Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you pay attention to the folks who speak up... a lot more than the top 1% are concerned with your proposal. You'd see close to 50/50 split on this forum over this issue.. and half the people on here are not part of the 1%.
You worry a lot about the 1%.. Who exactly are the 1%? How much money do they make? Where do they live?
I spend most of my income buying necessities. These necessities are sold at a profit for the owners of the businesses. Therefore I am having a portion of the money I spend transferred from me, a 99%er, to the owning 1%ers. That makes me a provider and them a recipient.
Not quite. In the free market exchange you describe both parties to a transaction percieve they receive equal or greater value than that given. Neither is a provider or a receiver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
I pay much of my limited income as taxes whilst multimillionaires pay at a much lower rate on their effectively unlimited income. Thus I am a provider to the government and they are recipients.
Again, not quite. You may well pay a higher effective income tax rate than the "multimillionaires" you describe, however, the actual dollar amount they pay is dramatically larger than the amount you pay. That makes you both providers, but them the greater provider.
Plus, the "tax" you pay into social security and Medicare will be returned to you about 2 times over. In other words, my are providing for yourself, but no one else.
Last edited by Recovering Democrat; 07-09-2012 at 06:31 PM..
Reason: typo
We all know it's better to give a man a fishing-pole than to give him a fish. Yet conservatives often argue against funding education, not just food! Let's not divert the debate to "Welfare Mamas." Let's talk about why right-wingers want Welfare Mama's children to be uneducated.
Dick Cheney was one of many who voted to defund Head Start, despite that it pays for itself just with reduced cost of juvenile crime prosecution. It's facts like this that lead some of us to conclude that some "conservatives" are not just interested in saving tax dollars: their goals require a society with an uneducated underclass. (I'm sure many "conservatives" read this and think "No, no, that's not me!" Precisely! Your political choice is being twisted by cynics like Cheney.)
Public input is mandatory for desireable market operation. It's amazing that so many "conservatives" don't understand this. Wouldn't gas companies be happy to sell cheaper leaded gasoline if they could? A cost-conscious consumer would be delighted to buy it; after all his children would breathe only a billionth of the fumes; it's fumes from the billion other drivers that's a problem. (When Cheney announced that, in effect, pollution control should be a matter of "individual morality", I wasn't sure if he was being extremely stupid or extremely cynical. Does anyone in this thread believe that Cheneyism?)
(Some conservatives (and liberals) will reject the preceding paragraph, preferring the Golden Rule. That might be an interesting separate thread, but the bottom-line is that societies cannot rely on the Golden Rule.)
I wish "libertarians" would grasp that absolute "liberty" is impossible. My liberty to walk streets unafraid counters your liberty to carry a gun. My liberty to enjoy beautiful parks counters your liberty to litter. My liberty not to pay taxes counters your liberty to feel secure with police and military protection. My liberty to build substandardly counters your liberty to live in a fire-proof building. And so on.
And lefties think that taking government out of education would end education.
Nature abhors a vacuum. The free market would fill the void, and do it better.
Life really is simple. Live within your means. Don't feel entitled to anything that you haven't earned.
Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney acknowledged Tuesday that he pays an income tax rate close to 15 percent, the same rate that billionaire investor Warren Buffett has decried as lower than that paid by most middle-class Americans.
Asked a press conference what rate he pays, Romney responded, "What's the effective rate I've been paying? It's probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything. Because my last 10 years, my income comes overwhelmingly from some investments made in the past, rather than ordinary income or rather than earned annual income. I got a little bit of income from my book, but I gave that all away. And then I get speakers fees from time to time, but not very much."*
Romney earned more than $300,000 in speaking fees in the twelve months through February 2011, according to financial disclosure statement filed to the government by his campaign. While that income would be taxed at a 35 percent rate, minus deductions, he suggested it is a fraction of his overall income.
Romney, who in August disclosed to the Federal Election Commission a net worth of between $190 and $250 million, in effect confirmed that, like many wealthy investors, he earns the bulk of his income from his investments. Dividends and capitol gains are taxed at a relatively low 15 percent rate. Romney said at Monday's Republican presidential debate that he would "probably" release his tax returns in April, though he would not promise to do so.
President Obama has sought to increase the tax rate for wealthy investors, and cleverly named his proposal to do so "the Buffett rule," after the famed investor from Omaha, Nebraska. Mr. Obama wants to make sure that no household making more than $1 million annually pays a lower rate than middle class Americans.
Now would you at least like to possibly reconsider your position? Most middle class Americans that get hit at the 28% rate. High income Americans that don't have any capital gains or carried interest deductions get taxed at the 35%. Mitt Romney has clearly stated most of his income is taxed at the 15% capital gains and carried interest rate.
Business owners provide jobs, innovation, value to society. Employees and society receive the benefits.
I am all for business.
I want people starting businesses because they think they can make a lot of money. I want them to do well and the business to do well.
Having said the above, employers hire employees for no other reason than they think the employee is necessary and will benefit the business by producing more than they cost the business.
This is not a bad thing. Businesses exist to make money. Hopefully the business and employees both benefit.
Now would you at least like to possibly reconsider your position? Most middle class Americans that get hit at the 28% rate. High income Americans that don't have any capital gains or carried interest deductions get taxed at the 35%. Mitt Romney has clearly stated most of his income is taxed at the 15% capital gains and carried interest rate.
Why should middle class wage earners pay 28%? Why should anyone pay 35%?
The government has a spending problem. Giving more to these idiots will just increase spending. We need to starve the beast.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
