Can someone explain to me again why it's fair for me to be taxed at 2x the rate of ppl earning 20-150x my annual income? (salaries, carry)
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.
The historical record is rather clear that Obama doesn't want taxes to rise on those earning below $250K/yr. You can try to attack him for something he doesn't want to do, but that's unfounded speculation on your part.
$250k per year is not a billionaire. Not even a millionaire.
And he has raised taxes on people making less than $250k. Just not FIT.
And he has proposed raising FICA taxes on people making less than $250k.
oh lets just start with the thousands of middle and high income jobs guys like Romney and Buffett create with the money they dont pay to the federal government.
How many people make a full middle to high income from your efforts?
Buffett started investing in the 1950's when taxes were much higher. That didn't stop him from investing, did it?
That's a question of morality. The real question is: how is it fair that some people pay more than others, yet all benefit equally (or, in most cases, those that contribute the least or not at all benefit the most). How is THAT fair?
All do not benefit equally.
Lets assume some foreign country were to invade the US. If all the land was seized, a poor person would lose nothing. Yet a millionaire would probably lose several houses and investment properties.
A wealthy person may have a pool, or multiple pools. How is a poor person benefiting equally from subsidized water?
Speaking of subsidies, who, do you think, is benefiting the most from subsidized oil? Id probably vote the rich person with their boat, and fleet of cars.
How about police of fire protection?
The only thing wealthy people do not disproportionately benefit from are benefits that are directly targeted towards the poor, such as Section 8 and Food Stamps.
Then again, thats what it always boils down to with the right wing. Eliminating anything that poor people disproportionately benefit from.
You are EXACTLY correct. What the right-wing does is put out theories as if we have no historical data to test the theory. Id one does, the conclusion would be that there is no factual case to support the theory that raising capital gains taxes decreases economic activity or lowering capital gains taxes increases economic activity.
As you point out, we've had spectacular growth when taxes were high and dismal economic activity after Bush lowered taxes to the lowest rates in 80 years.
A lot of very smart people would disagree with you and have lots of info to support their claim that there is a link between capital gains taxes and the economy. You should try reading a little before making the mistake of an emotional response.
A wealthy person may have a pool, or multiple pools. How is a poor person benefiting equally from subsidized water?
Speaking of subsidies, who, do you think, is benefiting the most from subsidized oil? Id probably vote the rich person with their boat, and fleet of cars.
How about police of fire protection?
.
If I'm rich (let's say $50 million in the bank) I think the millions of dollars in taxes I would pay on my income, spending, houses, cars and boats would far exceed the governments meager subsidy of oil and water.
Do not the rich benefit much more by the fact that the government educates their corporation's employees for free?
Does not the legal system protected corporation's intellectual property and contracts?
Do not safe roads foster their ability to ship goods?
Does not the tax-supported financial infrastructure enabled the wealthy to access capital markets and trade stock in a market in which investors have confidence?
Does not tax-funded research help develop technology that their businesses benefit?
Does not the trade laws negotiated and enforced by the government protect their ability to sell products abroad?
Bill Gates Sr. used to say this: 'Suppose you were given the choice of being born in America or in Ethiopia. What proportion of your eventual fortune would you be willing to give to be born in America? Given the great good fortune of getting to live and run a business in this country that has all the advantages an advanced country with a decent system provides, how can you think it’s all you? And then, how can you feel you don’t have any obligation to pay it back?'
I didn't say I agreed with my friend. But his view is not automatically ridiculous.
I think it is ridiculous for someone to just assume that high marginal rates are somehow fair. My own lean on one aspect of this is that virtually every adult should pay federal income taxes. There is no way that someone should earn a rebate for living in the US. Maybe the amount is just a token (say $100) but everyone benefits from infrastructure and defense.
Buffett said that his federal tax bill was $6,938,744 and the rate paid was only 17.4%.
taxable income = $6,938,744 ÷ 0.174 = $39,877,839.08
Maybe you think that $40 million isn't a lot of income; not me. If Buffett were taxed at 50% he would pay an additional ~$13 million in tax. That's a lot more tax.
In 2007, the top 400 earners paid an average tax rate of 16.6% (the lowest since the IRS began tracking the 400 in 1992.)
The top 400 reported $137.9 billion in income; they paid $22.9 billion in federal income taxes. If they paid 50% instead of 16.6%, the government would have $46.05 billion more in revenue from just 400 taxpayers -- and those 400 would only have $69 billion left over. How would they get by?
I guess you are comfortable dictating how much these people should be allowed to keep. That makes me uncomfortable.
Tax "fairness" would be the 41% that pay NO taxes, start paying their FAIR share of taxes.
Just yesterday I stumbled upon something interesting:
46% pay no federal income taxes.
23% have zero tax liability after taking the standard deduction and personal exemption(s).
23% have zero tax liability due to other tax breaks (child tax credits, itemized deductions, etc)
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.
