'Taxing the Rich'

[Uncensored2008]

Taxes are the lowest they've ever been. The "consequence" to raising them a little bit would be a smaller deficit.

Yet the bottom 50% pay a smaller percent of federal taxes now than they did under Clinton, while the top 1% pay a greater percent.

How is that possible?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Payments - Preparing Your 1040 Step 9

Tax Form 1040 Essentials - Resources for Preparing Form 1040

Here you go...

So which is the major factor in your withholding??

You fill out the W4 for withholding.
Sorry dude.


IRS tax forms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You would enter the amount of withholding on the 1040 - yes - but you can't just make up whatever number you want, its the amount that your W2 says was withheld, its not anything you want as you have said

If I really wanted to I could withhold a ton, if I really wanted to I could withhold pretty much nothing.

I know what a W-4 is...

I may have jumped the gun.

I was merely pointing out were the meat and potatoes are of withholding when you're preparing a statement.

Your statement

If I really wanted to I could withhold a ton, if I really wanted to I could withhold pretty much nothing.

still wrong.

Your statement

Withholding is a de facto deduction.

also still wrong.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yet the bottom 50% pay a smaller percent of federal taxes now than they did under Clinton, while the top 1% pay a greater percent.

How is that possible?

That's hardly surprising considering the top 1% rich are richer and the poor poorer than they were under Clinton. Its a result of the growing divide between rich and poor - not tax policy.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I buy a product for a dollar and sell it to you for two dollars - I just created a dollar out of thin air...

No you didn't you ignorant ****, that dollar came from ME.

Thats another dollar the Fed will have to print eventually.. Hence I just created wealth.

No it isn't. You don't create net wealth by simply moving it around or by increasing the money supply. Net wealth is only made by 1) making things 2) making ideas

Yes I did create that dollar...

Using your logic capitalism cant withstand a population boom, and it CLEARLY DID.

Explain to me, that if our money is finite - how the **** does it withstand population growth??

Ya see... You're ******* wrong...

BTW, you should get an infraction for personally attacking me...

If I was a mod I'd give it to you in a nanosecond..

Did I ever personally attack you?

NO I didn't...

 

[Cecilie1200]

\


The underlying assumption that a high tax rate would have resulted in the same 277% increase income as did the lower tax rate is specious. High tax rates discourage risk taking. So, if your objective is to make the Wealthy Less Wealthy, then by all means, increase taxes, slow down economic growth, and destroy the environment for job creation which was spurred in the actual scenario.

How would it slow down economic growth if the richest 400 people didn't get richer? Are they the only ones that matter?

First of all, short of outright robbery and confiscation, it's impossible to freeze the wealth of just "the richest 400 people". Second of all, who the **** are YOU to say who should and shouldn't get richer, anyway? Who the **** are YOU to say ANYTHING about someone else's finances? Like that money would have been yours otherwise.

Second, Thomas Sowell just published a rather interesting article on the subject of tax rates aimed at "soaking the rich":

We could definitely use another Abraham Lincoln to emancipate us all from being slaves to words. In the midst of a historic financial crisis of unprecedented government spending, and a national debt that outstrips even the debt accumulated by the reckless government spending of previous administration, we are still enthralled by words and ignoring realities.

President Barack Obama's constant talk about "millionaires and billionaires" needing to pay higher taxes would be a bad joke, if the consequences were not so serious. Even if the income tax rate were raised to 100 percent on millionaires and billionaires, it would still not cover the trillions of dollars the government is spending.

More fundamentally, tax rates-- whatever they are-- are just words on paper. Only the hard cash that comes in can cover government spending. History has shown repeatedly, under administrations of both political parties, that there is no automatic correlation between tax rates and tax revenues.

When the tax rate on the highest incomes was 73 percent in 1921, that brought in less tax revenue than after the tax rate was cut to 24 percent in 1925. Why? Because high tax rates that people don't actually pay do not bring in as much hard cash as lower tax rates that they do pay. That's not rocket science.

. . . . . . .

Time and again, at both state and federal levels, in the country and in other countries, tax rates and tax revenue have moved in opposite directions many times. After Maryland raised its tax rates on people making a million dollars a year, there were fewer such people living in Maryland-- and less tax revenue was collected from them.

In 2009, many people specializing in high finance in Britain relocated to Switzerland after the British government announced plans to take 51 percent of high incomes in taxes.

Slaves to Words - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes I did create that dollar..

No you didn't. It was created when the federal reserve issued it in exchange for assets.

Explain to me, that if our money is finite - how the **** does it withstand population growth??

The fed creates more of it. Duh.

Did I ever personally attack you?

Boo hoo go cry to your mommy.


I'm going to put you on ignore now for 2 reasons
1) you are ignorant
2) you may be a minor child, even under 13, and there's probably laws against bullying children on the internet. I don't know for a FACT you are, but at this point i reasonably believe you're about 12, so not worth the chance.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Yet the bottom 50% pay a smaller percent of federal taxes now than they did under Clinton, while the top 1% pay a greater percent.

How is that possible?

That's hardly surprising considering the top 1% rich are richer and the poor poorer than they were under Clinton. Its a result of the growing divide between rich and poor - not tax policy.

I'm not ******* blind.

No they're not "poorer" the bottom are actually richer than they were a decade ago.

I wouldn't expect you to understand that tho.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Second of all, who the **** are YOU to say who should and shouldn't get richer, anyway?

I'm not.

Who the **** are YOU to say ANYTHING about someone else's finances?

Tell you what, go take a fake valium, and come back when your fake rage has subsided.

 

[boedicca]

The hardcore leftists and progressives would rather have the government take a larger share of a smaller pie, than to allow the free markets to bake a much larger pie, and for the government to take a smaller percentage yet absolutely bigger slice.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The adjusted gross income of the wealthiest 400 taxpayers jumped 277 percent in real terms between 1992 and 2008, nearly four times the increase for everyone else. Over that same period, the effective tax rate on the richest 400 taxpayers (note: not necessarily the same people year-to-year) fell from 30 percent in 1995 to the 18 percent rate in 2008

TaxVox » Blog Archive » The Very Rich Really Are Different

But, but, buttt they worked harder to earn that money, so they should get to keep more of it.

"The curious may want to know why the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in the first place. After all, if then-President George W. Bush and Congress thought they were a good idea when they passed them in the early 2000s, why make them temporary?"

Bush Tax Cuts On The Wealthy​

​

 

[Cecilie1200]

Most "rich" people (250k+) were poor before they were rich.

Sure, if you only declare two categories of people "rich and poor", yeah. But if you include a middle class you're full of shit.

Nor do I see your point anyway. We tax the rich at a higher rate because they can afford to pay more. I'd love to be in the top tax bracket, wouldn't you?

What's the point in aspiring to the top tax bracket when vindictive, envious little weasels at the bottom want to take everything you make as soon as you get there, anyway?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Yes I did create that dollar..

No you didn't. It was created when the federal reserve issued it in exchange for assets.

Explain to me, that if our money is finite - how the **** does it withstand population growth??

The fed creates more of it. Duh.

Did I ever personally attack you?

Boo hoo go cry to your mommy.


I'm going to put you on ignore now for 2 reasons
1) you are ignorant
2) you may be a minor child, even under 13, and there's probably laws against bullying children on the internet. I don't know for a FACT you are, but at this point i reasonably believe you're about 12, so not worth the chance.

Do whatever the **** you'd like....

You never answered my question how capitalism can adjust to population growth.

You don't know a ******* thing about economy.

So be a little ***** and run away like the communist you are......

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The hardcore leftists and progressives would rather have the government take a larger share of a smaller pie, than to allow the free markets to bake a much larger pie, and for the government to take a smaller percentage yet absolutely bigger slice.

Dude, if you can't make an argument without using a watered down trite analogy - you don't know what you're talking about. Go bake a ******* pie.

 

[boedicca]

Yes I did create that dollar..

No you didn't. It was created when the federal reserve issued it in exchange for assets.

Then you don't know what the dollar means in terms of a medium of exchange. That dollar represents a unit of value, which in Mr.Nick's case is likely pay for his productivity.

The dollar "stores" the value he created.

The government didn't create that value.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Sure, if you only declare two categories of people "rich and poor", yeah. But if you include a middle class you're full of shit.

Nor do I see your point anyway. We tax the rich at a higher rate because they can afford to pay more. I'd love to be in the top tax bracket, wouldn't you?

What's the point in aspiring to the top tax bracket when vindictive, envious little weasels at the bottom want to take everything you make as soon as you get there, anyway?

I never wrote that....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Then you don't know what the dollar means in terms of a medium of exchange. That dollar represents a unit of value, ....

I knew that actually, thanks.

which in Mr.Nick's case is likely pay for his productivity.

The dollar "stores" the value he created.

But it comes from a dollar that I give up. $1 goes to Nick's supplier, $1 to Nick - and $2 comes from me - no net dollars are created.

The government didn't create that value.

Never said it did. The fed creates the monetary base. The value that is assigned to a dollar is determined by the market.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What's the point in aspiring to the top tax bracket when vindictive, envious little weasels at the bottom want to take everything you make as soon as you get there, anyway?

Gee, cuz after taxes, wife and I would have about 200k a year more than we do now (if just barely into top bracket). For crissakes there's nothing more pathetic than someone whining about being in the top tax bracket.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"The great tax cut battle of 2012 is officially on."

'I refuse to renew'​

Damn!!!!

The Presidency AND the end o' BUSHCO's tax-cuts??!!!

​

 

[Mr.Nick]

Yes I did create that dollar..

No you didn't. It was created when the federal reserve issued it in exchange for assets.

Then you don't know what the dollar means in terms of a medium of exchange. That dollar represents a unit of value, which in Mr.Nick's case is likely pay for his productivity.

The dollar "stores" the value he created.

The government didn't create that value.

I think my point is the main difference between communism/socialism and capitalism.

Communism is finite, capitalism is infinite.

The communist economic model is based on resources and the capitalist economic model is based on production or labor.

 

[boedicca]

What's the point in aspiring to the top tax bracket when vindictive, envious little weasels at the bottom want to take everything you make as soon as you get there, anyway?

Gee, cuz after taxes, wife and I would have about 200k a year more than we do now (if just barely into top bracket). For crissakes there's nothing more pathetic than someone whining about being in the top tax bracket.

Being pathetic is something in which you are no doubt an expert.