Divider-in-Chief

[pBills]

Where's that hit the head on the wall smiley?

 

Of course the rich CAN pay more. But the whole point is that they will NOT pay more because they can DEFER their income. Now unless you & the comrades are advocating confiscating property, the rich have a lot more freedom to dial up and dial down their incomes. So if you tack on punitive tax rates, they'll simple defer a whole bunch of income to later years, and your budget situation is even more in the crapper.

 

Simple math - when there's no income to tax, even a 100% tax rate won't generate any additional tax.

 

Now go back to blowing up your protest rat.

 

 

Me and the comrades. HAHAHA!!! So because they MAY defer more of their income we shouldn't do anything. Now where is that hit the head of the wall smiley. History has proven that no matter what the tax rate is the superwealthy will always find a way to get around paying it. That being said, aim high. Makes sense to me.

 

Love the rat... but sorry I don't work for the Teamsters. Nice try.

[Wacka]

Remember the luxury tax on boats. All it did was put the boat building people out of work and likely resulted in LESS overall $ coming into the black hole called the Treasury.

[pBills]

Remember the luxury tax on boats. All it did was put the boat building people out of work and likely resulted in LESS overall $ coming into the black hole called the Treasury.

 

 

Asking is simply doing the right thing, the fair thing.

[DC Tom]

Asking is simply doing the right thing, the fair thing.

 

"Fair". Yeah. Sure.

[GG]

Asking is simply doing the right thing, the fair thing.

 

Define fair.

[Chef Jim]

Define fair.

 

Where someone else pays for his stuff.

[IDBillzFan]

Where someone else pays for his stuff.

Sounds fair to me. :lol:

[3rdnlng]

Sounds fair to me. :lol:

 

I'm all for fairness then. Who is up for getting me my new boat?

[pBills]

Define fair.

 

 

Fair is having the wealthy pay more as well. If the average worker is now paying more for healthcare coverage, pensions (Republicans plan for concessions throughout the states), Senior Citizens will be losing their medicare (Paul Ryan's plan)... when will republicans ask the wealthiest Americans / Corporations to pay more through raising rates? When? Why are they excluded in the budget plans?

 

Where someone else pays for his stuff.

 

 

I have no problem paying for my stuff. None what's so ever. This union guy works his ass off.

 

This whole deal, like I said before is about Republicans NOT asking for cuts in Defense and LOWERING the tax rates even more. Even though they are currently as low as there in what... 1955. Come on.

[GG]

Fair is having the wealthy pay more as well. If the average worker is now paying more for healthcare coverage, pensions (Republicans plan for concessions throughout the states), Senior Citizens will be losing their medicare (Paul Ryan's plan)... when will republicans ask the wealthiest Americans / Corporations to pay more through raising rates? When? Why are they excluded in the budget plans?

 

I'm sure that you can back your view with facts, such as these?

 

From the Tax Foundation (2007 data but hasn't changed much):

So who exactly is paying all the taxes?

 

The truth is that the vast majority of federal income taxes are paid by high-income earners. According to the most recent IRS data available, the top 10 percent of households - with incomes roughly $100,000 or greater - pay roughly 70 percent of all federal income taxes. That share is up from just below 50 percent in 1980. If you include the top quarter of all taxpayers, the share balloons to 85 percent.

 

So they're excluded from the budget plans, even though they account for the vast majority of the income tax paid?

 

Keep digging. The only rationale that you've offered for fairness is that because of an arbitrary number that defines rich, they should pay more because it makes you feel better. Good for you.

[pBills]

I'm sure that you can back your view with facts, such as these?

 

From the Tax Foundation (2007 data but hasn't changed much):

 

 

So they're excluded from the budget plans, even though they account for the vast majority of the income tax paid?

 

Keep digging. The only rationale that you've offered for fairness is that because of an arbitrary number that defines rich, they should pay more because it makes you feel better. Good for you.

 

 

 

So you feel as though they should have their taxes lowered right now? Are you still believing that if we keep lowering tax rates for them and for their corporations that will eventually trickle down the middle-class, etc.?? You feel comfortable with everyone else taking a hit one way or another, except them.

[finknottle]

So you feel as though they should have their taxes lowered right now? Are you still believing that if we keep lowering tax rates for them and for their corporations that will eventually trickle down the middle-class, etc.?? You feel comfortable with everyone else taking a hit one way or another, except them.

 

Taking a hit = taking less money from somebody else.

 

We are still waiting on a definition of fairness. What is the 'fair' amount of money a society should take away from its most successfull earners? 40%? 70%? 90%?

[Booster4324]

Taking a hit = taking less money from somebody else.

 

We are still waiting on a definition of fairness. What is the 'fair' amount of money a society should take away from its most successfull earners? 40%? 70%? 90%?

 

What is the current tax rate on the highest earners? Oh and what is the effective tax rate on the true earners (capital gains)?

[Chef Jim]

What is the current tax rate on the highest earners? Oh and what is the effective tax rate on the true earners (capital gains)?

 

What does that mean? What's a true earner?

[IDBillzFan]

So you feel as though they should have their taxes lowered right now?

This is one of the reasons I stopped discussing various topics with you. It's like having a discussion with a three-year-old, without the benefit of their superior intellect. Twisting something someone else said to create a point you think you can argue against is truly for the weakest of minds. And our current POTUS.

[GG]

What is the current tax rate on the highest earners? Oh and what is the effective tax rate on the true earners (capital gains)?

 

Generally the effective tax rate is in the low 20%'s, as that's historically been the clearing rate that people feel comfortable paying without incentives or disincentives distorting the IRS revenue take.

 

The main concern about raising marginal rates higher on the top earners is that you significantly lower the cost of tax avoidance, and you end up achieving the exact opposite goal of what you're trying to do. Raising rates may lead to a one year revenue increase, but people will adjust in the following year, but more importantly, the economy won't grow as fast and employment will stagnate further (unless you're lucky to be in a public service union).

 

If raising tax rates on the rich was a panacea, Mr Obama would not have caved on the Bush tax rates, like Rob Johnson in the pocket.

[pBills]

This is one of the reasons I stopped discussing various topics with you. It's like having a discussion with a three-year-old, without the benefit of their superior intellect. Twisting something someone else said to create a point you think you can argue against is truly for the weakest of minds. And our current POTUS.

 

 

So answering a question is having a discussion with a three- year-old to you? So more less, everyone should just listen to you and take what you say as fact. Ok. Talk about a childish mentality.

 

Taking a hit = taking less money from somebody else.

 

We are still waiting on a definition of fairness. What is the 'fair' amount of money a society should take away from its most successfull earners? 40%? 70%? 90%?

 

 

And taking a hit means = these people are now expected to pay more for benefits, pay more towards their pensions. I believe the average is taking 12% out of their paychecks. Could handle losing another 12% out of your pocket right now? Yes, I know according to you these people are just taking and stealing from other people. Yeah, those evil workers.

 

I have given a definition of fairness. So just because the superwealthy has the means to get around paying their actual share of taxes it's ok to you? Did you know that the average person making $500k or more only pays 18% instead of the 35%? If they actually paid 25% we would be doing much better right now.

Edited April 18, 2011 by pBills

[3rdnlng]

So answering a question is having a discussion with a three- year-old to you? So more less, everyone should just listen to you and take what you say as fact. Ok. Talk about a childish mentality.

 

 

 

 

And taking a hit means = these people are now expected to pay more for benefits, pay more towards their pensions. I believe the average is taking 12% out of their paychecks. Could handle losing another 12% out of your pocket right now? Yes, I know according to you these people are just taking and stealing from other people. Yeah, those evil workers.

 

I have given a definition of fairness. So just because the superwealthy has the means to get around paying their actual share of taxes it's ok to you? Did you know that the average person making $500k or more only pays 18% instead of the 35%? If they actually paid 25% we would be doing much better right now.

 

Link?