Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-17-2012, 01:51 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,221 posts, read 12,262,791 times
Reputation: 3554

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
and yet when the numbers are analyzed at the end of the year, one things remains true;

the top 1% take in about 19% of the income in this country, and they pay 38% of the income taxes in this country.

so given that, again i ask, how much more do you want the rich to pay in taxes? what do you consider fair? to date NO ONE has answered that question. why? because when you get down and think about it, the rich are already paying more than their fair share of the taxes collected in this country.

Please explain to everyone why you are adamant in defending the same group of people "fairly" and at the same time they are trying to dismantle every safety net the poor and disfranchised has?

The wealthy have gotten increasingly richer over the past 10-12 years but yet you and others feel that they are being taxed too much? Meanwhile the income gap has also increased by a large number as well. Even Reagan felt that the rich could be taxed more. The weird thing about it all, people like norquist and rove have flooded the media with so much garbage about the poor as being lazy and the rich as being the job creators that they need more tax breaks to provide more jobs. I guess you can see how that worked for the last 10 years as well.

This just goes to prove if you tell a lie enough times people willl actually believe it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2012, 01:53 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,221 posts, read 12,262,791 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
Show me one millionaire that pays NO taxes. I'll wait. Warren Buffet doesn't count, since he's SUPPOSED TO, he just doesn't WANT to.

In the meantime, you may want to ponder the fact that most seniors would pay more if capital gains was increased, since their money is earning "gains". Money they invested, scrimped and saved all their lives to live off of. Still willing to toss granny and her wheelchair off the cliff?
All of that really would not matter since granny cannot afford her medicine or her healthcare. There really aer not that many grannies living off their dividends and if they are they are pretty well off to begin with
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 01:56 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,221 posts, read 12,262,791 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
What are you babbling about? I never GAVE a number - I asked for an example of one millionaire that pays NO taxes. And apparently, you don't have the answer. But like the good little liberal, you go straight for the namecalling attack.

How about showing us a millionaire that pays more income tax than the average joe?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 02:21 PM
 
8,263 posts, read 12,153,114 times
Reputation: 4799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
How many shares of stock can somenone low to middle income purchase, they are not able to lower their effective rate to close to 15% with investment income.
On effective tax rates*

For families making $50,000 to $75,000, the effective tax rate is 5.7%. From $75,000 to $100,000, it's 7.2%. And if you make $200,000, it goes up to 9.9%

Sounds the majority of lower and middle class would have no problem lowering their effective tax rate to 15%, since it is already lower.



*source = Is Romney's effective tax rate lower than yours? - Jan. 18, 2012
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 02:25 PM
 
8,263 posts, read 12,153,114 times
Reputation: 4799
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime View Post
How about showing us a millionaire that pays more income tax than the average joe?
In 2011 the Obamas paid $162k for an effective rate 20.5%, which is higher than the average Joes detailed in previous post.

You're welcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 02:29 PM
 
3,484 posts, read 2,860,122 times
Reputation: 2354
Nothing makes me shudder more than reading the using blathering excuses from the Reps about how the very rich shouldn't pay much in taxes. They've made nearly all the income gains for the last few decades. They've done so largely by forcing draconian pay cuts and slashing labor protections.

The least they could do is give some money back to they people they have been stealing it from. The only reason the rich have money is because they have the infrastructure in America that allows them to do so. They have been able to leverage the mental and physical resources to enrich themselves. They should pay to maintain such resources instead of demanding the rest of us further subsize them.

But don't worry Reps. Just go on railing about how you saw someone somewhere getting welfare or a gay guy who waived a rainbow flag near your eleven children and submissive wife.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,375,229 times
Reputation: 4188
The rate on the first $69,000 of taxable income is less than 15%. Add back the standard deduction and exemptions and that's $100,000 of salary.

Sounds pretty middle class to me. So how is that greater than the 15% cap gains rate on money that was already taxed at least once before the cap gains tax?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 04:18 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,625,497 times
Reputation: 20027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
The capital gains tax was as high as 50%, 28% back in the 1980's and investment was not an issue, why would raising it to 20-25% create an issue now. If history proves correct there will be no issue with a loss of investment. Why is capital gains an issue, it wasn't an issue in the past.

Where did you get revenue fluctuation specifically tied to capital gains?

Executive compensation in stocks avoids income tax, I don't think the CEO at Exxon is overly concerned with risk.
if you are talking about the 1940s to the late 1970s when the cap gains tax was 50%, your argument that they should be raised today is bogus. why? because back then the US was THE place to invest. we had the strongest economy, we did the vast majority of the manufacturing for the world, and we had the best overall business environment, despite the higher taxes. when reagan cut taxes, our economy boomed after the carter recession. when kennedy cut taxes our economy boomed, when clinton raised taxes, our economy slowed until the tech bubble picked up the slack. but when it burst, the economy tanked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime View Post
Please explain to everyone why you are adamant in defending the same group of people "fairly" and at the same time they are trying to dismantle every safety net the poor and disfranchised has?
who is trying to dismantle the safety nets? in fact NO ONE is. what the republicans are trying to do is reform those safety nets, get rid of the waste and fraud, and make it so that they will be around for years to come.

Quote:
The wealthy have gotten increasingly richer over the past 10-12 years but yet you and others feel that they are being taxed too much? Meanwhile the income gap has also increased by a large number as well. Even Reagan felt that the rich could be taxed more. The weird thing about it all, people like norquist and rove have flooded the media with so much garbage about the poor as being lazy and the rich as being the job creators that they need more tax breaks to provide more jobs. I guess you can see how that worked for the last 10 years as well.
the reason the rich keep getting richer is because they do the things they need to do to make money. they work far more hours than the average person does, when they spend money it is to buy the things that will make them money, unlike the majority of people. for instance the average person works about 45-50 hours per week. the average rich person works more like 100-120 hours per week. the average person buy things like big screen tvs, new cars, etc. things that they want. the average rich person on the other hand will buy the things they need to make money. for instance instead of buying a big screen tv, the rich person will buy 50 of them to sell at a profit to others.

its not that the poor are lazy, per say, but they are lazy compared to the rich people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,375,229 times
Reputation: 4188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel_Straker View Post
Baloney. ANYONE who owns stock shares that are cashed in for a profit only pay 15% in taxes. That includes a poor janitor who buys a few shares of GE instead of blowing it on the lottery.

The only way to only get to your alleged fairness would be to require everyone to receive at least 80% of their compensation in CASH and not stock or other benefits. Their cash would then be subject to regular income rates.
You are wrong. The poor janitor actually pays zero capital gains tax. Low income workers pay 0% on capital gains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 10:09 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,835 posts, read 25,771,452 times
Reputation: 15423
Quote:
if you are talking about the 1940s to the late 1970s when the cap gains tax was 50%, your argument that they should be raised today is bogus. why? because back then the US was THE place to invest. we had the strongest economy, we did the vast majority of the manufacturing for the world, and we had the best overall business environment, despite the higher taxes. when reagan cut taxes, our economy boomed after the carter recession. when kennedy cut taxes our economy boomed, when clinton raised taxes, our economy slowed until the tech bubble picked up the slack. but when it burst, the economy tanked
.

Your contention is that the US was the place to "invest" so we raised capital gains taxes holds no credibility, where did you read that. There is no correlation between capital gains from the 1940's to the 1970's, Japan, Germany were also great places to invest. Many economoists would disagree that tax cuts were responsible for economic growth, ask David Stockman. If tax cuts increased growth then what happened the last 10 years.


Quote:
the reason the rich keep getting richer is because they do the things they need to do to make money. they work far more hours than the average person does, when they spend money it is to buy the things that will make them money, unlike the majority of people. for instance the average person works about 45-50 hours per week. the average rich person works more like 100-120 hours per week. the average person buy things like big screen tvs, new cars, etc. things that they want. the average rich person on the other hand will buy the things they need to make money. for instance instead of buying a big screen tv, the rich person will buy 50 of them to sell at a profit to others.

its not that the poor are lazy, per say, but they are lazy compared to the rich people.
The separation between the wealthy and the middle class is at historic highs dating back to the 1930's and it's not about hard working rich nor lazy middle class workers. When you have billionaires and millionaire quoting that same fact you have a problem. From the CEO's of the top companies to the hedge fund mananagers, to the Goldman Sachs traders it has become perfectly clear the disparity is growing in a down economy, and it's not because they work harder than any middle class person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top