OT: Millionaires ask for higher taxes

Page 3 of 5  
On 8/14/2011 6:25 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Yeah, well the word for taking away what someone else earned, irrespective of what harm you are doing to that person or others is called "greed", and greed, aka "excessive desire" for something, is thought to be bad by most.
Who is John Galt, shrug?
--
Jack
Redistribute My Work Ethic!!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack Stein wrote:

First, it's not the thought, it's the action. Second, trying to compel someone not to think of "idea x" WILL make them crazy. And third, when a person goes John Galt he is often criticized for taking away what others want to take away from him.
An example of the latter is an entity that moves its facilities offshore, or to another state, to avoid Draconian taxes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does that actually make sense to you?
First off, the statistic you cite is meaningless.
If there was one guy in the US making 10 trillion a year then the top .001% would be paying 99% of the total income tax.
How is that a justification for lowering the tax rate for people making 10 trillion?
It's not class warfare. It's taxing people that can afford it.
I love how these talking points get repeated over and over as if they actually make sense.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's how brainwashing works. Repetition. There are plenty of people here that are brainwashed.
It's done by circular argument with no outside feed in. The lies told grow stronger because of the lack of refutation.
I was watching RTV the other day. Apparently wealth in America has never before been so unequally distributed. Land of the free! Huh!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harryagain wrote:

Yep. Here, one is free to fail as well as succeed.
We pride ourselves on equal opportunity. You take pride in equal outcomes.
There IS a difference.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net wrote:

That argument won't wash. Virtually EVERYBODY can afford SOME tax, even if it's only a dollar a year. By your metric, everyone should remit some amount to the government. (Not that I'm opposed to the idea, mind you.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you read what I wrote and come to the conclusion that I think only some people should pay tax, you need to read again.
Just about everybody does pay some tax. Income tax is not the only tax paid.
All I say is that some people can afford to pay more income tax. When you see huge salaries being paid, that should be obvious. The point that 5% pay 60% of taxes supports that idea.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net wrote:

Ah, the refuge of the scoundrel when his mantra of "the rich can afford it": The poor pay taxes, too!
And the rich pay the same taxes to which you refer as the poor. In fact, the rich pay MORE in sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, road tolls, and every other kind of tax their is. (And they get fewer benefits for their 'contribution'.)
Further, whether someone can "afford" more taxes is the icon of the degenerate scoundrel. EVERYONE can afford to pay more taxes. Therefore, EVERYONE according to your scheme should pay more!
I remember the time when LBJ put a tax on taxes! That's exactly what he did. It was a surtax to pay for the VietNam war. "Figure your income tax, then add ten percent. Send in the check. It's only ten percent!" We endured that foolishness for two years.
But everybody could AFFORD an additional ten percent, so the surtax was thereby justified.
Bah!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Too much of the time the call for taxing the rich boils down to "I think someone is making too much and we need to take it away until I feel more comfortable". Lousy way to make tax policy.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right.
Taxes under the current president are lower than they have ever been, going back to at least WWII.
Where do you see "too much of the time" in that?
There is a deficit and a recent temporary tax cut is due to expire. The current president is fine with extending that tax cut for everyone except people making a lot of money. Should we do something about the deficit or not?
Personally, I'm fine with letting the temporary Bush tax cut expire for everyone, but most people are convinced that would be bad economic policy in terms of a causing recession.
Basing taxes on ability to pay is lousy tax policy? Doesn't make much sense to me...
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:03:47 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net wrote:

You can blame Bush for that too.
When Clinton left office in 2001 the percentage of tax liability for a single person earning $55K in 2000 was 21.8%. When Bush left office in 2008 that same person was paying 18.3%. An average annual reduction of 0.44%.
With the anointed one in office the rates have continued to reduce because he begrudgingly extended the Bush tax cuts. I guess you can blame you-know-who for that. However, the reduction was slowed to about 0.1% annually. Just wait until Obama-Care taxes kick in. Maybe then you might start to understand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Aug 11, 12:11am, Gordon Shumway wrote:

Another gross distortion the libs like to offer up. Let's not just look at just FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Let's look at the TOTAL tax burden on Americans today versus WWII or even just a few decades ago. I live in NJ. NJ had no income tax back then, now it's anywhere from 3 to 9%. It also had no sales tax, now it's 7%. Property taxes were modest compared to incomes and prices where today I'm paying over $10,000 in property taxes. And much of that tax burden, while not going directly to the feds is either to fund federally mandated programs or similar liberal programs at the state level.

I guess you should blame Obama and the Demorcrats too since they are not in favor of raising taxes on anyone except those earning $200K and above. So, they are obviously OK with the tax rates below those levels.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net wrote:

Giggle. The federal income tax rate was set by the Bush administration. Meanwhile, our current president raised taxes on cigarettes by 258% after only TWO WEEKS in office.

Absolutely we should do something about the deficit! We can start by rolling back all government budgets to their 2007 levels. As for raising taxes on anybody, certainly not.

Ever seen a movie admission ticket priced on some percentage of your adjusted gross income as evidenced by your tax return?
Someday the progressives will learn that you cannot mix a socialistic government with a capitalistic economy.
Or maybe they already know that...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lets see, the subject was too much of the time. Too much of the time what? Something about taxing the rich.
So now a cigarette tax is a tax on the rich?

Not serious about the deficit are we?

Hmm, government tax policy should be modeled on movie ticket prices?
Then we get a few "but socialism" things thrown in.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net wrote:

YOU were the one who brought up "the current administration."

Sure. Some rich smoke. But I was mainly carrying on the theme you raised about the "current administration."

Sure. We could make a BIG dent in the deficit by regressing the federal government's spending levels to those of 2007.

Once again you have it backwards. I was postulating movie tickets modeled on government tax policy. If you want to erect a government tax policy on "ability to pay," why would that scheme not work in a similar "fair" fashion for a can of beans?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Spending has gone up 40% since 2007. So, a perfectly reasonable and serious proposal to eliminate the deficit is to do it by cutting SPENDING, not raising taxes. Yet the libs screamed bloody murder like some major actual cuts were taking place. After all was said and done, only $60 bil of real cuts will take place in the next two years. That's $60bil, or a whopping 4% reduction in the deficit. BFD. And the sad thing is that is after the Tea Party pushed as hard and held as fast as they could have. Had they not done so, we would have had no cuts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/11/2011 8:18 AM, HeyBub wrote:

I think we should go back further, but, in addition I think they should cut the employee level, and wage rates to the same levels. Perhaps go back to 2007 this year, 2006 next year, 2005 the next year until everything gets "balanced". When we get back to the Nixon era, we can also go back on the gold standard.
--
Jack
Are You Better Off Than You were 4 Trillion Dollars Ago?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack Stein wrote:

Heh! "Forward to the past!" fits on a bumper sticker.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good idea! I made $100K more in 2007 than I'll make this year. My salary was $20K more in 2006 (retired in '06) than it is today.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/16/2011 8:50 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Didn't know you worked for the government? It's unusual for a government wage rate to decrease over time? They increase the government budget by $4 TRILLION and you got a $20k wage cut. Boy, that sucks the big one...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.