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.
It does if you count working smarter, taking more risk, and MUCH more responsibility.
I defend them because it's a free country, built on the opportunity to earn great wealth. I defend them because I've never been hired by a poor person. I defend them because they pay most of the taxes that fund the non-taxpayers.
Correct , because there are different types of "hard work".
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
If the poor have so much money they can afford to live in NY City and San Fran, two of the most expensive cities in the world, they can afford to pay more taxes....
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
Wrong!
What does one have to do with the other? Is one not free to use ones wealth for whatever purpose seems right to him (provided it is legal)? That is called Liberty.
The "rich" pay enough in taxes. Why should they pay more, just because someone thinks they can afford it? It is not for you or any government bureaucrat to decide how they should or should not spend their money.
I'm talking about effective tax rates, not dollar amounts...of course you probably knew that already, neo-con.
I don't care whether you are talking "effective tax rates" or not. They already pay more, and it isn't your business to determine how they should spend their money, or to decide that they should pay more taxes based on what they are spending their money on?
When we increase taxes on the rich, we are taxing ourselves in reality, because we are reducing the amount of risk capital available that would otherwise be invested. This kind of tax policy is anti-growth. That is one reason why reducing taxes on the rich has the effect of stimulating the economy and producing economic expansion.
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
Wrong. What you said begs the question. Of course they CAN afford to pay more in taxes. That's obvious. The real question is WHY should they pay more in taxes? You didn't address that. Why is it okay for you to decide that someone else has enough money so it's okay for you to confiscate the rest? Where does that authority come from? What differentiates that from stealing?
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money" and you are a prime example of why he said that. Simply because someone can afford to pay more money and you can muster up enough votes to pass it, doesn't give you the moral authority to force them to do so.
If they are making money through income, then they pay the same % if not more than everyone else.
What part of "the 12.6% rate only applies to the first 112K in income" did you miss? Cherry picking the federal rate, and ignoring social security is pretty common.
Heres a fascinating study showing how its broken up. most americans pay about the same % of their income as the 1%....but with a vastly different impact obviously.
Well, if they can easily donate more for something as frivolous as political campaigns, they can easily afford to pay a bit more in taxes, right?
"Frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder as it should be. My friends/neighbors/acquaintances spend all kinds of money on things I think are frivolous, but it's their money and they can and should spend it as they see fit. They probably think we spend more on landscaping for our yard than is necessary in their eyes....but it's what bring us enjoyment and we're paying the bills for it. If politics is your thing, and you're involved and engaged to a high degree, that's what you value and what you choose to spend some of your money on.
For me, I gave a couple hundred bucks to one of the two major political parties "Senatorial fund" about 15 or 20 years ago. I learned quickly that once you give them money, you'll get 3 or 4 additional solicition letters (from the same party) a week for the next 8 or 10 years....and that ticked me off. They must have spend all the money I gave them on stationery, envelopes, printing and postage in their seemingly endless attempt to get even more money from me. That will never happen again since I refuse to give them any more money.....ever !
If I were to look at my neighbors frivolous spending on a big boat (or even political donations) they only use twice a year, and use your logic, I'd say "if he can spend all that money so frivolously on a big boat he only uses twice a year, he sure could and should afford to pay to put a new roof on my house at the very least.
Soooo does that include social security? I mean thats a federal tax right? what is it? 6.3% from you, and 6.3% from your employer who would otherwise pay it to you?
It's double 6.3% for the self-employed, which are overwhelmingly those in the higher income groups.
Quote:
Oh right, and it only applies to the first 112K of income as well.....
SS benefits are progressive AND limited. High income earners have been LOSING money on SS since the 1990s, according to the SS Administration:
Quote:
"Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration"
It's double 6.3% for the self-employed, which are overwhelmingly those in the higher income groups.
SS benefits are progressive AND limited. High income earners have been LOSING money on SS since the 1990s, according to the SS Administration:Is Social Security a good deal?
Which the rich pay, as well. Not sure why you think the rich are somehow magically immune to state and local taxes. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Yes they are being deliberately obtuse. They have a flawed argument and can't muster up the strength to admit it.
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.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
