Poll: Well-off say tax the rich

[Skull Pilot]

You nutters sure don't think highly of the people in this nation.

Do we have reason to think highly?

I'm starting to wonder when we went from people who took adversity as a cue to put noses to grindstones to people who take adversity as a cue to whine and ask for free shit.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm going to make a proposal that's going to rile a lot of people but if you bear with me I think you'll see the sense of it. I'm going to suggest that we accept President Obama's offer that we "raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires" as part of a deficit-reduction agreement.

Now here's my logic. First of all, we completely take his most powerful weapon out of his hand. The President has already decided he's going to run his entire re-election campaign around the theme of "making the rich pay their fair share" while Republicans will be cast as "protecting the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class." Take this issue out of his hands and he'll have to run on his own record, which will mean almost certain defeat.

Second, there's absolutely no chance his plan will do anything to improve the economy. Raising taxes on rich people will make a pathetically small contribution to balancing the budget and will hurt investment, which will ensure that things will be just as bad in November 2012 as they are now. There won't be any George Bush to blame this time. The electorate will can the President and Republicans can undo all the damage in a very short time.






What The Heck Lets Tax The Rich.










The illusion Democrats are operating under is that the Tea Party somehow represents "the rich." On the contrary, the Tea Party is made up of middle class entrepreneurs and professionals from the middle part of the country. They are in rebellion against the elites of the East and West Coasts. The new issue of Spectator carries an article, "Andrew Jackson, the First Tea Party President." That is absolutely right. Andrew Jackson did not come to the White House in 1828 with the support of college students, union members, single women, African-Americans, gays, and Hispanics. Jackson's core constituency was freeholders and small business owners who were rebelling against the East Coast elites who were trying to turn American businesses into a "public-private partnership" on the model of European mercantilism. The major issue was incorporations. The East Coast elite wanted to limit incorporations to monopoly charters granted by the federal government on the model that persisted in England right through the 19th century. ("The King's ice cream maker" and so forth.) The National Bank was the perfect tool for synthesizing this crony capitalism. In opposing it, Jackson was arguing no differently than Ron Paul. Fortunately the frontier capitalists won their battle and America became a land of free enterprise.

The American Spectator : What the Heck, Let's Tax the Rich

 

[Wiseacre]

I'm going to make a proposal that's going to rile a lot of people but if you bear with me I think you'll see the sense of it. I'm going to suggest that we accept President Obama's offer that we "raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires" as part of a deficit-reduction agreement.

Now here's my logic. First of all, we completely take his most powerful weapon out of his hand. The President has already decided he's going to run his entire re-election campaign around the theme of "making the rich pay their fair share" while Republicans will be cast as "protecting the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class." Take this issue out of his hands and he'll have to run on his own record, which will mean almost certain defeat.

Second, there's absolutely no chance his plan will do anything to improve the economy. Raising taxes on rich people will make a pathetically small contribution to balancing the budget and will hurt investment, which will ensure that things will be just as bad in November 2012 as they are now. There won't be any George Bush to blame this time. The electorate will can the President and Republicans can undo all the damage in a very short time.



Me:
I think I understand the thinking here, but not sure I go along with it. Seems to me we should be making economic decisions such as raising taxes for economic reasons rather than for political reasons to get somebody voted out of office. Not that I don't want a republican to win next november, cuz I do. But I can't support doing something like this, particularly if it as bad for the country as a whole.

How does the GOP rationalize their support of this idea, when it contradicts everything they've stood for all along? We violated our own principles to win an election? I don't think that'll sell very well in Peoria, or anywhere else.

And the GOP doesn't have to resort to this anyway. Obama's record speaks for itself, if the repubs can't get him booted out of office with the economy the way it is, with his record, well maybe the USA deserves what it gets. Maybe we need to go through a major shitstorm before we realize what we really need to be doing.

 

[WillowTree]

You nutters sure don't think highly of the people in this nation.

I don't think to highly of the leecher half who pay nothing and scream more more more... that's for sure.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You nutters sure don't think highly of the people in this nation.

Well, not sure what nutters you speak of, but I can tell you this, I don't think highly of people with the "the world owes me a living" mentality.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Do you guys get together to practice harmonizing?

The number of able bodied adult Americans who are leeches, who are lazy, who are good-for-nothings with their hands out is, in my educated opinion, very small. But, for some reason, you all think there are tens of millions of them......right there on the other side of those tracks......living a wonderfully luxurious life on the taxpayer dime.

You are afraid of something that just is not there. Consider that we have 10% unemployment. What percentage of the population is, in your view, leeching off of the rest of us while making no effort to be productive?

After you come up with that number.....carry out the math and discover just how little of our GDP we spend on these leeches. Then....ask yourself if that is worth the investment. Please......think first.

 

[Meister]

I think our tax code should be made more complicated at least in the way I've described. The form 1040EZ is all folks more concerned with simplicity need concern themselves with. If you are concerned with your after-tax earnings and with the solvency of the government which prints our cash, some of the details in our tax system are more commonly welcomed.

The Alt Min Tax is a code simplification, and is the part of our code that I loathe the most. If you don't have a tax-deferred, un-matured divorce settlement trust-fund, you could just ignore that portion of the tax code - if there is such a thing - but leave that poor soul with such a concern to the solace of a little tax shelter, should that apply.

Money

Seems you and I disagree, make it simple, get rid of the tax exemptions and "everyone" pay a flat tax rate. It would have "everyone" pay their "fair share".

Be easy, now. This is my first usmessageboard.com debate. =)

I am confused by whose benefit is served by the simplicity agenda on the matter of taxes. If you don't work 9-5 or make 9-5 money, it's not 'fair' to pay into a flat 9-5er tax system. 9-5ers can e-file an EZ and get their simple tax return. I don't think these same folks could do without the same share of their income as I have had to.

Now, I haven't had money back from withholding since 98 or 99, but neither of us stand to benefit from a flat tax rate. Who do you feel would?

Thanks for the debate!

Money

I don't think that 47% of the people should be exempt from paying taxes, then throwing the burden on the other 53% and the largest burden going to the top 5% of the wage earners. What's fair about that?
Getting rid of the tax deductions and exemptions, having a flat tax for all seems it would be "fair" to all. The 47% may not like it, but ........

 

[LoneLaugher]

47% of the people are not exempt from paying taxes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

47% of the people are not exempt from paying taxes.

Yet they pay no income tax and in some cases get more in refunds than they actually paid in.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are wanting people who spend all.....meaning every penny of their income on living to pay federal income taxes with money they don't have. When they get the refund.....because it is determined that they need it in order to live......they spend that too.

Just think about it.

You say the 47% "may not like it" as if they have any extra money with which to pay the extra taxes you have in store for them.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Please tell me how a person gets a refund greater than what they paid in. Thanks.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are wanting people who spend all.....meaning every penny of their income on living to pay federal income taxes with money they don't have. When they get the refund.....because it is determined that they need it in order to live......they spend that too.

Just think about it.

You say the 47% "may not like it" as if they have any extra money with which to pay the extra taxes you have in store for them.

I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that those people who spend every dime just to live have a lot more than they need just to live.

And they seem to live just fine on the money they take home after taxes after all no one is exempt from having taxes taken out of their paychecks are they?

 

[The T]

Any of these rich that are spouting this? Are free to write a check at any time. Leave the rest of us the hell alone.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Oh! You want to be left alone? That isn't very American of you.

Don't worry......we'll be there for you when you need us. It is how we do things.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are wanting people who spend all.....meaning every penny of their income on living to pay federal income taxes with money they don't have. When they get the refund.....because it is determined that they need it in order to live......they spend that too.

Just think about it.

You say the 47% "may not like it" as if they have any extra money with which to pay the extra taxes you have in store for them.

I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that those people who spend every dime just to live have a lot more than they need just to live.

And they seem to live just fine on the money they take home after taxes after all no one is exempt from having taxes taken out of their paychecks are they?

If they had more than they needed to live....they'd have to pay income taxes. The system we have ensures that. It is a progressive tax system. If you reach a certain income that is determined to include disposable income....you get taxed on it. It works well.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Please tell me how a person gets a refund greater than what they paid in. Thanks.

It's called refundable tax credits.

A refundable tax credit can and does result in a refund that is greater than the amount actually paid in.

Credits

A refundable tax credit is a tax credit that can reduce your tax liability below zero (0). Because it is possible to receive a refund from this type of credit, they're referred to as refundable.


Refundable tax credits include:

Earned Income Credit
Adoption Credit (now refundable for adoptions finalized in 2010 or 2011, or for carryforwards)
First-time Homebuyer Credit
Excess Social Security Credit
Additional Child Tax Credit
Health Coverage Tax Credit
American Opportunity Credit - partly refundable
Making Work Pay Credit

 

[The T]

Oh! You want to be left alone? That isn't very American of you.

Don't worry......we'll be there for you when you need us. It is how we do things.

Wrong answer. WHY was the 16th written? And whom does it benefit? (Hint? It isn't the people).

I'll expect an answer post haste drone.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Oh! You want to be left alone? That isn't very American of you.

Don't worry......we'll be there for you when you need us. It is how we do things.

Wrong answer. WHY was the 16th written? And whom does it benefit? (Hint? It isn't the people).

I'll expect an answer post haste drone.

Your funny.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Please tell me how a person gets a refund greater than what they paid in. Thanks.

It's called refundable tax credits.

A refundable tax credit can and does result in a refund that is greater than the amount actually paid in.

Credits

A refundable tax credit is a tax credit that can reduce your tax liability below zero (0). Because it is possible to receive a refund from this type of credit, they're referred to as refundable.


Refundable tax credits include:

Earned Income Credit
Adoption Credit (now refundable for adoptions finalized in 2010 or 2011, or for carryforwards)
First-time Homebuyer Credit
Excess Social Security Credit
Additional Child Tax Credit
Health Coverage Tax Credit
American Opportunity Credit - partly refundable
Making Work Pay Credit

That's a great source. But it's not exactly what you inferred. A tax credit....even if "refundable" is not a refund of taxes paid in. Now that I know
what you were really referring to, I see what you are saying. And....it does not bolster your argument at all.....they are credits. They are there for a reason.

 

[The T]

Oh! You want to be left alone? That isn't very American of you.

Don't worry......we'll be there for you when you need us. It is how we do things.

Wrong answer. WHY was the 16th written? And whom does it benefit? (Hint? It isn't the people).

I'll expect an answer post haste drone.

Your funny.

It's you're by the way. Answer the question.