Can someone making $1 million a year afford a 5.87% tax increase?

[Ernie S.]

Labor unions priced themselves out of their jobs. American consumers can't afford to buy goods produced by American labor.

Another attack the middle class post?

Some Americans can't afford to buy goods produced by Americans because their wages are so disproportionate with costs.

What drove up the costs? You couldn't afford a flat screen TV, a digital camera or an Ipod if they were made by US Labor.

 

[Ernie S.]

The issue of fairness you say.

Let me see if I can put this idea in a way that you MIGHT understand. I'll type big.

If the choice is cutting some programs or services that benefits myself or some one else that I care about VS. the raising of taxes on the ultra wealthy by a few percent, (here is the part you need to pay attention to) I DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT YOUR IDEA OF "FAIRNESS."

Maybe that will explain my position cause you sure as hell didn't explain yours.

Why do you care what amount of taxes some very very rich pay? Or do you think the very very rich are worried about YOU? LMAO.

And I don't care about services that benefit you or your family. Understand? If you need something, get the **** off your ass and earn it.
The "Ultra wealthy" already pay hundreds of time more in taxes than what they receive in benefits, yet you want them to do YOUR job and provide for your family?

Amazingly, the effective Federal tax rate for the 'ultra rich' is much lower than the middle class or poor.

Who pays more in sales tax, the ultra rich, or the middle class and poor?

The rich. They buy more. They pay more property tax,sales tax, income tax, more licensing fees, they pay 7.5% on all employees' salaries. In many cased, their tax burden exceeds 50% of their salary, yet you want more.

 

[OnePercenter]

And I don't care about services that benefit you or your family. Understand? If you need something, get the **** off your ass and earn it.
The "Ultra wealthy" already pay hundreds of time more in taxes than what they receive in benefits, yet you want them to do YOUR job and provide for your family?

Amazingly, the effective Federal tax rate for the 'ultra rich' is much lower than the middle class or poor.

Who pays more in sales tax, the ultra rich, or the middle class and poor?

What is the effective federal tax rate you ignorant POS?

Effective Tax Rate Definition | Investopedia

 

[OnePercenter]

And I don't care about services that benefit you or your family. Understand? If you need something, get the **** off your ass and earn it.
The "Ultra wealthy" already pay hundreds of time more in taxes than what they receive in benefits, yet you want them to do YOUR job and provide for your family?

Amazingly, the effective Federal tax rate for the 'ultra rich' is much lower than the middle class or poor.

Who pays more in sales tax, the ultra rich, or the middle class and poor?

The rich. They buy more. They pay more property tax,sales tax, income tax, more licensing fees, they pay 7.5% on all employees' salaries. In many cased, their tax burden exceeds 50% of their salary, yet you want more.

There are tens of millions more middle class and poor than there are rich. How can we rich buy more?

 

[Ernie S.]

Defending the very rich today again I see. Them poor rich people. You think very, very rich people come on sites like this and read about the defense of their wealth by middle class people? I bet they laugh and laugh.

I would guess that Ernie is concerned about the governments deficit spending and would really like for severe cuts in spending to be made to help reduce deficit spending. But don't want to increase taxes on the very rich who have done so very well the past few years.

And I guess that the cuts in spending need to come from the poor and the middle class. Because we are the ones needing more government services to get by in the shitty economy created by those very same very wealthy people that can't be taxed any more cause they "already pay enough".

But I can't help but laugh. In the example of a one million dollar earner, he pays around 250k in taxes. Lets say total (Fed State Local) taxes are 400k.

Leaving this most fortunate individual a measly $50,000.00 net dollars a month to "get by on."

I wonder why people like you Earnie defend the very rich. WTF do you care about what taxes the guy making 50k net a month pays. He/she (very rich) would much rather that YOU and I take a cut somewhere in our benefits or services as opposed to them paying more. And I understand that. Don't care, but understand.

But why would you care if the very very rich pay 5 or 6% more in taxes?

Or, what are you willing to give up so they don't end up paying more in taxes?

Seems to me it is one or the other. Both would be best. If we really are concerned about how much money we spend and debt we have.

Less spending on most of us, more income from those with all the BIG ******* income gains. The very, very rich are the only ones who can afford a tax increase. And I don't care if they get one. Why do you? Just curious.

Why? Because they receive no more for their money than you do.

You seem to think it is fair to force the rich to pay for what you feel you deserve. Sadly, you deserve only what you acquire through your own efforts.

How about you address the issue of fairness. Tell me why one citizen should pay 20 times as much for the same services.

Since you raised the topic, sure we can discuss it. Let's address the issue of "fairness" as a concept. Is it "fair" that some people are born to poor parents and as a result have fewer opportunities than others to obtain wealth? Is it "fair" to penalize the less fortunate by making them pay a much larger percentage of their income for the same services that only cost you a tiny fraction of your income? Must they pay 25% of their income for the same government "service" that costs you only "2%" of your income?

It's neither fair nor unfair. It simply is.

Is it fair to force the wealthy to pay for something they don't "qualify" to receive? I drive a Bentley. Should I be forced to buy you a Rolls?

Why not? They are failures, receiving services that I am not entitled to because I am successful.

 

[OnePercenter]

Labor unions priced themselves out of their jobs. American consumers can't afford to buy goods produced by American labor.

Another attack the middle class post?

Some Americans can't afford to buy goods produced by Americans because their wages are so disproportionate with costs.

What drove up the costs?

Greed.

You couldn't afford a flat screen TV, a digital camera or an Ipod if they were made by US Labor.

You could if wages would have equaled costs.

 

[Ernie S.]

As opposed to paying for the wars that only benefit the wealthy?

If everyone pays the exact same flat rate of taxes for "services" from the government then conversely everyone should receive an equal share of the profits from the companies that do business with the government. After all the taxpayers are the ones who are paying for those profits, right? So why do only the wealthy get to benefit from the profits generated by taxpayer funds? If you want to go 100% flat then it has to equitable in every respect.

So you ARE a socialist after all. What is it with you? You already get a piece of my income to buy votes for Liberals. Now you want privately held corporations to fork over their profits? And just how do wars benefit the wealthy? Wars do tend to put people to work, so don't they benefit labor?

Nope! As a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE I strongly believe in holding people accountable! The taxcuts were sold on the premise that "job creators" would actually create more jobs if they were given massive tax cuts. In the decade since those tax cuts were granted job growth has been non existent. Therefore the taxpayers have been screwed over by giving the wealthy tax breaks with nothing in return.

Genuine conservatives do hold people accountable for failure to perform. There has been an abysmal failure and it is time to hold them responsible and remedy the harm they have caused by taking these taxpayer funds and not providing anything of value in return.

You are no more a fiscal conservative than I am a Marxist.

You conveniently fail to mention that the Bush tax cuts gave everyone a break, yet you and yours only are interested in bitching about the cuts to the wealthy.

You have no interest in cutting EITC's or dropping the threshold for the first bracket.

 

[Ernie S.]

Amazingly, the effective Federal tax rate for the 'ultra rich' is much lower than the middle class or poor.

Who pays more in sales tax, the ultra rich, or the middle class and poor?

The rich. They buy more. They pay more property tax,sales tax, income tax, more licensing fees, they pay 7.5% on all employees' salaries. In many cased, their tax burden exceeds 50% of their salary, yet you want more.

There are tens of millions more middle class and poor than there are rich. How can we rich buy more?

The rich can buy as much as they want. They also tend to spend more on a specific item. 9% sales tax here in Alabama. Do you have any idea what the sales tax on a yacht is compared to an aluminum row boat?

 

[Derideo_Te]

So you ARE a socialist after all. What is it with you? You already get a piece of my income to buy votes for Liberals. Now you want privately held corporations to fork over their profits? And just how do wars benefit the wealthy? Wars do tend to put people to work, so don't they benefit labor?

Nope! As a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE I strongly believe in holding people accountable! The taxcuts were sold on the premise that "job creators" would actually create more jobs if they were given massive tax cuts. In the decade since those tax cuts were granted job growth has been non existent. Therefore the taxpayers have been screwed over by giving the wealthy tax breaks with nothing in return.

Genuine conservatives do hold people accountable for failure to perform. There has been an abysmal failure and it is time to hold them responsible and remedy the harm they have caused by taking these taxpayer funds and not providing anything of value in return.

You are no more a fiscal conservative than I am a Marxist.

You conveniently fail to mention that the Bush tax cuts gave everyone a break, yet you and yours only are interested in bitching about the cuts to the wealthy.

You have no interest in cutting EITC's or dropping the threshold for the first bracket.

The irony here is that you are advocating Marxist concepts when you demand that everyone must pay an equal amount for government services irrespective of income level.

And yes, I am advocating a 100% rollback of the Bush tax cuts across the board because the nation simply cannot afford the "luxury" of providing "welfare for the wealthy" in the form of tax cuts.

So as it currently stands you are the one who is advocating "socialist policies" while I am the one advocating genuine "conservative policies" to put this nation back n a sound financial footing. How ironic is that?

 

[Ernie S.]

Another attack the middle class post?

Some Americans can't afford to buy goods produced by Americans because their wages are so disproportionate with costs.

Greed.

You couldn't afford a flat screen TV, a digital camera or an Ipod if they were made by US Labor.

You could if wages would have equaled costs.

Greed? Yes the greed of labor unions.

If you had to pay American labor to build your flat screen, you would still be bitching that Walmart was ripping you off.
You fail to realize that an increase in wage is nearly immediately offset by an increase in prices.
Paying labor more does nothing but make your money worth less.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nope! As a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE I strongly believe in holding people accountable! The taxcuts were sold on the premise that "job creators" would actually create more jobs if they were given massive tax cuts. In the decade since those tax cuts were granted job growth has been non existent. Therefore the taxpayers have been screwed over by giving the wealthy tax breaks with nothing in return.

Genuine conservatives do hold people accountable for failure to perform. There has been an abysmal failure and it is time to hold them responsible and remedy the harm they have caused by taking these taxpayer funds and not providing anything of value in return.

You are no more a fiscal conservative than I am a Marxist.

You conveniently fail to mention that the Bush tax cuts gave everyone a break, yet you and yours only are interested in bitching about the cuts to the wealthy.

You have no interest in cutting EITC's or dropping the threshold for the first bracket.

The irony here is that you are advocating Marxist concepts when you demand that everyone must pay an equal amount for government services irrespective of income level.

And yes, I am advocating a 100% rollback of the Bush tax cuts across the board because the nation simply cannot afford the "luxury" of providing "welfare for the wealthy" in the form of tax cuts.

So as it currently stands you are the one who is advocating "socialist policies" while I am the one advocating genuine "conservative policies" to put this nation back n a sound financial footing. How ironic is that?

That is so bogus! I'm done with you.

 

[Redfish]

the real question we should be asking is: can the government stand a 10% across the board cut? Cut all programs, all spending by 10%. Would anyone notice? I think not.

 

[OnePercenter]

The rich. They buy more. They pay more property tax,sales tax, income tax, more licensing fees, they pay 7.5% on all employees' salaries. In many cased, their tax burden exceeds 50% of their salary, yet you want more.

There are tens of millions more middle class and poor than there are rich. How can we rich buy more?

The rich can buy as much as they want. They also tend to spend more on a specific item. 9% sales tax here in Alabama. Do you have any idea what the sales tax on a yacht is compared to an aluminum row boat?

We don't buy any more than anyone else.

 

[OnePercenter]

the real question we should be asking is: can the government stand a 10% across the board cut? Cut all programs, all spending by 10%. Would anyone notice? I think not.

As long as the cuts don't effect/affect the middle class or poor, national/domestic security, or infrastructure, I'm with you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are no more a fiscal conservative than I am a Marxist.

You conveniently fail to mention that the Bush tax cuts gave everyone a break, yet you and yours only are interested in bitching about the cuts to the wealthy.

You have no interest in cutting EITC's or dropping the threshold for the first bracket.

The irony here is that you are advocating Marxist concepts when you demand that everyone must pay an equal amount for government services irrespective of income level.

And yes, I am advocating a 100% rollback of the Bush tax cuts across the board because the nation simply cannot afford the "luxury" of providing "welfare for the wealthy" in the form of tax cuts.

So as it currently stands you are the one who is advocating "socialist policies" while I am the one advocating genuine "conservative policies" to put this nation back n a sound financial footing. How ironic is that?

That is so bogus! I'm done with you.

If that is bogus then would you care to explain why?

 

[OnePercenter]

Greed.



You could if wages would have equaled costs.

Greed? Yes the greed of labor unions.

If you had to pay American labor to build your flat screen, you would still be bitching that Walmart was ripping you off.
You fail to realize that an increase in wage is nearly immediately offset by an increase in prices. Paying labor more does nothing but make your money worth less.

Except labor costs including healthcare and pensions are a 100% subsidy.

 

[Ernie S.]

There are tens of millions more middle class and poor than there are rich. How can we rich buy more?

The rich can buy as much as they want. They also tend to spend more on a specific item. 9% sales tax here in Alabama. Do you have any idea what the sales tax on a yacht is compared to an aluminum row boat?

We don't buy any more than anyone else.

Of course we do. We buy whatever we want. We may spend a slightly smaller percentage of our income, but we buy more and spend more than the poor in every segment but food.

 

[Ernie S.]

The irony here is that you are advocating Marxist concepts when you demand that everyone must pay an equal amount for government services irrespective of income level.

And yes, I am advocating a 100% rollback of the Bush tax cuts across the board because the nation simply cannot afford the "luxury" of providing "welfare for the wealthy" in the form of tax cuts.

So as it currently stands you are the one who is advocating "socialist policies" while I am the one advocating genuine "conservative policies" to put this nation back n a sound financial footing. How ironic is that?

That is so bogus! I'm done with you.

If that is bogus then would you care to explain why?

No. If you're too stupid to see it, you aren't worth an explanation.

 

[Ernie S.]

Greed? Yes the greed of labor unions.

If you had to pay American labor to build your flat screen, you would still be bitching that Walmart was ripping you off.
You fail to realize that an increase in wage is nearly immediately offset by an increase in prices. Paying labor more does nothing but make your money worth less.

Except labor costs including healthcare and pensions are a 100% subsidy.

Only at the effective corporate tax rate.

 

[P@triot]

Let me see if I can put this idea in a way that you MIGHT understand. I'll type big.

If the choice is cutting some programs or services that benefits myself or some one else that I care about VS. the raising of taxes on the ultra wealthy by a few percent, (here is the part you need to pay attention to) I DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT YOUR IDEA OF "FAIRNESS."

Maybe that will explain my position cause you sure as hell didn't explain yours.

Why do you care what amount of taxes some very very rich pay? Or do you think the very very rich are worried about YOU? LMAO.

Let me see if I can put this idea in a way that you WON'T understand (because people like you are ignorant ****'n idiots - but it's fun to point out the facts anyway [MENTION=35352]zeke[/MENTION]). I'll type big.

I don't care about the wealthy. I don't care about the poor. What I do care about is the United States. And your ignorant policies of greed and sloth collapses nations. While conservative's policies of personal responsibility and freedom creates monumental prosperity for nations.

Let me dumb this down for you in a way you MIGHT understand:

[/QUOTE

Rotty you are one stupid ******* dog.

The very practice of having the ultra wealthy amass more and more of the nations wealth is the very thing that will ruin the nation you claim to love so much.

How did you get so ******* stupid? PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE I guess.

You're the ****'n moron who thinks that spreading the wealth like the former U.S.S.R. (collapsed) did, like Greece (collapsed) did, like Cambodia (collapsed) did is "good policy"

You're a ****'n moron did punish success and reward failure. If the ultra wealthy are amassing more and more, it's because they are doing something RIGHT! They aren't stealing the money asshole! So why would you stop someone from doing something RIGHT?!?! Why would you stop someone from being SUCCESSFUL?!?! God, you are one ignorant, lazy, parasitic little ****'n monkey [MENTION=35352]zeke[/MENTION]!!!! You're too dumb to realize that the Dumbocrats need to keep people poor since that is their voting base