Why should the rich pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us?

[Mr. Shaman]

George Bush inherited a balanced budget, a strong economy, and a nation at peace. Eight years later he left Obama with a trillion dollar deficit, a shatter economy, and two useless wars.

Lil' Dumbya's
FINAL FAREWELL!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm curious about this. I've seen this chart before and it seemed like it had to be bs but the government link backs it.
So okay. I don't know everything and don't claim to. How is it bs? There's something it doesn't show or that I'm missing here, right?

The ability to think critically? You are comparing 20 years of federal spending under 4 different presidents (those figures actually combine the Clinton era spending with Reagan era spending) with 2 years of federal spending under 1 president, and comparing the totals as percentages of each other. That, even if the figure do back it up, is BS.

Where did I compare anything? Where did I say I find the chart to be valid? While you're doing your usual little snide thing, you missed the part where I said it seemed like bs, didn't you? I get it. You can't help yourself. I guess it's just part of your personality. Sad that.
Here is a chart showing the revenue and the spending through 2010, and the projected spending until 2016.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Thank you. When I said it seemed there was something missing, this was what I was referring to.

If you look at the numbers you can see that was spending like a madman, spending almost $21 trillion in 8 years. Obama, not wanting to be outdone, spent $7 trillion dollars in his first two years. Think about those numbers and tell me what you think of Chris's charts now.

What is it you think I thought of Chris' chart before? Are you like this with people in real life?

Are you this incredibly stupid in real life? You wanted to know what was wrong with the chart, and I explained it. Now you are acting insulted because I pointed out something that anyone who uses their brain would see off the bat.

You seemed to like the chart before I pointed out the obvious, do you still like it? Do you still think the numbers back it up, or do you think it is pure bullshit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's an interesting statistic. So it seems that when tax rates are cut the economy expands and the rich make more money and pay more in aggregate taxes.

Are you suggesting the economy should contract?

He doesn't have a point, he thinks the pictures are pretty.

 

[Ame®icano]

How many Obamabots are going to start this exact thread with this exact message?


Whether or not you want taxes raised on evil demagogue rich people, your hero didn't do it when he had a full 2 year window with almost nothing but democrats in office with him.


Your dream of taxing the rich isn't shared by your messiah or your other cape-wearing democrats.

Thats what bots do. It seems like they are coordinated to do just that.

Thats what community organizing is all about.

 

[Londoner]

mistake . . . . dbl post

 

[IndependntLogic]

I happen to own my own business that nets over a million a year.

I take a portion of my income as stock dividends. I defer taxes via a safe harbor plan. I invest after tax money to the tune of 50K a year I have a couple deferred comp plans via life insurance and i have several other side ventures as a silent partner.

Don't think you can dazzle me little sheep.

And I don't remember saying anything about tax cuts.

What I do remember is saying that the tax rates (which is what this thread is about by the way) paid on earned income and capital gains are the same for everyone. It's you who seem to have problem with that simple fact and seem to feel the need to prove oh how smart you are.

I've found that the people who have to tell everyone how smart they are usually aren't. So run along little sheep. I'm sure there's a politician on TV right now spouting some rah rah sis-boom-bah that will get you all fired up for the night.

So you claim to have all that going and you found what flawed in my post? What specifically did you find that caused you to put on your asshole hat and start slinging bullshit?
NM. You're probably lying anyway.

You really do have an exposed nerve here don't you. Are you feeling a little inadequate?

I know just a much as you about taxes and vehicles that can be used to conserve wealth so you don't really impress me at all.

The implication of the title of this thread is that rich people pay lower tax rates than others. That is not true.

A simple statement proved false by definition sends you into a tizzy to try and prove yourself by long winded posts laced with a little jargon. Well it doesn't impress anyone with a clue.

Um no. I just commented on how, although the wealthy may have income tax rates that are higher, the net effect of what they pay, through the use of tools which you yourself claim to use, is that they pay less.

SO now are you saying that my income tax rates are different than yours or my capital gains rates are different than yours simply because of my income?

Are you daft? Do I really need to dumb this down again? Seriously. Okay, one more time... I am not claiming the rates are different. I am claiming tools that are not available or practical to the middle / lower classes change the net effect. I just don't know how I can dumb it down any more for you.
That is what I stated from post #1. But you and the rest of the Moron Society just seem unable to grasp the concept.

You know that's wrong and my rates are the same. I just have more disposable income to invest in options that I use to my advantage. And so what if i do? I earned that money and want to keep the fucking government from taking it.

Maybe if you sheep got more serious about your own finances you'd have less time to covet what others have.

Um yeah. I believe you. Really I do. Yes Mr. Gates of course you do. (Don't you love hiding behind the internet!).
From my first post, I explained specifically how someone making a million a year, will end up paying about 20%.
Now I understand that you're not too bright - otherwise you might have picked up on the six seperate times when I said "There is nothing wrong with this" and "These are not bad guys" or even "Hell, I do the same thing".
Heck, if you had a double digit IQ, you might have even caught the whole "It is unfair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income".
But I understand. You're a whackjob. And not a particularly bright whackjob. I mean, how stupid do you have to be, to say that someone making $24K a year (the specific example I used), has the ability (I never contested access - only practical ability) to defer 30% of their income or take other portions as part of a corporate investment fund?
So anyone who doesn't instantly agree with you on everything? LOL See my sig below.
But you are a good little sheep! You back the party mantras and attack anyone who doesn't fall directly in line! So it didn't matter if I said taxing the rich is unfair or that the rich aren't bad for taking advantage of loopholes - like a good little sheep, the moment I disagreed with ANYTHING, you did what your thought masters told you. Good Sheeple!
Of course, you're not quite as stupid as Soggy - who after I posted "It's not fair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income" responded with his usual stupid whackjob bumper sticker of "He wants to take your income". Comprehension of a fly, that one.
But still are your points:
1. I said the rich have the same tax rates or higher than others. You then argued with me, stating um..... the rich have the same or higher rates than others. LOL
2. I said the rich have tools and vehicles that, although may be legally available to others, aren't available to them in reality. You claimed you use exactly the kind of vehicles and tools I cited - and then said I was lying because you know, a waitress at Denny's can realistically take 30% in deferred comp, will be offered stock options etc... LOL!
3. I said these vehicles are all legal and the people who use them are not bad. That I use them myself and certainly don't blame anyone for taking advantage of the tax code as written. You said I should quit calling the rich evil and blaming everythign on them. LOL!
4. I said it is unfair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income. You and your brain-dead buddy Soggy, of course said that I was wrong because um..... it's unfair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income. LOL!
So basically, the sheeple got their panties in a bunch because I didn't just regurgitate exactly what is preached on FOX (yes I watch it too). Poor babies. Next time though, at least try to sound intelligent.

 

[Londoner]

You must understand Marxist ideology... it isn't your money, it belongs to the state. In Karl Marx land, the state decides how much you deserve to keep.

Soggy, dear fellow. I appreciate your contributions, but I'd like to raise a few points

I think you may have misrepresented Marx. He saw the current formulation of the state as an instrument of capital (business), which is expressed most perniciously in the monopolization of life's necessities - energy, health care, food, water, land, etc. His followers predicted that profit-makers would staff government (mostly through lobbying and donations), making it possible for companies like LLY to fix markets by, say, legally preventing foreign drug makers from competing for American consumers, while also preventing the government from seeking volume discounts - that is, the capitalist would use the state to destroy competition so he could bid up prices. Here, privatization is a weapon (as opposed to "freedom", which, FYI, is almost more utopian and naive than Marx). Ultimately, Marx thought private property owners would use the state to control markets, and by extension the dispossessed - thus making it easier for capitalists to extract surplus value from wage earners.

(He would have seen Milton Friedman's faith in market freedom as naive because the capitalist would have the leverage to capture the state and thereby eliminate free competition, thus leading to a situation where a few powerful health insurers could divide regions into no-compete zones (and thus bid up prices without fear of losing customers), or (a Marxist thinks) big oil would likely buy the state (through lobbying and election funding) and thus eliminate energy competition, or distort market signals by hiding the real cost of gas by de-coupling the military budget from the price of oil. Again, Karl thought the state would always serve the concentrated power of few property owners, who would buy their way out of competition)

Which is why...

Marx hoped for the withering away of the state, since its only purpose is to give capitalists the legal and military means for exploiting non-elites ("the proletariate") - [or do you think Government serves someone besides the capitalist elite? Do you know how many trillions "the capitalist" has poured into the state? Do you know why? Are you aware of the "no bid culture" where Big Government and Big Business have teamed-up to fleece the taxpayer? When Halliburton charges the taxpayer $60 for a bottle of water or Lockheed Martin gets a multi-billion dollar contract to manufacture dated weapons systems at above market costs, it makes no sense to talk about the exploited business class. When the top 10% control over 90% of the wealth, it make no sense to keep screaming socialism, i.e., the proletariate does not own the means of production; rather, a small wealthy elite does] Marx wanted the common man - i.e., the average hard working laboring class - to own & control more of the "surplus-value" created by their labor. He didn't want the capitalist to lobby the state for the purpose of extracting even more surplus value from labor - so that the worker would get less & less of the fruits made off his back.

Marx criticized [the kind of system where] the fruits of labor are disproportionatly owned by the capitalist elites and their government employees (who take private jets to their private islands, as their workers slave away in factories)

I think you might be confusing Marx with his corrupt followers, like Stalin, who believed the State should steal private property not for the working class . . . but for the elite. Stalin would have loved the recent housing meltdown whereby the property of the working class was transferred to the capitalist through targeted predatory lending followed by foreclosure. (And who do you think helped the capitalist do this by bailing him out in order to complete the deal? The State, which is owned by the capitalist)

My friend Soggy: Marx was a utopian idealist who was closer to Jesus in his concept of the rich and poor. He didn't want one class to build a fence around things like energy and health care, so that another class could be held captive to it.

Dear Soggy friend: your political party keeps repeating the narrative told by Ayn Rand - the one where Stalin steals her father's pharmacy, thereby creating a culture where creative entrepreneurs have no incentive to invest/produce; a society where talented producers and inventors and risk takers go on strike, and thus deny society of technological advances and economic miracles.

Would that it were so dear friend. Would that it were so.

(Sadly, the pharmaceutical now owns the State, which means it no longer needs to produce miracles to capture consumers.)

 

[Cecilie1200]

The billionaire buying a new yacht helps pay for all of that, and it puts money into the pockets of the yacht builder, the electronics manufacturers, the crew of the yacht, and numerous others along the way.

Why do you hate the working people of America?

Glad I understand you now.

Billionaires are more important than American children get an education, that our people get healthcare, that roads and bridges get fixed, that advanced materials research be done, that our military be supplied with the best equipment, that old people be taken care of, that our debt be paid down, or our evironment being clean.

This is why Republican policies always fail.

They don't have their priorities straight.

If we did not have those billionaires we would not be educating American children. Do you have any idea why so many schools, libraries, and museums are named after billionaires? Do you think it is because some idiot taxed them until they had no money left?

Don't be silly. Millionaires and billionaires are all selfish, greedy leeches, sucking down champagne on their obscenely opulent yachts. They never actually do anything beneficial.

Except Warren Buffet, of course, who I expect to see nominated for canonization anytime now.

 

[naturegirl]

Glad I understand you now.

Billionaires are more important than American children get an education, that our people get healthcare, that roads and bridges get fixed, that advanced materials research be done, that our military be supplied with the best equipment, that old people be taken care of, that our debt be paid down, or our evironment being clean.

This is why Republican policies always fail.

They don't have their priorities straight.

If we did not have those billionaires we would not be educating American children. Do you have any idea why so many schools, libraries, and museums are named after billionaires? Do you think it is because some idiot taxed them until they had no money left?

Don't be silly. Millionaires and billionaires are all selfish, greedy leeches, sucking down champagne on their obscenely opulent yachts. They never actually do anything beneficial.

Except Warren Buffet, of course, who I expect to see nominated for canonization anytime now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you claim to have all that going and you found what flawed in my post? What specifically did you find that caused you to put on your asshole hat and start slinging bullshit?
NM. You're probably lying anyway.

You really do have an exposed nerve here don't you. Are you feeling a little inadequate?

I know just a much as you about taxes and vehicles that can be used to conserve wealth so you don't really impress me at all.

The implication of the title of this thread is that rich people pay lower tax rates than others. That is not true.

A simple statement proved false by definition sends you into a tizzy to try and prove yourself by long winded posts laced with a little jargon. Well it doesn't impress anyone with a clue.

Um no. I just commented on how, although the wealthy may have income tax rates that are higher, the net effect of what they pay, through the use of tools which you yourself claim to use, is that they pay less.

SO now are you saying that my income tax rates are different than yours or my capital gains rates are different than yours simply because of my income?

Are you daft? Do I really need to dumb this down again? Seriously. Okay, one more time... I am not claiming the rates are different. I am claiming tools that are not available or practical to the middle / lower classes change the net effect. I just don't know how I can dumb it down any more for you.
That is what I stated from post #1. But you and the rest of the Moron Society just seem unable to grasp the concept.

You know that's wrong and my rates are the same. I just have more disposable income to invest in options that I use to my advantage. And so what if i do? I earned that money and want to keep the fucking government from taking it.

Maybe if you sheep got more serious about your own finances you'd have less time to covet what others have.

Um yeah. I believe you. Really I do. Yes Mr. Gates of course you do. (Don't you love hiding behind the internet!).
From my first post, I explained specifically how someone making a million a year, will end up paying about 20%.
Now I understand that you're not too bright - otherwise you might have picked up on the six seperate times when I said "There is nothing wrong with this" and "These are not bad guys" or even "Hell, I do the same thing".
Heck, if you had a double digit IQ, you might have even caught the whole "It is unfair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income".
But I understand. You're a whackjob. And not a particularly bright whackjob. I mean, how stupid do you have to be, to say that someone making $24K a year (the specific example I used), has the ability (I never contested access - only practical ability) to defer 30% of their income or take other portions as part of a corporate investment fund?
So anyone who doesn't instantly agree with you on everything? LOL See my sig below.
But you are a good little sheep! You back the party mantras and attack anyone who doesn't fall directly in line! So it didn't matter if I said taxing the rich is unfair or that the rich aren't bad for taking advantage of loopholes - like a good little sheep, the moment I disagreed with ANYTHING, you did what your thought masters told you. Good Sheeple!
Of course, you're not quite as stupid as Soggy - who after I posted "It's not fair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income" responded with his usual stupid whackjob bumper sticker of "He wants to take your income". Comprehension of a fly, that one.
But still are your points:
1. I said the rich have the same tax rates or higher than others. You then argued with me, stating um..... the rich have the same or higher rates than others. LOL
2. I said the rich have tools and vehicles that, although may be legally available to others, aren't available to them in reality. You claimed you use exactly the kind of vehicles and tools I cited - and then said I was lying because you know, a waitress at Denny's can realistically take 30% in deferred comp, will be offered stock options etc... LOL!
3. I said these vehicles are all legal and the people who use them are not bad. That I use them myself and certainly don't blame anyone for taking advantage of the tax code as written. You said I should quit calling the rich evil and blaming everythign on them. LOL!
4. I said it is unfair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income. You and your brain-dead buddy Soggy, of course said that I was wrong because um..... it's unfair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income. LOL!
So basically, the sheeple got their panties in a bunch because I didn't just regurgitate exactly what is preached on FOX (yes I watch it too). Poor babies. Next time though, at least try to sound intelligent.

Yawn

So you're basically ranting about something other than the topic of this thread.

ANd BTW I already told you I do not watch Fox News or MSNBC or any other outlet of misinformation that you sheep all seem to love so much.

I read the WSJ, The New York Times, The Washington Post, And several other periodicals.

Try reading sometime but then again that means you'll actually have to think and not have your opinions spoon fed to you by some talking head.

 

[IndependntLogic]

You really do have an exposed nerve here don't you. Are you feeling a little inadequate?

I know just a much as you about taxes and vehicles that can be used to conserve wealth so you don't really impress me at all.

The implication of the title of this thread is that rich people pay lower tax rates than others. That is not true.

A simple statement proved false by definition sends you into a tizzy to try and prove yourself by long winded posts laced with a little jargon. Well it doesn't impress anyone with a clue.

Um no. I just commented on how, although the wealthy may have income tax rates that are higher, the net effect of what they pay, through the use of tools which you yourself claim to use, is that they pay less.

SO now are you saying that my income tax rates are different than yours or my capital gains rates are different than yours simply because of my income?

Are you daft? Do I really need to dumb this down again? Seriously. Okay, one more time... I am not claiming the rates are different. I am claiming tools that are not available or practical to the middle / lower classes change the net effect. I just don't know how I can dumb it down any more for you.
That is what I stated from post #1. But you and the rest of the Moron Society just seem unable to grasp the concept.

You know that's wrong and my rates are the same. I just have more disposable income to invest in options that I use to my advantage. And so what if i do? I earned that money and want to keep the fucking government from taking it.

Maybe if you sheep got more serious about your own finances you'd have less time to covet what others have.

Um yeah. I believe you. Really I do. Yes Mr. Gates of course you do. (Don't you love hiding behind the internet!).
From my first post, I explained specifically how someone making a million a year, will end up paying about 20%.
Now I understand that you're not too bright - otherwise you might have picked up on the six seperate times when I said "There is nothing wrong with this" and "These are not bad guys" or even "Hell, I do the same thing".
Heck, if you had a double digit IQ, you might have even caught the whole "It is unfair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income".
But I understand. You're a whackjob. And not a particularly bright whackjob. I mean, how stupid do you have to be, to say that someone making $24K a year (the specific example I used), has the ability (I never contested access - only practical ability) to defer 30% of their income or take other portions as part of a corporate investment fund?
So anyone who doesn't instantly agree with you on everything? LOL See my sig below.
But you are a good little sheep! You back the party mantras and attack anyone who doesn't fall directly in line! So it didn't matter if I said taxing the rich is unfair or that the rich aren't bad for taking advantage of loopholes - like a good little sheep, the moment I disagreed with ANYTHING, you did what your thought masters told you. Good Sheeple!
Of course, you're not quite as stupid as Soggy - who after I posted "It's not fair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income" responded with his usual stupid whackjob bumper sticker of "He wants to take your income". Comprehension of a fly, that one.
But still are your points:
1. I said the rich have the same tax rates or higher than others. You then argued with me, stating um..... the rich have the same or higher rates than others. LOL
2. I said the rich have tools and vehicles that, although may be legally available to others, aren't available to them in reality. You claimed you use exactly the kind of vehicles and tools I cited - and then said I was lying because you know, a waitress at Denny's can realistically take 30% in deferred comp, will be offered stock options etc... LOL!
3. I said these vehicles are all legal and the people who use them are not bad. That I use them myself and certainly don't blame anyone for taking advantage of the tax code as written. You said I should quit calling the rich evil and blaming everythign on them. LOL!
4. I said it is unfair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income. You and your brain-dead buddy Soggy, of course said that I was wrong because um..... it's unfair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income. LOL!
So basically, the sheeple got their panties in a bunch because I didn't just regurgitate exactly what is preached on FOX (yes I watch it too). Poor babies. Next time though, at least try to sound intelligent.

Yawn

So you're basically ranting about something other than the topic of this thread.

ANd BTW I already told you I do not watch Fox News or MSNBC or any other outlet of misinformation that you sheep all seem to love so much.

I read the WSJ, The New York Times, The Washington Post, And several other periodicals.

Try reading sometime but then again that means you'll actually have to think and not have your opinions spoon fed to you by some talking head.

Nice dodge. So all for all your bullsh1t and regurgitation, you got nothin. Nothin that disputes the tools for tax avoidance are greater for those who are registered owners of C-Corps. Nothin for those who own LLP's, LLC's or even SP's. Nothin' for deferred income DB / DC, OIC's or otherwise.
So when it comes to specifics, you're a weak ass punk. No surprise.
Like I said in my very first thread - which you wet your little b1tch panties over because it didn't adhrere to the mantras you've been fed: It's not that the rich have different rates, it's that they have the ability to take advantages of the tax code which aren't practically applicable to those of the middle or lower classes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Um yeah. I believe you. Really I do. Yes Mr. Gates of course you do. (Don't you love hiding behind the internet!).
From my first post, I explained specifically how someone making a million a year, will end up paying about 20%.
Now I understand that you're not too bright - otherwise you might have picked up on the six seperate times when I said "There is nothing wrong with this" and "These are not bad guys" or even "Hell, I do the same thing".
Heck, if you had a double digit IQ, you might have even caught the whole "It is unfair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income".
But I understand. You're a whackjob. And not a particularly bright whackjob. I mean, how stupid do you have to be, to say that someone making $24K a year (the specific example I used), has the ability (I never contested access - only practical ability) to defer 30% of their income or take other portions as part of a corporate investment fund?
So anyone who doesn't instantly agree with you on everything? LOL See my sig below.
But you are a good little sheep! You back the party mantras and attack anyone who doesn't fall directly in line! So it didn't matter if I said taxing the rich is unfair or that the rich aren't bad for taking advantage of loopholes - like a good little sheep, the moment I disagreed with ANYTHING, you did what your thought masters told you. Good Sheeple!
Of course, you're not quite as stupid as Soggy - who after I posted "It's not fair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income" responded with his usual stupid whackjob bumper sticker of "He wants to take your income". Comprehension of a fly, that one.
But still are your points:
1. I said the rich have the same tax rates or higher than others. You then argued with me, stating um..... the rich have the same or higher rates than others. LOL
2. I said the rich have tools and vehicles that, although may be legally available to others, aren't available to them in reality. You claimed you use exactly the kind of vehicles and tools I cited - and then said I was lying because you know, a waitress at Denny's can realistically take 30% in deferred comp, will be offered stock options etc... LOL!
3. I said these vehicles are all legal and the people who use them are not bad. That I use them myself and certainly don't blame anyone for taking advantage of the tax code as written. You said I should quit calling the rich evil and blaming everythign on them. LOL!
4. I said it is unfair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income. You and your brain-dead buddy Soggy, of course said that I was wrong because um..... it's unfair to tax the rich more, simply because of their income. LOL!
So basically, the sheeple got their panties in a bunch because I didn't just regurgitate exactly what is preached on FOX (yes I watch it too). Poor babies. Next time though, at least try to sound intelligent.

Yawn

So you're basically ranting about something other than the topic of this thread.

ANd BTW I already told you I do not watch Fox News or MSNBC or any other outlet of misinformation that you sheep all seem to love so much.

I read the WSJ, The New York Times, The Washington Post, And several other periodicals.

Try reading sometime but then again that means you'll actually have to think and not have your opinions spoon fed to you by some talking head.

Nice dodge. So all for all your bullsh1t and regurgitation, you got nothin. Nothin that disputes the tools for tax avoidance are greater for those who are registered owners of C-Corps. Nothin for those who own LLP's, LLC's or even SP's. Nothin' for deferred income DB / DC, OIC's or otherwise.
So when it comes to specifics, you're a weak ass punk. No surprise.
Like I said in my very first thread - which you wet your little b1tch panties over because it didn't adhrere to the mantras you've been fed: It's not that the rich have different rates, it's that they have the ability to take advantages of the tax code which aren't practically applicable to those of the middle or lower classes.

Tax rates are exactly the same for everyone which is all I have ever said throughout this entire thread.

You're the one who wants to take this off on a tangent.

So what if someone who earns more has more options? That's the whole point of making money idiot.

 

[saveliberty]

Nice dodge. So all for all your bullsh1t and regurgitation, you got nothin. Nothin that disputes the tools for tax avoidance are greater for those who are registered owners of C-Corps. Nothin for those who own LLP's, LLC's or even SP's. Nothin' for deferred income DB / DC, OIC's or otherwise.
So when it comes to specifics, you're a weak ass punk. No surprise.
Like I said in my very first thread - which you wet your little b1tch panties over because it didn't adhrere to the mantras you've been fed: It's not that the rich have different rates, it's that they have the ability to take advantages of the tax code which aren't practically applicable to those of the middle or lower classes.

No one is dodging but you. This thread is about tax RATES being lower for the rich. It has been shown that is not true. You admit that above. Now your ranting about the availability of tax advantaged code for the rich. A different topic entirely and one Obama and Congress are not addressing.

 

[saveliberty]

Hey folks the rich pay the same income tax rates as everyone else and they pay the same capital gains rates as everyone else.

It's really quite simple so why can't you sheep understand it?

Um yeah. Wow. Your intellect is dizzying. You remembered all that even hours after you heard it on FOX eh? Impressive!
It's really NOT that simple but it's simple to sell that cute little phrase to people who don't have much knowledge on the matter. I'll bet every ConservaRepubTP and all the kids will be saying it soon!

This bit of snarkiness brought to you by someone who says it's not fair to tax those with higher incomes, for that reason only....

This post really hurt you IL. It implies you think the rates are different.

 

[healthmyths]

Obama said today:

"To pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare, then you know what? I, I, I, I, I'm, I'm a warrior for the middle class. I'm happy to fight for the middle class,"
Obama: I'm A Class Warrior | RealClearPolitics

What is the tax rate for a plumber? 6.3%.
That's what an average plumber paid making $50,000 in 2008 (see below...)

What did the 321,294 returns that earned over $1 million pay in taxes in 2008???

On $1.068 trillion income after deductions these evil millionaires (Obama's one!! and billionaires") paid $249 billion --- 23%!!!

Is 23% MORE then 6.3%?

Just take some time and read below the FACTS...
and not the " I, I, I, I, I'm, I'm a warrior" totally WRONG numbers!

Just plain out and out LIE!!!

According to this Obama Government web site
:http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes472152.htm#%282%29
total plumbers: 358,790
make up work force: 1.2 %
Mean hourly wage: $24.21
Mean annual wage $50,360
According to the IRS:
SOI Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Size of Adjusted Gross Income
Total returns for adjusted gross income reported $40,000 under $50,000 11,087,123
Total TAXABLE returns meaning they had to pay taxes: 9,308,560
Average Adjusted taxable income: $28,465...(deductions,donations..etc...)
Total TAXES PAID per return $2,832.26 or a TAXABLE RATE OF 6.3%

Average plumber gross income of $50,000 paid tax rate of 6.3%

Now Obama is one of those evil "MILLIONAIRES" and this is HIS 2010 TAX return!!!

Obama's 2010 Tax return
Adjusted gross income $1,728,096
(LOOPHOLES,DEDUCTIONS bad bad evil!!!)
Donations 245,075 14.18%
Federal taxes paid $ 453,770 26.26% of gross income after taking

Obama a Millionaire whining about "TAX loopholes for millionaires..(himself!)

OBAMA took 14% deduction for donations and cut HIS tax bill to 26% of his income!

Meanwhile he couldn't send money to his brother that lives in a $12/yr hut!!!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They don't pay income tax at a lower rate than the rest of us.

It depends on if its ordinary income or capital gains income.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

Why should the rich pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us?

Because without an incentive to invest there will be much less commerce.

LOL! So if the capital gains tax rate exceeds 15% - there's no "incentive to invest". Funny how the top ordinary income tax bracket is 35% but it doesn't stop thousands of businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and CEO's from investing 80 hours a week of their time.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I care more about the 50% who pay ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING.

There, I said it.... as for the rich, I don't care what they pay.

Well that's silly. You could take all of what the bottom 50% own and it wouldn't equal the savings from rollings back the Bush tax cuts.

There's a reason folks on the bottom don't pay much income tax - THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH INCOME.

Its funny how the right wing is opposed to laws which essentially prevent taxation on the amount of money one needs to live. You'd think in a free country we'd be allowed to eat enough to live without being taxed - but no,apparently, since people who make enough to buy yachts have to pay 15% on their capital gains, it must mean that we need to tax people for eating.

In fact, much of the tax structure is based on the premise that someone shouldn't be taxed on their basic needs. The standard deductible and the personal exemption are examples in the income tax code - the homestead exemption an example in the property tax code - and in many states, a sales tax exemption or reduction for food and/or other essentials.


If someone makes just enough money to feed themselves and their family - how could they be taxed for that in a free nation?

 

[Skull Pilot]

They don't pay income tax at a lower rate than the rest of us.

It depends on if its ordinary income or capital gains income.

Wrong.

Earned income and capital gains are 2 completely different things according to the tax code.

You would pay the same capital gains rate as everyone else

 

[editec]

Why should the rich pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us?

Because they have it and the rest of us don't?

Basically the government has to go after the people who HAVE money.