What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is Obama's "rich tax" starting to make sense?

JoeB

Rookie
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Someone help me understand.

I've always been relatively conservative in most my views. In particular the financial conservatives always made more sense to me than the liberals, but then I heard a conservative talk show host try to make a case against raising the tax on the rich by saying that 5% of the population is currently paying 95% of income tax ... fail.

If that is the case then raising the tax on that upper 5% by 5% will generate as much income as doubling the tax on the rest of us. Right?

Now I live in a nice neighborhood and I've seen that there is a big difference between how a millionaire and a trash collector live in this country. A big enough difference that I don't think that inching up the doctor's taxes by 5% is going to create nearly the work disincentive as doubling the tax on the trash collector.

Could Obama be right about the "rich" tax? Someone set me straight - if you can.
 

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
57,211
Reaction score
32,024
Points
2,605
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
You need to bring the facts to the table, "conservative".

The top 5% pay 60% of the tax....not 95% of the tax. Now wudyagonnado?
Top 5%
59.67%
above $145,283
The Tax Foundation - New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%

You really don't sound too conservative....if we would have used your numbers that the top 5% that are paying your 95% number, and you feel that they should just pay the rest of the 5% outstanding, too.
You sound like a class envy liberal to me.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,094
Points
245
Someone help me understand.

I've always been relatively conservative in most my views. In particular the financial conservatives always made more sense to me than the liberals, but then I heard a conservative talk show host try to make a case against raising the tax on the rich by saying that 5% of the population is currently paying 95% of income tax ... fail.

If that is the case then raising the tax on that upper 5% by 5% will generate as much income as doubling the tax on the rest of us. Right?

Now I live in a nice neighborhood and I've seen that there is a big difference between how a millionaire and a trash collector live in this country. A big enough difference that I don't think that inching up the doctor's taxes by 5% is going to create nearly the work disincentive as doubling the tax on the trash collector.

Could Obama be right about the "rich" tax? Someone set me straight - if you can.

In a word, no.
 

JMadison

Constitutionalist
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
113
Reaction score
12
Points
16
Location
VA
Someone help me understand.

I've always been relatively conservative in most my views. In particular the financial conservatives always made more sense to me than the liberals, but then I heard a conservative talk show host try to make a case against raising the tax on the rich by saying that 5% of the population is currently paying 95% of income tax ... fail.

If that is the case then raising the tax on that upper 5% by 5% will generate as much income as doubling the tax on the rest of us. Right?

Now I live in a nice neighborhood and I've seen that there is a big difference between how a millionaire and a trash collector live in this country. A big enough difference that I don't think that inching up the doctor's taxes by 5% is going to create nearly the work disincentive as doubling the tax on the trash collector.

Could Obama be right about the "rich" tax? Someone set me straight - if you can.

I don't know, but you're not conservative and never have been. Anyone that talks like that is NO conservative in any shape, matter or form.
 

The Gadfly

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
613
Points
48
You need to bring the facts to the table, "conservative".

The top 5% pay 60% of the tax....not 95% of the tax. Now wudyagonnado?
Top 5%
59.67%
above $145,283
The Tax Foundation - New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%

You really don't sound too conservative....if we would have used your numbers that the top 5% that are paying your 95% number, and you feel that they should just pay the rest of the 5% outstanding, too.
You sound like a class envy liberal to me.

Definition of a liberal: someone who believes in trying to make life "fair"...with someone else's money.
 

Zander

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
22,519
Reaction score
9,102
Points
940
Location
Los Angeles CA
You need to bring the facts to the table, "conservative".

The top 5% pay 60% of the tax....not 95% of the tax. Now wudyagonnado?
Top 5%
59.67%
above $145,283
The Tax Foundation - New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%

You really don't sound too conservative....if we would have used your numbers that the top 5% that are paying your 95% number, and you feel that they should just pay the rest of the 5% outstanding, too.
You sound like a class envy liberal to me.

Definition of a liberal: someone who believes in trying to make life "fair"...with someone else's money.
True. They all constantly talk about "equality". Problem is, they want equality of outcome, regardless of talent or effort. Conservatives want equality too, equality of opportunity. The outcome is up to the individual.
 

CitizenPained

Dissident-Jude
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
1,151
Reaction score
152
Points
48
Location
Denver
I'm concerned about homeowners and the housing market. I'm not so concerned about getting a $4,000 check next April.
 

Zander

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
22,519
Reaction score
9,102
Points
940
Location
Los Angeles CA
I'm concerned about homeowners and the housing market. I'm not so concerned about getting a $4,000 check next April.

I assume you are referring to over-withholding from your paycheck throughout the year (a bad strategy by the way) and then getting your own money back after you file your tax return? If so, don't fret! You can donate your money to the government. Seriously, they'll take it, spend it all and 40% more. You and Warren Buffet can lead the way!! Walk the walk baby!!!
 

Sherry

You're not the boss of me
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
21,819
Reaction score
11,549
Points
960
Location
some beach
The problem that a lot of us have with raising taxes on ANY Americans is that we don't trust the government to wisely spend ANY of our money. If they didn't have a such a shitty track record, then I think more people would be willing to put it on the table....but we don't have any faith that they'd use more revenue to shrink the government.
 
OP
J

JoeB

Rookie
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
I think you've hit on the best argument. Instead of the "Ag!, you not good conservative, you bleeding heart liberal" banter which my post received from most people you are shooting at the real issue: Do we really need to be giving our "leaders" more money to waste or should we expect them to clean up their spending first.

Good point, but with our debt maxed out we may have no choice, but to raise taxes (even after the Tea Party does it's best to clean up wasteful spending).

I think tighter control on lobbyists might be a good start!
 

bill5

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
394
Reaction score
34
Points
16
Someone help me understand.

I've always been relatively conservative in most my views. In particular the financial conservatives always made more sense to me than the liberals, but then I heard a conservative talk show host try to make a case against raising the tax on the rich by saying that 5% of the population is currently paying 95% of income tax ... fail.

If that is the case then raising the tax on that upper 5% by 5% will generate as much income as doubling the tax on the rest of us. Right?

Now I live in a nice neighborhood and I've seen that there is a big difference between how a millionaire and a trash collector live in this country. A big enough difference that I don't think that inching up the doctor's taxes by 5% is going to create nearly the work disincentive as doubling the tax on the trash collector.

Could Obama be right about the "rich" tax? Someone set me straight - if you can.

I will if you help me understand why you didn't post this in the political forum. :cool:
 
OP
J

JoeB

Rookie
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
This is my first post. I didn't realize it was in the wrong forum.
 

code1211

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
5,999
Reaction score
854
Points
48
Someone help me understand.

I've always been relatively conservative in most my views. In particular the financial conservatives always made more sense to me than the liberals, but then I heard a conservative talk show host try to make a case against raising the tax on the rich by saying that 5% of the population is currently paying 95% of income tax ... fail.

If that is the case then raising the tax on that upper 5% by 5% will generate as much income as doubling the tax on the rest of us. Right?

Now I live in a nice neighborhood and I've seen that there is a big difference between how a millionaire and a trash collector live in this country. A big enough difference that I don't think that inching up the doctor's taxes by 5% is going to create nearly the work disincentive as doubling the tax on the trash collector.

Could Obama be right about the "rich" tax? Someone set me straight - if you can.



The tax system is a mess. That said, not all people are created equal except as is defined by law. We see this from grade school to the grave. Even within family units, we will often find the "runt of the litter", the black sheep, the prodigal son or the shining star.

That's just the way it is.

There are two different camps on raising taxes: Those who feel that if taxes are raised, they should be raised for all as all enjoy the benefits and those who feel that class warfare should be inflicted on us once again in this arena.

Within those groups are nuanced positions.

I am generally in the camp that if taxes are raised, all should share in the burden. Further, i feel that if you live in the USA, you should pay taxes. It might only be 1 dollar, but you should pay something.

The rich are able to avoid paying taxes through manipulation of the tax code and because there is a cap on the liability of the Social Security payroll tax. These need to be eliminated. Just as the bottom end should be included in the paying end, the top end must not be excluded from the paying end through legal treachery.

Taxes should be able to be figured on the top half of an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. What did you earn? What do the tax tables say you owe? Send it in.

Now, to your point. Is the Big 0 right to conduct class warfare in this and everything else that he does? No. It's divisive and while it is appropriate to a community organizer who is trying to highlight injustice to raise money, it's not conducive to team building and creating a single American response to the problems that face us.

In this and in everything he does, he is splitting the population as rich-poor, black-white, legal-illegal, have-havenot, Democrat-Republican, friend-enemy.

His approach should be to point out the goal he hopes to achieve, put forth a plan and work to accomplish the goal changing his plan if needed. Instead he points to a problem, proclaims the evil doers that are causing the problem and need to be punished and condemns all who do not share his vision of attack, condemn, punish and penalize.

In his approach, his philosophy and his conclusions, he is a partisan hack who cannot divorce himself from his bias, prejudice and hatred.

Could Obama be right? Not with his preconcieved notions of injury and retribution.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
161,721
Reaction score
42,848
Points
2,180
Definition of a liberal: someone who believes in trying to make life "fair"...with someone else's money.

Better definition:

=======================================
Liberal - tic on the ass of society trying to increase his food supply.
 

Oldstyle

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
31,206
Reaction score
4,927
Points
1,160
Location
Florida
I think you've hit on the best argument. Instead of the "Ag!, you not good conservative, you bleeding heart liberal" banter which my post received from most people you are shooting at the real issue: Do we really need to be giving our "leaders" more money to waste or should we expect them to clean up their spending first.

Good point, but with our debt maxed out we may have no choice, but to raise taxes (even after the Tea Party does it's best to clean up wasteful spending).

I think tighter control on lobbyists might be a good start!

If we tightened up spending there wouldn't be as much "slop" for the lobbyist hogs to feed on. My problem with raising taxes BEFORE you fix runaway spending is that it's like trying to fill a leaky bucket. You can keep pouring water in but you're never going to stay ahead of what's leaking out. Nobody with any sense at all would do THAT...yet that's essentially what we're doing with most of our governmental structures. Before you take money away from the people who create jobs further dampening an already shaky economy...how about if we patch up our buckets?
 

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
6,025
Reaction score
1,298
Points
48
Location
San Antonio, TX
Are we discussing letting the Bush Tax cuts expire on the rich guys, come Jan 1, 2013? The one that nets the gov't about 70 billion a year in more revenue? The one that is not on the top 5%, but rather is on the people making over 200K, which is the top 2% I think.

So tell me, how is getting an extra 70 billion bucks going to help much with 1.5 trillion dollar deficit? Why should we put so much emphasis on 70 billion when we should be working on the out of control spending? You know, the other 1.43 billion.

No, it doesn't make sense to raise taxes , on anybody. Not now anyway, first how about we focus on the ridiculous spending first?
 

code1211

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
5,999
Reaction score
854
Points
48
Are we discussing letting the Bush Tax cuts expire on the rich guys, come Jan 1, 2013? The one that nets the gov't about 70 billion a year in more revenue? The one that is not on the top 5%, but rather is on the people making over 200K, which is the top 2% I think.

So tell me, how is getting an extra 70 billion bucks going to help much with 1.5 trillion dollar deficit? Why should we put so much emphasis on 70 billion when we should be working on the out of control spending? You know, the other 1.43 billion.

No, it doesn't make sense to raise taxes , on anybody. Not now anyway, first how about we focus on the ridiculous spending first?



The Bush Tax Cuts expired already. The current tax system belongs to The Big 0.
 

KissMy

Free Breast Exam
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
19,017
Reaction score
5,212
Points
255
Location
In your head
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmFYHmGkfxw&feature=player_embedded"]Monty Python - A Tax on Thingy[/ame]
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top