|
|
|
|
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 2/21/2007 12:32:17 AM | bobocolo~
good lord that is a pretty well known fact... there are literally tons of sources for what sort of donations go to each party... just google it... it's well known...
also, did you know that news just came out that the US has had record tax revenues? yeah, i guess those wealthy aren't paying enough taxes... so much so that record tax revenues are coming in... lol! actually, the truth is, the tax cuts WORK....the amount of money collected in taxes is higher than ever... so much for the bologne that the so called "rich" don't pay enough in taxes... just curious... how much money does a person have to "earn" a year to qaulify as one of the wealthy? 100k? 200? 300? can you put a number on that? lol!
lar | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 2/21/2007 12:41:33 AM | Well when I did a search for "record tax revenues" on google I didn't find anything, so how about siting the actual source rather than just making a claim.
Second, their is another simple way that tax revenues go up while the rich pay less tax. It's called taxing the middle class. So lets have a little less LOL and a little more facts Larissan, cause I'm calling bullsh*t. | |
|
| |
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 2/21/2007 9:03:54 AM | http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115309455426108211-qm2YWzMS5_dUtDVlWivVVMGQQog_20070716.html
Here is an interesting article, showing how by taking money from the poor and middle class and giving it to the rich, you increase trax revenues, provide more money to the rich, AND increase tax revenues all without growth in the economy!
It's awesome!
Well unless your middle class or poor, but since when have the republicans given a crap about them? | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 2/26/2007 5:15:43 PM | Unlike Sir Charlesedm would have you believe, it is being taken from everybody. See the quote below from the article he references.
[Because corporations and the wealthy generally pay income tax at higher rates than does the typical wage earner, that shift benefits the federal Treasury.]
Nowhere did it say or was it implied that the rich benefit in anyway from the poor. It certainly does say that the feds are taking from all.
Back to the original point of the thread. Civil servants are paid for by the government; local, state or federal. Particularly when being paid on the local level (police, teachers and firemen) their pay raises are voted on. It has been a long debate over the pay rate of civil servants, but the fact remains that whenever it comes up for a vote, most citizens don't feel that pay raises are justified. | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 2/26/2007 6:05:29 PM |
Quote: anticon
Progressive taxation is the only way our society can pay for it's military, let alone everything else.
Thats not tru.
you should not have to pay any taxes at all on your income to the feds if you want to go according to the constitution. Thats right federal income tax is unconstitutional just like the patriot act and several more. So is the irs btw. you might want to look at my thread called slaves in the us? and not sure whos thread but its modern democracy where i post several entries that illustrate this.
The taxes for the military were supposed to land square on corporate america... who in combination with rockefeller, rothschild and several other elites used their influence to skee-roo us!
Now we think its normal and there i sno other way... which is simply not tru at all. | |
|
| |
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 2/26/2007 8:07:03 PM | good lord that is a pretty well known fact... there are literally tons of sources for what sort of donations go to each party... just google it... it's well known...
_________________lar
Then you should not have any problem with some sites?????? LOL
Lets have some stats, record revenue.? Fact based not from Rush's Butt.....
____________
how much money does a person have to "earn" a year to qaulify as one of the wealthy? 100k? 200? 300? can you put a number on that? lol!
_____________lar
Working POOR.............
I believe you dont understand what Rich is.
This I have posted before. The tax shift from Corp and Mega Rich to the lower class is on going.
100k-200k LOL you have got to be kidding me.
____________________
Estate-Tax Repeal Would Hurt the 'Small Rich'
By Allan Sloan
Tuesday, June 13, 2006; Page D02
When the Senate turned down President Bush's bid to repeal the estate tax permanently last week, it actually did a favor for tens of thousands of moderately well-off households -- the "small rich," if you prefer. That's because such households would be worse off under the full repeal scheduled for 2010 (which Bush wants to make permanent) than they would be under the 2009 rules, which are more favorable for estates than today's rules. According to a study by Congress's nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, 7,500 estates would be better off under full repeal in 2010 than under the 2009 rules -- but more than 60,000 would be worse off.
This isn't exactly what you heard during last week's debate, is it? How on earth could the beneficiary of any estate be better off under the 2009 rules than under the 2010 version of permanent repeal? The answer gets a little complicated -- but please bear with me. It has to do with the difference between so-called stepped-up tax basis and carry-over tax basis.
Under current law, when you die your heirs get stepped-up tax basis. That means the assets you bequeath are valued for income-tax purposes at what they were worth the day you died -- not what you originally paid for them. Say you paid $50,000 for stock that's worth $500,000 when you die. Your heirs can sell it for $500,000 and owe no tax on the $450,000 gain. As long as your total estate doesn't exceed the exemption limits, there's no estate tax, either.
Now watch. Under the 2009 rules, estates of up to $3.5 million ($7 million for a married couple) would be exempt from federal estate tax. The tax rate on assets above that level would be 45 percent. Inheritors would be able to step up the basis of $3.5 million (or $7 million) of inherited assets to their value the day they inherit them. Fast-forward to 2010, when the estate tax is repealed. Yes, the estate tax would be gone. But heirs would be able to step up only $1.3 million in assets to their value on the day of death. (Don't ask why; that's just how it is.)
Assets beyond $1.3 million would be valued for tax purposes at carry-over basis -- their cost (for income-tax purposes) for the person who died. So any estate with $1.3 million to $3.5 million in assets ($2.6 million to $7 million for a married couple) is worse off under full repeal in 2010 than it would be in 2009. Inheritors in the $1.3 million-to-$3.5 million range would face higher taxes if they sold inherited assets than they would under the 2009 rules. At the very least, they would have complicated paperwork to deal with. They'd be much better off inheriting in 2009 than in 2010. But if you're dealing with an estate of $3.5 billion rather than $3.5 million, you'd be far better off inheriting in 2010.
How many estates are we talking about? To answer that, let's consult the aforementioned study by the Joint Committee on Taxation. The study, requested by John Buckley, chief Democratic tax counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee, projects that 7,500 people who die in 2009 will have an estate-tax liability -- remember, that's estates of more than $3.5 million. The study also projects that 71,400 people will leave estates of $1.3 million or more. This means that 63,900 people -- 71,400 less 7,500 -- will leave estates of $1.3 million to $3.5 million. As I've shown, such estates are better off in 2009 than in 2010. "There are lots more losers than winners under full repeal compared to the 2009 rules," says Buckley, who used the study for a 2005 paper in Tax Notes, a professional journal. Yes, Buckley's a partisan. But it doesn't make him wrong -- the numbers are the numbers.
Under current law, the estate-tax exemption drops to $1 million in 2011. (The Bushies built that into their 2001 tax cut to make its total cost seem more reasonable.) This would subject broad swaths of the middle and upper-middle classes to the estate tax -- which is one reason the "eliminate the death tax" crowd got so much political traction in the first place. The original idea of an estate tax was to assess a handful of very rich people to avoid excessive concentrations of wealth while helping to finance the system that made that wealth possible.
It seems to me that adopting the 2009 rules, indexing the exemption for inflation and allowing stepped-up basis would get us back to the original intent of the estate tax. Taxing 7,500 estates a year doesn't seem unfair. And it would generate significant revenue.
What we shouldn't do is benefit a handful of very rich people by eliminating the estate tax 2010-style at the expense of the small rich and everyone else. We've already made a major mistake by allowing the alternative minimum tax, originally designed to make sure that tax-dodging rich people paid at least something to the IRS, to hit the middle and upper-middle classes but not the truly wealthy. Let's try not to make that same mistake with the estate tax.
Sloan is Newsweek's Wall Street editor. His e-mail address issloan@panix.com. | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 2/26/2007 11:09:19 PM | You obviously didn't read the artical. When tax revenues increase massively, and the economy grows slowly (as is what occured) it means that wealth has been re-distributed towards the rich, and little growth has occured.
So the middle class and poor (like you know the military) get screwed while the rich own a growing slice of the pie. | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 2/27/2007 12:25:38 AM | [Mr. Penner says the revenue surge reflects not a supply-side effect but a replay of the late 1990s, when the 1% of richest taxpayers prospered most and "paid a huge amount of taxes," eventually driving the budget into surplus.]
Yep a budget surplus would be the worst thing that could happen.
Also as mentioned earlier, corporations and the wealthy often pay taxes at higher rates.
As I understand it, tax revenue goes to the feds (I might be wrong, but I don't think the rich or the corporations collect taxes), so when "tax revenues increase massively" the feds have the most to gain.
It seems to me that the poor haven't gotten any poorer but the rich have gotten richer. And mainly because the rich are working harder and pumping out more product. And in the mean time the deficit is going down. Doesn't sound all bad.
So even though the gap has widened, there wasn't really any re-distribution. | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 2/27/2007 12:36:36 AM | Oh Yeah, and to respond to something you said in an earlier post. At least since the time of JFK, it has been shown that with every major tax cut, there has been a disproportionately higher tax revenue.
Because it takes someone just short of a wizard to figure out how to calculate taxes in this country, people feel compelled to better comply with system after a tax cut. Hence higher revenues.
What the heck do you care anyway? What happens here has no bearing on Canada. | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 2/27/2007 12:52:21 AM | The poor always get it......
The middle class, created in the USA is melting into the poor. The defenders of the Ultra Rich and Ultra Ultra Rich, hear what they want to hear.
We are witness to a transfer of wealth that few understand.
3 Trillion $$$$$ for Iraq??? That money when ?????
Remember........the rich are over taxed.
.......so over taxed........
So over taxed they gain the most??????? | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 2/27/2007 1:03:45 AM | It seems to me that the poor haven't gotten any poorer but the rich have gotten richer. And mainly because the rich are working harder and pumping out more product. And in the mean time the deficit is going down. Doesn't sound all bad.
---------------------------------------------
The rich are working harder and pumping out more produce??????
Kinda like the Walton family 4 on the richest inthe world.....they pump out product???????
Walmart does not make a product......an outlet of cheap product from China
The Rich dont have product.....
Or
Do you have an case we could discuss???????
I would love to purchase a richmans product......
Paris Hilton gets 40 grand to show in a bar or ???
Is that a product??? | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 2/27/2007 5:47:45 AM | What would you folks think about a flat tax? oh..say 12% across the board? Would it work? Can the rich have their loop holes closed and pay the same rate as everyone else? Will this stimulate the economy or hurt it?
I know the flat tax has wide appeal but I think progressive tax is more fair. The higher the income, the less percent you need to fund basic cost of living and vice versa - so 12% cripples the guy making $10,000 year but not he rich one. Flat tax mixes 2 ideas that should be kept seperate 1. non progressive and 2. is no loopholes/deductions etc - simlied code. What no one proposes is progressive tax and no loopholes. The thing to bear in mind is how progressive works. If the first $15,000 of a family's earnings are tax exempt - that is true for the rich as well - they only pay the highest rate on the income above the threshold - not all of it.
Actually curent system isnt bad. Prior to Reagan, the upper limits of the progresive tax were in the 80 - 85% brackets! That was truly fleecing the rich and of course they found ways around it..The 28% and now 35% are more interesting.
Back to OP, there are wide regional variances in the pay of teachers, cops firemen etc but in places I have lived, their pay is quite nice - in many states (New York being one) cops get full retirement after 20 years - not bad. I know high scholl teachers making $75,000 year and up. Teachers never want to hear this but they work 9 months per year.
If the pay was so miserable, no one would take the jobs. | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 2/27/2007 6:00:22 AM | Households with AGI of $200,000 paid over 42% of all federal income taxes, despite making up less than 2% of all returns and just 22% of all reported income (Table 474). In fact, the average tax rate for those making $500,000 or more was 25%, while it was only 7% for those making between $30,000 and $40,000, or near median incomes. That means the richest tax payers pay more than triple the rate of the middle class. And this is well after the Republican tax cuts took effect.
I think the rich pay their fare share in taxes. | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 7/13/2008 1:17:16 AM | What the "poor" are completely missing is what tax cuts for the "rich" really do. Take my friend for example. He is in the top 1% tax bracket, which would classify him as "rich". Like many "rich" people he owns and runs a company where he has people under his employ. When his taxes goes up, he can't afford to hire more people, his company's output goes down, and his company purchases and consumes less. This means he doesn't hire (no jobs) and less money in circulation (slower economy) and he doesn't purchase products from other manufacturers, who in turn can't, increase production or hire more people (no jobs again). When his taxes goes down, now he has more money to hire people (adds jobs), increase production (stimulates economy) and buy more products (stimulates economy and adds more jobs).
So when the "poor" want to tax the "rich", what they don't realize is that they are in fact hurting themselves. They will increase layoffs, slow the economy and make it harder to get new jobs. Think of the Bill Gates, the Warren Buffetts, and the Donald Trumps. Do you realize how many jobs and millions of dollars they produced. These are jobs that allowed "poor" people to make money so they wouldn't have to be poor any more. If you tied their hands, by taxing the hell out of them, there wouldn't be as many of these jobs available. Or worse yet, they would go overseas to some foreign nation who aren't so tax heavy on entrepreneurs, owners, and capitalists. | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 7/13/2008 3:32:22 AM | | The fact is, the top 1% earners pay 39% of the total taxes (up 2% since Bush took office). The top 50% earners pay 97% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% earners pay 3% of all income taxes.In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 7/13/2008 4:32:17 AM |
dabearsguy
The fact is, the top 1% earners pay 39% of the total taxes ...
This is (almost) true, but it's because 1% of the people hold 49% of the nation's wealth.
What you're describing is not a problem with the tax structure, but gross inequality in distribution of wealth in America. | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 7/13/2008 4:42:21 AM |
kpsuper
... When his taxes goes up, he can't afford to hire more people ... When his taxes goes down, now he has more money to hire people ...
This is true, but misleading.
First, businesspeople don't hire more people just because they can afford to, they hire more people when they can make more profit doing so. Sometimes, they just park their excess cash in private equity funds.
Second, when taxes go up, government has more money with which it can hire more people, create more jobs, buy more products and stimulate the economy, so it's more or less a zero-sum game for the 90% of people who work for a living. (except that government seldom sends jobs overseas)
America's most prosperous times (the 1950s, 60s and 70s) were the times when the maximum marginal tax rate - and government spending - was also the highest. (90% in the 1950s, 70% in the 60s and 70s) | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 7/13/2008 5:17:29 AM | Are a lot of you nuts ? Or just unread ? The issue is not taxes ,,It for sure is not income redistribution .. And if you think redistribution is the answer go to cuba ..
The issue is taxation with out representation . .
So many in here scream repubs are the bad guys , Guess what , give Bill gates a tax break and he creates jobs , which in turn creates more tax income then the break he was given,,REALITY the world runs from the top down,, Reality ,,in AMERICA you can go from the bottom up.Go figure .. Thats called freedom..
THE PROBLEM IS NOT RICH VS POOR , DEM VS REP.
Here is an example , Dems scream INCOME REDISTRIBUTION, lower taxes on middle class ect ect ect ,, Then what happens ? They double the cig tax , increase toll rates , increase property taxes , increase school taxes, increase sales tax.. ALL AIMED AT THE WORKING MIDDLE CLASS,, WHO they have convinced are robbed by the rich .
WAKE UP.. You , me and bill gates are not enemies .. we are THE PEOPLE ... The real thief in the room is GOVERNMENT .. WAKE UP.. Rep are called poor haters , when in fact democrats have raised taxes on the poor and middle class 10 times more then a rep ever has ,, THE DIFFERENCE is they do it with registration fees , Tolls, cigs, beer , sales tax,school taxes,property taxes..
I want someone who can show me a dem has lowered taxes to any group , NAME 1 just 1 , NY State is run by Democrats , so is California ,,, PLEASE PLEASE show me where these 2 states have gotten tax relief ?
I can show ya , in a letter i got from my town,, it says ,WE LOWERED YOUR PROPERTY TAXES BY 3% ..Because the 7% proposed increase was defeated and we only approved a 4% increase of property taxes.. PLEASE READ THAT A FEW TIMES ,, REALLY READ IT 2 OR 3 TIMES .. because somehow a 4% increase is really a 3% decrease ?
Thanks democrats ,, Ya lowered my taxes ,, but raised them ,, and charge me almost 3.00 a pack tax for cigs,,W T F ,, and people who side with a democrat will never admit CA/NY are the 2 highest taxed , mismanaged states in the nation,, when it is a proven fact these to democratic run states are the highest taxed states in the nation.
So my point ,,, All elected officials lie, cheat , steal , and are masters at getting us to argue about B/S ,, they divide us , and steal our money while convincing half of us the issue is some guy who has 45,000 employees and makes a dollar a day from each worker ..YA THATS A PROBLEM , workers are supposed to make money for the boss ..Thats how it works.. But somehow we think tax this boss more , meaning give it to the crooks who have us bankrupt and they will freely return it to the poor , and Middle class..
What a bunch of lost minds . Taxes .. all that means is we are stealing from you , spending it faster then we can think of ways to steal more and people fall for it .. great work America .. | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 7/14/2008 7:11:31 PM | Microsoft's revenue is something like a half-million dollars per employee per year. The median Microsoft salary, 20-25% of that. If you doubled Microsoft's corporate income tax rate, they could pay the same salaries to the same number of employees and still make a handsome profit.
Which puts the spotlight on the crazy hypothesis that giving more money to the rich will result in more jobs and prosperity for the working class:
Why, If Microsoft has so much cash floating around, aren't they hiring more people?
hint: Businesspeople don't hire more people just because they can afford to, they hire more people when they can make more profit doing so.
David Craig Simpson says it far, far better than I ever could:
http://idrewthis.org/d/20050715.html | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 7/21/2008 1:12:14 PM |
Microsoft's revenue is something like a half-million dollars per employee per year. The median Microsoft salary, 20-25% of that. If you doubled Microsoft's corporate income tax rate, they could pay the same salaries to the same number of employees and still make a handsome profit.
Which puts the spotlight on the crazy hypothesis that giving more money to the rich will result in more jobs and prosperity for the working class:
Why, If Microsoft has so much cash floating around, aren't they hiring more people?
hint: Businesspeople don't hire more people just because they can afford to, they hire more people when they can make more profit doing so.
This is a very common misconception on how companies work. Do you honestly believe that the only use of revenue is to pay for workers salaries? What about the equipment like computers and copiers that the worker uses? How about the facilities and benefits? What about things like marketing, research and development? All these things are paid for by revenue. The reality is that companies spend most of their revenue and invest it back into the company. Companies don't just stockpile huge mounds of cash in giant underground vaults. It doesn't make sense to just hold large sums of money where it does nothing for you. In our capitalistic market it makes sense to put that money back into the company. More money equals more money for the company to spend on employees, whether that means more jobs or higher pay for existing employees. You ask a company that isn't making money for a raise or if they are hiring. It isn't going to happen.
Now, yes, some of them money does go to back to it's investors. And those investors can make a lot of money as a result. But who are investors? They are people like you and me. People who invest in companies and take risks. People who buy stocks and mutual funds. We need those profits to fund our IRA's and 401K's. Why should we limit what they can make if they took the risk of investing? This prinicpal is what makes our economic system so great. If you taxed these people it would be like saying, what if you put up $10,000 of your own money into a risky unknown company, which then turns out to be the next Microsoft. Well because you took the risk and made too much money, you need to give 50% of your earnings back to the government. Or better yet, let's say you buy a house. But because of tax laws, your home can only increase in value 5% a year, but you can lose unlimited % at any time. If that was the case nobody would buy homes or invest in unknown companies. And without this risk/reward money, our nation would completely stagnate. | |
|
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:37:37 PM | When I was a "hero" at least an enlisted "Hero" I thought the amount of money I made (I started at $389 a month and peaked at $822) kinda sucked. That was why I listened to ths rather obscure but savvy colonel named Colin Powell and used my GI Bill to return for my bachelor's degree and ROTC commission. I might have thought at least as a single junior officer I was a bit underpaid, after all I only had a TransAm and there were all kinds of Hollywood phonies my age and younger driving Porsches, and then later after I was married wish I would have had more, but since becoming a civilian, I have some ideas that some political candidate could jump on except they might get him lynched.
OK, what I wonder is why active duty servicemenbers have to pay state tax...I darned sure didn't get anything from Ohio while I was serving from North Carolina to Georgia to Louisiana to Europe to the Middle East. Heck, if we want to encourage people to take certain jobs they could make service members, police and firefighters, teachers, etc tax-free jobs.
Graduated income tax sucks it is a harbinger of socialism. I worked in sales where the more you produced the higher the percentage of money you made. Had it been the reverse we would have produced less. | |
|
| |
| Should we tax the wealthy,or continue to pay our heroes like chumps?
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:48:49 PM | | No we shouldn't tax the wealthy more than anyone other citizen. We live in a capitalistic society if we punish those who succeed in business it undermines capitalism. Thats ok to most of you Obama supporters but I am not a fan of Socialism......as far as a Public service for tuition thats sounds like Obama type thinking giving free stuff to the poor and minorities in exchange for nothing of any real value...the Wealthy do their part they employ many of the working folks in America... | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
