales tax, a 9% income tax (on ALL income) and a 9% corporate tax. I'm not sold on the 9% sales tax part of that, but I am strongly in favor of a flat tax paid by all wage earners earning above a reasonable personal exemption. I want the federal government to be scaled back so that no more than 10% of our income, above that threshhold, will be necessary to fund it.

It God is happy with 10%, the federal government ought to be happy with 10%.

Where do you get your information and stats.?

 

[DontBeStupid]

The 'poor' save little, invest little, buy less stuff, and provide jobs for nobody while using up resources and more often than not

The poor also are the ones who build roads, work in factories and produce the products that the rich can sell and earn millions in profits. Don't discount their contributions.

I'm glad you brought in numbers for both percent of income and percent of taxes. That makes it much easier to discuss. However, you left out payroll taxes. A person making $50K per year pays (normally) 6.2% of that in payroll taxes. Someone make $500K only pays about 1.3% in payroll taxes.

So if you truly want a balanced, "fair" tax system, shouldn't we be talking about raising payroll taxes on the upper earners?

 

[Foxfyre]

The 'poor' save little, invest little, buy less stuff, and provide jobs for nobody while using up resources and more often than not

The poor also are the ones who build roads, work in factories and produce the products that the rich can sell and earn millions in profits. Don't discount their contributions.

I'm glad you brought in numbers for both percent of income and percent of taxes. That makes it much easier to discuss. However, you left out payroll taxes. A person making $50K per year pays (normally) 6.2% of that in payroll taxes. Someone make $500K only pays about 1.3% in payroll taxes.

So if you truly want a balanced, "fair" tax system, shouldn't we be talking about raising payroll taxes on the upper earners?

The 'poor' (and everybody else) will likely receive far more in benefits from that 6.2% they pay in payroll tax than what they will pay in. That is true of everybody who lives to draw social security. That's why the plan is in trouble. And our fearless leaders who seem to be mathematically challenged cut that rate to 4.2% in 2011 and President Obama Thursday night proposed cutting it again with no reform of the system in place? When the program is already bleeding billions in red ink? That's just nuts.

However, I was focusing on federal income tax only. Let's continue to focus on that please.

Yes the 'poor' build roads, sewers, utility systems, houses, and schools. They work in the factories and shops and stores and gas stations. They 'sell' their labor, skills, experience, and work ethic for a contracted wage with which they use to house, feed, and clothe themselves.

Why are they able to do this? Beause there are the rich who take the considerable risk to hire them to do the work or there are the rich who pay taxes to the government who hires them. Without the rich, there would be a hell of a lot more homeless, starving, and naked.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well its quite clear that dontbestupid is stumped at my clear desire to see this be a fair system. I gave you my personal sacrifices to help others but of course that doesn't fit the ideological box you've pinned me in so I won't expect an answer to your assertions that I don't care anytime soon.

I have to go meet with customers now so ill check in later to see if you still have your blinders on.

 

[Cuyo]

First of all the disparity is not as great as the oft-quoted statistics make it seem. That's the funny thing about statistics; You can manipulate them to say just about anything you want them to say. PGM gave a more accurate overview here. http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...se-explain-something-to-me-2.html#post4121321

Second, look at what 'money' actually is. In absence of Government, or the 'natural state' as it's classically reffered to, you can't accumulate wealth; You can only accumulate what you can use. So as Teddy Roosevelt famously said... Well, you've all seen it in Shaman's signature line.

 

[Sallow]

Well it's not that the rich need to pay taxes..it's that the government needs to stop paying the rich.

Simple enough.

Why is it you guys have a problem with that?

 

[pgm]

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the federal income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. The bottom 50% percent pay little or no federal income tax leaving the middle 40% to pay the remaining 32% of the tax.

Yeah, but it's not just income tax.

2007:

Federal income taxes: 39.5 percent share
Federal payroll taxes: 4.1 percent share
Federal corporate taxes: 57.0 percent share
Federal excise taxes: 4.7 percent share

Total federal tax share for the top 1 percent: 28.1 percent

The centrist to liberal Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center has an estimate for 2010.

17% of cash income.
32.9% of individual federal income tax
3.6% of payroll tax paid
53.5% of corporate tax paid
22.7% of all federal tax paid.

Here's the whole thing

For what it's worth, the bottom 20% makes 3.6% of the income and pays a net 0% of their share in taxes (this does not include state sales tax). The second quintile earns 8.1% of the income and pays 3.1% of the taxes. The middle quintile earns 13.8% and pays 10% of taxes, etc. Like I said (in some thread), it isn't about "fair share." That's an argument that doesn't really fit any definition. It's about who can afford to pay and whether or not we should have a progressive income tax.