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.
How is it fair for people to choose between basic neccessities and taxes?
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?
Tax "fairness" would be the 41% that pay NO taxes, start paying their FAIR share of taxes.
Yeah, taxing retired senior citizens who have little income; taxing low income wage earners; taxing high school and college kids with part-time jobs -- that's where the big money and "fairness" is.
That "fairness" issue is just another 'follow the shiny object' ruse to distract us away from raising taxes on billionaires. I can't say the public hasn't fallen for that scam before.
I just would hope the GOP would use that as their campaign motto:
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? ?
If you just hit the 33% marginal rate then your effective rate is probably about half of that.
And if you want to reduce it, you should take advantage of the tax provisions that Congress has legislated for the past 70 years. You could buy a house, have a bunch of kids, buy solar panels, invest in rental houses, invest in the stock market, suffer a robbery, carry over some capital losses from prior years, etc.
And whether or not you have to worry has no impact on taxes.
Yeah, taxing retired senior citizens who have little income; taxing low income wage earners; taxing high school and college kids with part-time jobs -- that's where the big money and "fairness" is.
That "fairness" issue is just another 'follow the shiny object' ruse to distract us away from raising taxes on billionaires. I can't say the public hasn't fallen for that scam before.
Fairness is in the eye of the beholder and will always be subject to debate.
And your guy in office isn't attacking "billionaires". He's attacking millionaires. Then when he get's that, he'll go after "thousandaires".
The public always falls for "raise taxes on some other dude" scams.
It's because you're confused about what the word "earn" means.
Their overall rates are lower because they make most of their money from investments, not wages.
You WANT wealthy people investing their money. That job you "aren't fundamentally complaining" about would likely disappear without those evil rich people pumping their cash into the economy.
Yes. Because, as everyone knows, there was no such thing as investors prior to Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush lowering the tax rates on the wealthy...
Fairness is in the eye of the beholder and will always be subject to debate.
And your guy in office isn't attacking "billionaires". He's attacking millionaires. Then when he get's that, he'll go after "thousandaires".
The public always falls for "raise taxes on some other dude" scams.
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.
The investor class would continue to invest, regardless of taxes. What do you think they're going to do? Work for a living? Please.
During the 50's and 60's tax rates were much, much higher. Was the economy bad then? No.
Like everybody who works longer hours to make more money, if taxed higher, the investors would invest more to make more.
If you put money in your pocket or bank account, you should pay your fair share regardless of how you got that money. Period.
The Bush tax cuts have been if effect for what, over ten years? Where are the bloody jobs? It's nonsense.
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.
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.
