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.
Can someone tell again why people don't know the difference between marginal tax rates and effective tax rates and the difference between income and capital gains (which have already been taxed at least once)?
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?
Don't blame conservatives for a tax code that is almost entirely a liberal/progressive creation. As a conservative I certainly won't defend it. It is unfair. but your beef is not with the principle underlying this monstrosity but rather that it is your ox getting gored. You would be fine with the current system as long as someone else's ox was getting the shaft.
If you want fairness then you should advocate for a flat tax. Of course you won't do that because the flat tax doesn't allow progressives the opportunity to stick it to those they envy.
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?
What you want is a FAIR TAX. Last I heard, the politicians in Washington, be it Democrat or Republican are strictly against this plan. SO VOTE THEM OUT! ALL of them.
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?
They are not taxed at a lower rate than you. They pay a different type of tax than you do.
You are certainly free to follow in their footsteps and minimize your tax burden.
You've obviously chosen to live a lifestyle that is just at "your means". Downsize a little - I pay less than you, therefore I make a LOT less than you (I have no child deductions), and live comfortably.
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.
So food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc. aren't the horrible burden that the rich create? Interesting.....
Um, the government is "taking care of" people like Romney by giving him huge tax advantages over people who actually work for a living (whether making physical goods or doing "service" work).
"People like him"? You mean like seniors that have investments to fund their retirement?
More like "people like GE and Solyndra" - you know, specific cases instances to give advantage to campaign donors and supporters.
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?
You make reasonable well thought out points. One can also argue why you pay infinitely more than a large chunk of the US population that pays no federal tax.
However, to have an honest discussion it's important to note sales, property and other taxes which once factored in shift the %'s around quite a bit.
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.
Having no deductions is a rather formidable player in your tax situation (potentially).
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.
This one is really easy. It is called 'understanding tax laws and setting up a strategy'. Not exactly rocket science. I was in the 39.6% for years, and that is when I got tax lawyers involved.
Get creative. I tend to not have anything in my own name.
And why is it "class warfare" whenever I point this out?
Because, to many people, it comes across as 'Waah, Waah, Waah'. Want some cheese and crackers with that whine?
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?
Take a basic class on tax strategies....
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?
It is just like playing the lottery... targeted for people who are bad at math. What fraction of the investments are in tax-free, tax-deferred, or offshore? This is really, really simple.
"People like him"? You mean like seniors that have investments to fund their retirement?
More like "people like GE and Solyndra" - you know, specific cases instances to give advantage to campaign donors and supporters.
Most seniors don't have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in "investments."
But my point was more about the rhetoric we use. Poor people who use food stamps or WIC or subsidized housing are lazy bums who are "being taken care of" by the government. In real dollars (not only relative dollars), Romney is also "being taken care of" by the government, but somehow we don't see it that way. Yes, I do think it's unfair that Romney is paying a relatively low tax rate ON INCOME HE DID NOT EARN BY ANY DEFINITION OF "EARN." His money may have "earned" it, but he didn't. If we value "work" -- which we say we do -- we cannot argue that Romney earned most of what his income is. (And honestly, the fact that he sees the few hundreds of thousands of dollars he earned through speaking engagements -- actual "work" -- as "not very much" shows how completely out of touch he is with average WORKING people.)
Please note, I have no problem at all with taxing investments that are shown to create real jobs in a community at a lower rate. If Romney opens a factory in a town, he can have a tax break because he is creating real jobs for real people in that community. But money put in the bank? Sorry, that is very unlikely to be creating creating real jobs for anyone.
And to those who say a flat tax would be more "fair" -- aaaaaaaaggggh. Tax 10% of $50,000 and you leave the tax-payer with $45,000. Tax 10% of $10,000,000 and you leave the tax-payer with $9,000,000. Who is better off with the "flat tax"? $5,000 is worth a LOT more to the first tax-payer than $1,000,000 is to the second.
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.
