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)
 
Old Yesterday, 03:21 PM
 
Location: My House
34,753 posts, read 29,128,890 times
Reputation: 25712

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by t206 View Post
I'll defend their bank accounts all day long as long as they did it legally, same goes for someone with $1.00 in the bank. There should be no difference in the laws, rules, and expectations there, why is that so "amazing" to you?
I think it's amazing that people with relatively little (and that's most of the people I see jumping to the defense of the absurdly wealthy) go to bat so hard for people who don't give a damn whether the little people have healthcare and food.

And, none of that "they work harder" because that's nonsense.

When people like Warren Buffet are out there telling you they have way more money than they'll ever spend, it starts to make sense for noblesse oblige to kick in.

Alas, where our Congress really likes to cut deep is in that tier below the 1%, where most of the wealthier families in the US sit, where a percentage point or two in taxes or higher hits from the damned AMT actually DO make a difference in their spending ability. I have a feeling that people who defend the "wealthy" are really thinking of that group of people, and we all thank you for thinking of us, but tell Congress about it because it's not the "regular, high-earning households" that most people are actually referring to (even if they don't realize it) when they refer to the 1%.

Hell, the 1% are extremely unlikely to be posting on City Data. The 2-3%? Absolutely. The 3-5%? Even more likely.

It is astounding how big the gulf in income inequality is between the 1% and the 2-3% actually. Ever see a graph? It'll blow your mind.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 03:29 PM
 
Location: My House
34,753 posts, read 29,128,890 times
Reputation: 25712
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
A separate, exclusive tax on the wealthy to help pay interest on the national debt would incentivize the Republican party to reduce it's profligate deficit spending ways. The larger the debt payments, the greater the tax. Income tax levels can then remain the same as now.
Once upon a time, the AMT was designed for this VERY THING.

However, over time, the AMT has been a tax on the higher-earners in the working class and it doesn't affect the ultra-wealthy because they earn most of their money via dividends from stock.

Essentially, when you see a CEO that earns a dollar a year, you can be sure that they're earning a dollar a year to duck paying taxes on the stock they're getting instead.

The AMT was supposed to keep that kind of high income properly taxed so the tax load would be balanced.

But, with our Congress so eager to cut capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes and people who have little to no capital gains or inheritances to speak of out there defending it?

Here we are.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:33 PM
 
Location: My House
34,753 posts, read 29,128,890 times
Reputation: 25712
Quote:
Originally Posted by carcrazy67 View Post
While it is unlikely that there are any billionaires on this forum, I can guarantee you that there are plenty of millionaires! So you don't think anything "trickles down" ....not one penny? So when a wealthy person spends money on a yacht, what happens?
By the way, you need to do a little research to see who pays the most taxes!
That last sentence... see how much people pay PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR INCOME.

Don't read it in dollars and cents. Read it in percentages.

What percentage of NET taxes are paid?

The problem is that millionaires are not out there buying a yacht a week.

This is why Congress won't scale back the AMT. It's a HUGE chunk of money from the working class that has higher WAGE income.

They could get all that from the ultra-wealthy, but those people are them.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:40 PM
 
11,459 posts, read 6,003,072 times
Reputation: 3677
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
I think it's amazing that people with relatively little (and that's most of the people I see jumping to the defense of the absurdly wealthy) go to bat so hard for people who don't give a damn whether the little people have healthcare and food.

And, none of that "they work harder" because that's nonsense.

When people like Warren Buffet are out there telling you they have way more money than they'll ever spend, it starts to make sense for noblesse oblige to kick in.

Alas, where our Congress really likes to cut deep is in that tier below the 1%, where most of the wealthier families in the US sit, where a percentage point or two in taxes or higher hits from the damned AMT actually DO make a difference in their spending ability. I have a feeling that people who defend the "wealthy" are really thinking of that group of people, and we all thank you for thinking of us, but tell Congress about it because it's not the "regular, high-earning households" that most people are actually referring to (even if they don't realize it) when they refer to the 1%.

Hell, the 1% are extremely unlikely to be posting on City Data. The 2-3%? Absolutely. The 3-5%? Even more likely.

It is astounding how big the gulf in income inequality is between the 1% and the 2-3% actually. Ever see a graph? It'll blow your mind.
Not sure why you would quote me when your rant here doesn't address what I said, but I guess when you think you have a point to make it doesn't matter if its relevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Seattle
917 posts, read 337,365 times
Reputation: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
I think it's amazing that people with relatively little (and that's most of the people I see jumping to the defense of the absurdly wealthy) go to bat so hard for people who don't give a damn whether the little people have healthcare and food.

And, none of that "they work harder" because that's nonsense.

When people like Warren Buffet are out there telling you they have way more money than they'll ever spend, it starts to make sense for noblesse oblige to kick in.

Alas, where our Congress really likes to cut deep is in that tier below the 1%, where most of the wealthier families in the US sit, where a percentage point or two in taxes or higher hits from the damned AMT actually DO make a difference in their spending ability. I have a feeling that people who defend the "wealthy" are really thinking of that group of people, and we all thank you for thinking of us, but tell Congress about it because it's not the "regular, high-earning households" that most people are actually referring to (even if they don't realize it) when they refer to the 1%.

Hell, the 1% are extremely unlikely to be posting on City Data. The 2-3%? Absolutely. The 3-5%? Even more likely.

It is astounding how big the gulf in income inequality is between the 1% and the 2-3% actually. Ever see a graph? It'll blow your mind.

Define the 1%? If you are talking about the Rothschilds and ilk, most aren't even in America....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:52 PM
 
202 posts, read 33,914 times
Reputation: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Let’s take one of your ridiculous examples.

We all know that corporations don’t pay income taxes- the consumers do. If you don’t understand this, you aren’t qualified to have an opinion on this subject.

So why should a corporation be taxed twice? Once by the overseas country and second time by US?
Hmm. Ever heard the word "offshore"? Zero tax there...
Or another example - corporate high officers pay for everything using corporate credit card. It counts as "operational expense" and is not taxed as that officer's income. Or buy property/aircraft/yacht "for a corporation" - again counts as "operational expense" and again is not taxed; even though by fact of usage it's CEO property. Or pretend you paid for supplies 1mln when in fact you got them for couple bucks, etc. And that I named just the most known loopholes; good accountant will find gazillion more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:49 PM
 
1,502 posts, read 310,504 times
Reputation: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Why would they exist if they arenít needed, Einstein?

Please explain to me how millions of people can invest in (buy and sell) shares of Amazon without the stock market.
They were put in place to accumulate and control capital. It benefits the top 10%. You need to learn the difference between investing and speculation. If I put x amount of money in the stock market and withdraw it later with 15% more I have not added any value to goods and services, the spanding of money have substracted value as now more money is needed for the same amount of goods and services.

It's really common sense. If you choose to believe how economist make it to be, you are only legitimazing a corrupt and immoral system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I hope you realize the chart in your link shows the effective total federal tax rate, NOT how much of the total taxes each income earner pays.

So... Do the math....

Given the data you provided based on that chart:

$49,300 earner pays $3,944 in federal taxes.

$222,900 earner pays $40,122. Earns 4.5 times as much as the first, but pays 10.2 times as much in taxes.

$754,800 earner pays $226,440. Earns 15.3 times as much as the first, but pays 57.4 times as much in taxes.
Yes, I was comparing the effective tax rates. Let's go over the numbers again:

$49,300 earner, 8% taxe rate, after tax income $45,356.

$222,900 earner, 18% tax rate, after tax income $182,778.

$754,800 earner, 30%tax rate, after tax income $528,360.

Taxes are over emphasized, the real problem is how wages are paid. That is what I'm trying to point out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:52 PM
 
1,384 posts, read 307,288 times
Reputation: 1454
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
How is following the law a loophole?

Your freedom of speech is a loophole, don’t you know what?
Loopholes are legal - not illegal - they are ways to get around the tax system and keep money out of the gov't hands. And corporations use them all the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:03 PM
 
19,049 posts, read 9,705,375 times
Reputation: 5341
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanonka View Post
Hmm. Ever heard the word "offshore"? Zero tax there...
Or another example - corporate high officers pay for everything using corporate credit card. It counts as "operational expense" and is not taxed as that officer's income. Or buy property/aircraft/yacht "for a corporation" - again counts as "operational expense" and again is not taxed; even though by fact of usage it's CEO property. Or pretend you paid for supplies 1mln when in fact you got them for couple bucks, etc. And that I named just the most known loopholes; good accountant will find gazillion more.


None of you said exists in the real world. Try to qualify personal expenses for corporate expenses, IRS will have you fried.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:04 PM
 
19,049 posts, read 9,705,375 times
Reputation: 5341
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBMorgan View Post
Loopholes are legal - not illegal - they are ways to get around the tax system and keep money out of the gov't hands. And corporations use them all the time.
Name one loophole.

Why are you using the loophole to speak?
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

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top