It's Good To Be Rich! More Republican Tax Breaks!

[Preacher]

ROFLMAO! Can we say WALTONS....they didn't do a ******* THING to earn any of their wealth. They INHERITED their daddies company and have gotten richer off the backs of the hard working workers selling,making and transporting their cheap SHIT made with slave labor in China.

So what? What's it to you? Man, you lefties are such busy-bodies.

Pointing out a lie. Quite common with you right wing scum

What's the lie?

Those Waltons DID NOT use hard work to get rich. They were rich when their daddy died and they took over the business. HE busted his ass and built Wal Mart...I wonder what he paid his employees.

Those Walton's who inherited the business are not sitting on their butts either.
If they had the business would have gone out of business.
No the kids who inherited it expanded the business beyond what their Dad ever dreamed of.

Using slave labor in India,Pakistan,Vietnam etc and NO they did not keep it going their employees they treat like shit did.The Waltons don't sell anything,making anything,etc

 

[TooTall]

The rich pay more in taxes in one year than many of the middle class and poor will pay in their lifetime.

That's because 1% of $1M is more than 1% of 50K.

2014, I paid 4% of $32.6M in federal tax. A working couple making $50K paid 7%.

Get it yet?

I'm not very good at math, but I think 4% of 32.6M is $1,296,000 and 7% of $50,000 is $3500.

 

[peach174]

So what? What's it to you? Man, you lefties are such busy-bodies.

Pointing out a lie. Quite common with you right wing scum

What's the lie?

Those Waltons DID NOT use hard work to get rich. They were rich when their daddy died and they took over the business. HE busted his ass and built Wal Mart...I wonder what he paid his employees.

Those Walton's who inherited the business are not sitting on their butts either.
If they had the business would have gone out of business.
No the kids who inherited it expanded the business beyond what their Dad ever dreamed of.

Using slave labor in India,Pakistan,Vietnam etc and NO they did not keep it going their employees they treat like shit did.The Waltons don't sell anything,making anything,etc

Have you ever talked to their employees?
Most are very happy that they work there.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because you're an idiot who can't articulate himself? Did you finish high school?

90k OF 90k IS 100%

110k OF 1500000. K IS 7.3 %

100% OR 7.3% ... which is greater ?

no fair using a calculator either!

Yeah, I get that.. but that is not the question you posed. You should really stop.. you're making an ass of yourself. Grow the **** up 7.

post #103.. the EXACT question



lets get to payroll tax ... the cap is about $110 K or so ..

Earl makes $90K and pays 100% on that $90K

Sam makes $1.5 Million $ and pays $110K on that $1.5 million..

brain **** question ...

who pays the higher percentage? Earl or Sam?


and you are too damn dumb to understand it ....

So Earl pays 100% tax on his 90,000? Are you truly this stupid?

payroll tax, earl pays 100% on his entire salary ... are you really that stupid ...

not a fair question. forget it.

Why would someone work if he were getting taxed 100%? Yes, you are that ******* stupid. Week old farina left out in the sun has more brain power than you do.

 

[The Rabbi]

90k OF 90k IS 100%

110k OF 1500000. K IS 7.3 %

100% OR 7.3% ... which is greater ?

so answer the question soggyboi ...

100% is obviously greater than 7.3%. But what was your point here? Do you really think someone pays 100% of his salary in taxes?

 

[Flopper]

The Republican controlled Senate has once again passed two bills that help the rich while screwing the middle class and poor.

U.S. House passes estate tax repeal despite veto threat Reuters

House quietly passes tax exemption for megadonors - Kenneth P. Vogel and Hillary Flynn - POLITICO

House quietly passes tax exemption for megadonors - Kenneth P. Vogel and Hillary Flynn - POLITICO

To be expected

 

[The Rabbi]

90k OF 90k IS 100%

110k OF 1500000. K IS 7.3 %

100% OR 7.3% ... which is greater ?

so answer the question soggyboi ...

They both pay 6.2%....

What you are getting at is called the "effective tax rate".... learn to ask the correct question.

You're messing with the wrong guy bub... I'm a CPA. Two people could easily be in the same tax bracket, but pay different effective rates. They still pay the same percentage.

What he's getting at but is too stupid to articulate is this:
Up to 90k they both the same, 6.2% or whatever the number is. That is, they both pay $5580.
But the second guy makes $1.5M. Bt the amount above 90k is not subject to the tax, so he pays the same 5580 but on 1.5M in income, or .0372%
Now, I do not know the rationale for capping social security contrbutions at whatever level. Of course the benefits are also capped since benefits are directly related to amount paid in. This last point is no doubt lost on libs who think any payroll deduction is really a tax.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm still waiting for one person to present a cogent argument for why the government is entitled to a cut of a person's estate.

its up to the person to protect their estate and there are numerous LEGAL ways to do that. If they don't its not the governments fault they're not responsible to do so. Wealthy people are totally capable of protecting themselves and do just that. Idiots like you not so much. You'd rather ***** about the big bad government ******* everyone.

So you're Ok with wealthy people hiring lawyers and accountants to skirt tax laws but you're not Ok with simply changing the laws so they dont have to?
Have you just admitted that the estate tax is ineffective because wealthy people can figure out way around it?

 

[Spare_change]

What has 45 years of massive tax breaks for the top 10% of our country done for the economy? Consider that our middle class was healthy and the largest it has ever been in the 50s, 60s and 70s before them.

First of all it is the middle class that should be at the center of our economic policy...Not the ******* 1%! The 1% doesn't give a **** if the entire rest of the country looks like Vietnam.

Great, BUT it was 32 years under Reagan that the pandering to the greedy idiot rich began- and the screwing of the rest of us. REAGAN.

And it hasn't changed. Thanks to Pub obstruction. But people ARE getting it now. Even some Pub dupes...

I don't blame the dupes much- Pubs are GREAT at duping...been doing it for 150 years....

Less name calling ... more substantive input, please.

If you can ....

 

[Spare_change]

LOL,

Dude, I don't want to take all the wealth from the 10%...In fact if they paid 35% in taxes and paid a few bucks per hour more to their workers they'd be almost as wealthy as they currently are. This isn't about destroying the wealthy...Just asking for fairness.

What's fair about taking from one person to give to another?

 

[Spare_change]

90k OF 90k IS 100%

110k OF 1500000. K IS 7.3 %

100% OR 7.3% ... which is greater ?

so answer the question soggyboi ...

They both pay 6.2%....

What you are getting at is called the "effective tax rate".... learn to ask the correct question.

You're messing with the wrong guy bub... I'm a CPA. Two people could easily be in the same tax bracket, but pay different effective rates. They still pay the same percentage.

What he's getting at but is too stupid to articulate is this:
Up to 90k they both the same, 6.2% or whatever the number is. That is, they both pay $5580.
But the second guy makes $1.5M. Bt the amount above 90k is not subject to the tax, so he pays the same 5580 but on 1.5M in income, or .0372%
Now, I do not know the rationale for capping social security contrbutions at whatever level. Of course the benefits are also capped since benefits are directly related to amount paid in. This last point is no doubt lost on libs who think any payroll deduction is really a tax.

The reason for capping it?

You're looking at the wrong formula ... you should be looking at the benefits formula. Only be capping the tax can they cap the payout. Asking a person making $1.5M to pay 6% of $1M per year in order to collect $1500/month is virtually unsellable. You're not asking them to pay their fair share - you're asking them to subsidize virtually the whole population.

 

[The Rabbi]

What has 45 years of massive tax breaks for the top 10% of our country done for the economy? Consider that our middle class was healthy and the largest it has ever been in the 50s, 60s and 70s before them.

First of all it is the middle class that should be at the center of our economic policy...Not the ******* 1%! The 1% doesn't give a **** if the entire rest of the country looks like Vietnam.

Great, BUT it was 32 years under Reagan that the pandering to the greedy idiot rich began- and the screwing of the rest of us. REAGAN.

And it hasn't changed. Thanks to Pub obstruction. But people ARE getting it now. Even some Pub dupes...

I don't blame the dupes much- Pubs are GREAT at duping...been doing it for 150 years....

Less name calling ... more substantive input, please.

If you can ....

You're kidding, right? It's Franco, most psycho poster on this board. It's nothing but pub dupe crank Reagan screwed us big business bullshit.

 

[The Rabbi]

90k OF 90k IS 100%

110k OF 1500000. K IS 7.3 %

100% OR 7.3% ... which is greater ?

so answer the question soggyboi ...

They both pay 6.2%....

What you are getting at is called the "effective tax rate".... learn to ask the correct question.

You're messing with the wrong guy bub... I'm a CPA. Two people could easily be in the same tax bracket, but pay different effective rates. They still pay the same percentage.

What he's getting at but is too stupid to articulate is this:
Up to 90k they both the same, 6.2% or whatever the number is. That is, they both pay $5580.
But the second guy makes $1.5M. Bt the amount above 90k is not subject to the tax, so he pays the same 5580 but on 1.5M in income, or .0372%
Now, I do not know the rationale for capping social security contrbutions at whatever level. Of course the benefits are also capped since benefits are directly related to amount paid in. This last point is no doubt lost on libs who think any payroll deduction is really a tax.

The reason for capping it?

You're looking at the wrong formula ... you should be looking at the benefits formula. Only be capping the tax can they cap the payout. Asking a person making $1.5M to pay 6% of $1M per year in order to collect $1500/month is virtually unsellable. You're not asking them to pay their fair share - you're asking them to subsidize virtually the whole population.

I sort of alluded to that. If you taxed 6% of 1M you'd have to pay out that much over the person's life. Otherwise you're just stealing the money. Which s fine with libs.

 

[TooTall]

Everywhere.

Less air traffic controllers? Less radar? Less INS? Less police? Less Fire Fighters?

Fire fighters and Police are paid by cities, counties and states, not the federal government.

 

[Spare_change]

I'm still waiting for one person to present a cogent argument for why the government is entitled to a cut of a person's estate.

its up to the person to protect their estate and there are numerous LEGAL ways to do that. If they don't its not the governments fault they're not responsible to do so. Wealthy people are totally capable of protecting themselves and do just that. Idiots like you not so much. You'd rather ***** about the big bad government ******* everyone.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ..... the government is going to steal your estate unless you figure out ways to keep them from doing it. And, if you don't, it's your fault you got robbed .... PLEASE tell me that isn't what you meant to say. PLEASE tell me you have a moral code better than that. PLEASE ....

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm still waiting for one person to present a cogent argument for why the government is entitled to a cut of a person's estate.

its up to the person to protect their estate and there are numerous LEGAL ways to do that. If they don't its not the governments fault they're not responsible to do so. Wealthy people are totally capable of protecting themselves and do just that. Idiots like you not so much. You'd rather ***** about the big bad government ******* everyone.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ..... the government is going to steal your estate unless you figure out ways to keep them from doing it. And, if you don't, it's your fault you got robbed .... PLEASE tell me that isn't what you meant to say. PLEASE tell me you have a moral code better than that. PLEASE ....

No such luck.

 

[SillyWabbit]

90k OF 90k IS 100%

110k OF 1500000. K IS 7.3 %

100% OR 7.3% ... which is greater ?

so answer the question soggyboi ...

They both pay 6.2%....

What you are getting at is called the "effective tax rate".... learn to ask the correct question.

You're messing with the wrong guy bub... I'm a CPA. Two people could easily be in the same tax bracket, but pay different effective rates. They still pay the same percentage.

What he's getting at but is too stupid to articulate is this:
Up to 90k they both the same, 6.2% or whatever the number is. That is, they both pay $5580.
But the second guy makes $1.5M. Bt the amount above 90k is not subject to the tax, so he pays the same 5580 but on 1.5M in income, or .0372%
Now, I do not know the rationale for capping social security contrbutions at whatever level. Of course the benefits are also capped since benefits are directly related to amount paid in. This last point is no doubt lost on libs who think any payroll deduction is really a tax.

The reason for capping it?

You're looking at the wrong formula ... you should be looking at the benefits formula. Only be capping the tax can they cap the payout. Asking a person making $1.5M to pay 6% of $1M per year in order to collect $1500/month is virtually unsellable. You're not asking them to pay their fair share - you're asking them to subsidize virtually the whole population.

I sort of alluded to that. If you taxed 6% of 1M you'd have to pay out that much over the person's life. Otherwise you're just stealing the money. Which s fine with libs.

It's not stealing. It's not your money to begin with.

 

[TooTall]

No, just less confiscation. Interestingly enough, the more you grab for, the less the government actually ends up with. It's a documented phenomenon.

I see, you complain about 'confiscation' but enjoy driving down public streets without paying a toll.

I pay the toll for the streets every time I put gas in my car.

 

[Siete]

90k OF 90k IS 100%

110k OF 1500000. K IS 7.3 %

100% OR 7.3% ... which is greater ?

so answer the question soggyboi ...

They both pay 6.2%....

What you are getting at is called the "effective tax rate".... learn to ask the correct question.

You're messing with the wrong guy bub... I'm a CPA. Two people could easily be in the same tax bracket, but pay different effective rates. They still pay the same percentage.

What he's getting at but is too stupid to articulate is this:
Up to 90k they both the same, 6.2% or whatever the number is. That is, they both pay $5580.
But the second guy makes $1.5M. Bt the amount above 90k is not subject to the tax, so he pays the same 5580 but on 1.5M in income, or .0372%
Now, I do not know the rationale for capping social security contrbutions at whatever level. Of course the benefits are also capped since benefits are directly related to amount paid in. This last point is no doubt lost on libs who think any payroll deduction is really a tax.

The reason for capping it?

You're looking at the wrong formula ... you should be looking at the benefits formula. Only be capping the tax can they cap the payout. Asking a person making $1.5M to pay 6% of $1M per year in order to collect $1500/month is virtually unsellable. You're not asking them to pay their fair share - you're asking them to subsidize virtually the whole population.

I sort of alluded to that. If you taxed 6% of 1M you'd have to pay out that much over the person's life. Otherwise you're just stealing the money. Which s fine with libs.

60,000.00 is considered a lifetime of tax to a millionaire?

please continue, you keep getting dumber with every post.

 

[Katzndogz]

All the assets subject to inheritance tax has already been taxed several times.