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.
Food for thought.....what if we just stop talking about tax rates for a moment and instead the actual amount each of us should pay in taxes. Why should one individual have to pay any more than another. If one person burdens the system no more than another, why should there be any difference in the amount each has to contribute towards the system.
It is quite evident that you either aren't paying attention or are trolling.
In case you don't know (I mean, really, don't know), your income is earned income, which is taxed at a higher rate than their income, which is from risky investments, which because of their risk, and to encourage investment, are taxed at a lower rate. Save your money, invest, and your profits too will be taxed at the lower rate - regardless of your income level.
Excellent point, except I'm still a national sales tax/repeal the IRS person
*some of that investment isn't so much risky, as they can afford to just invest, regardless...
You've neatly summed up the 'physical fallacy.' Of what use is an Einstein? After all, all he did was push a pencil, moving greek letters from one side of an equation to the other. No real goods there, right?
This year, we hit the 33% marginal tax bracket - alternative minimum tax and all of that. We don't own a home or have kids, so we don't really get to deduct anything.
I'm grateful for our income, and I'm not fundamentally complaining about having to work hard for it and pay my fair share. I know that we're very fortunate.
But why is it fair for my personal share to be up to TWICE the rate of the fair share of people with gargantuan incomes like Romney and Buffett who will never have real financial worries again in their lives? We're doing well, but unlike those guys, we do depend heavily on our cash flow to generate our critical savings for future needs as well as to cover our day-to-day expenses. We get hurt by the loss of that marginal dollar A LOT more than the multi-millionaires and billionaires ever would be.
And why is it "class warfare" whenever I point this out? How is it not "class warfare" for me to be reamed porportionally so much more than the super rich - many of whose enterprises I also have to pay to bail out of their bad business decisions?
I'm not saying that the Buffett rule is the way to go, but why can't we have a tax system that institutes some sense of consistent fairness relative to income all the way across the income spectrum? Why is this concept so fundamentally controversial and anti-American for conservatives?
the top 50 percent pay 97% of the income taxes collected. top 1% pays 38 % of the income tac collected. How is that not fair
This year, we hit the 33% marginal tax bracket - alternative minimum tax and all of that. We don't own a home or have kids, so we don't really get to deduct anything.
I'm grateful for our income, and I'm not fundamentally complaining about having to work hard for it and pay my fair share. I know that we're very fortunate.
But why is it fair for my personal share to be up to TWICE the rate of the fair share of people with gargantuan incomes like Romney and Buffett who will never have real financial worries again in their lives? We're doing well, but unlike those guys, we do depend heavily on our cash flow to generate our critical savings for future needs as well as to cover our day-to-day expenses. We get hurt by the loss of that marginal dollar A LOT more than the multi-millionaires and billionaires ever would be.
And why is it "class warfare" whenever I point this out? How is it not "class warfare" for me to be reamed porportionally so much more than the super rich - many of whose enterprises I also have to pay to bail out of their bad business decisions?
I'm not saying that the Buffett rule is the way to go, but why can't we have a tax system that institutes some sense of consistent fairness relative to income all the way across the income spectrum? Why is this concept so fundamentally controversial and anti-American for conservatives?
How many times is it going to take for it to sink into the liberal mind? People who make 250x your incomeDO NOT EARN INCOME AND THUS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX, if any tax at all. You can tax Warren Buffet at 100% income and you still WOULDN'T touch his billions! The Buffet rule was designed to crush aspiring wealthy people from climbing the ladder further, leaving the ultra rich elite an exclusive club. People seriously need to pull their heads out of the sand, and stop reading so much tripe that doesn't make sense
Food for thought.....what if we just stop talking about tax rates for a moment and instead the actual amount each of us should pay in taxes. Why should one individual have to pay any more than another. If one person burdens the system no more than another, why should there be any difference in the amount each has to contribute towards the system.
In my experience, people with higher incomes burden those with lower incomes. They drive up the price of housing, thereby burdening lower income people more and making them worse off.
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.
