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.
I was wondering what your opinions are on the rich and if you think they should pay more taxes?
Personally, I think they should the rich have a very high share of dividens and capital gains which are taxed at 15%.
On the other hand the poor the income tax is 10% and the middle-class are in the 25% tax brackets and most of the middle-class dont have as heavily amount of dollars from dividens and capital gains like the rich so the middle-class are being taxed at a higher rate then the rich in alot of cases.
Another thing is since interest on housing payments, charity (churches) and property taxes are tax-deductible these generally benefit the rich much more then the poor and middle-class.
I think that they raise the income tax rate on the wealthy to 40% like during the Clinton years and go from 15% to 20ish% on capital gains and dividens taxes.
All I'm going to say is, they already pay MORE than their share...
I see your points - I even gave you a rep for your detailed explanation - but I still disagree.
To answer 1) and 2): Kudos to you and those who worked hard to achieve their wealth... especially those self-made people who come from humble backgrounds. I'm more concerned about those who inherited their money or at least the advantages that come with being born in an upper-class household. Why should s/he benefit tax-wise from the luck of the draw?
In this one part, you're referring to both my parents & myself - so I'm a bit conflicted on how to feel. All I know is that I work very hard for my OWN money, and haven't yet seen these benefits you speak of. One day, hopefully very far in the future, I will inherit their money... and when that happens, I'll be an honest tax-paying individual, just like the rest of you all. And since I'll be paying a much higher rate of taxes, I still don't see how it's a benefit. I wouldn't normally share this info with "strangers", but thought it was important to bring a real person into the debate... we can't just generalize "the rich", as we shouldn't do it to "the poor" or middle-class either.
Quote:
To answer 3): Unless you enjoy McDonalds or other typical mall food court fare as a rule, you probably won't be eating in the same restaurant as a lower-income person.
My mom's favorite restaurant is Denny's - LOL. It's not like we go to 5-star restaurants every night, and only eat on silver platters. My parents worked extremely hard for their money (not in "ceremonial jobs", fyi), and do enjoy certain luxuries - but for the most part, they're pretty normal, just like most others in that tax-bracket. I get your points, and agree with some of them, but the stereotyping is kinda unfair IMO.
If it was that much, no I wouldn't... What kind of rate would it take to square things up ??
That would take some calculating to figure out, and it would depend on what other provisions were in the package. The rate is only one component. For some ballpark numbers, federal expenditures have recently been running at a little above 19% of GDP. Meanwhile, receipts from individual income taxes have been running at around 7% of GDP, with the taxable income of individuals typically being around 60% of GDP. The average tax rate paid by all 130 million filers of individual tax returns in 2004 was just under 12%, while the average rate paid by those who actually paid taxes that year was just above 13%.
How about a flat tax rate of say 50% - with guarantee that 20% of that goes into a revised version of Social Security for your future (a personal type of government mandatory 401k), and another 20% goes into univeral healthcare coverage (which let's say at an early age of 55 we stop contributing to, and it kicks in so we can retire if we want to with healthcare coverage) - leaving 60% of the taxes to go to the rest of the government services.
It's expensive as heck, but realistically, the two added services are worthwhile... worthwhile because as we all begin to live longer lives it will be harder and probably impossible for most of the U.S. citizens to afford retirement and healthcare. Another way I would justify the relatively shocking 50% number would be to say, that common financial advice is for us to each be putting at least 10% of our income into 401k like future savings anyway; and I would guess that typical health insurance + health care services costs annually for a typical family are probably around the 10% range as well (ok I am stretching on this one I know - but full healthcare coverage at age 55 is something few of us can claim today, so the service is something better than currently available).
What would you think about this? Obviously a grandfathered-in system will need to be created (for those people like the 50-something age group and higher). But fundamentally, would this break the bank of everyone and the government, or are the financial concepts sound enough to work?
most of the so called rich,,have earned it thru hard work and discipline.
Most of the rich got that way via markets -- real estate, patent licensing, capital gains, and so on. They may indeed have worked hard and been disciplined, but lots of people who have exhibited those traits are currently eligible for food stamps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mainebrokerman
one reason the stock market is at an all time high, is because of bush's tax cuts, this allows more people who earn thier money, to keep it. and businesses to reinvest in themselves.
Or it could be that the Democratic takeover of Congress boosted people's confidence in the proprosition that the worst was over and that something would at last be done to put the national house back in order. The stock market runs on emotion as much as it does on technicals and fundamentals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mainebrokerman
you raise taxes, you stifle growth and initiative.
That's a difficult proposition to understand, given that the government turns right around and spends every dollar of taxes the second it gets its hands on them. In fact, they've lately been tending to spend a lot more than just what they get their hands on. Wouldn't those expenditures go toward stiimulating growth and initiative???
Quote:
Originally Posted by mainebrokerman
a flat tax of 15% IS FAIR,,,ACROSS THE BOARD the more you make,,the more you pay, plain and simple.
What would you think about this? Obviously a grandfathered-in system will need to be created (for those people like the 50-something age group and higher). But fundamentally, would this break the bank of everyone and the government, or are the financial concepts sound enough to work?
There ya go! Some thinking outside the box! A 50% across the board tax rate would have resulted in receipts of $3,022 billion in 2004, as against the $832 billion that were actually received. There's a lot you can do with an extra couple of trillion dollars. Of course, there might have been some really troubling side effects. We'll need to work on those. But for my money at least, you're on the right track. The imbalance that we have today on the private-public goods scale in this country is that we have too few public goods. Oh sure, anyone can point to excessively socialistic economies and see what an imbalance in the other direction can produce, but that hardly makes imbalance a one-way street. All of us would benefit from things like knowing we had a secure retirement to look forward to or that we had reliable health insurance that would be with us for as long as needed. The private sector has done little to provide us with either one of these. The private sector really doesn't care so much about what we want. It cares about making a profit. The public sector doesn't care so much about making a profit, but it does care about what we want. All economies are some mixture of the two, but we may have wandered off a bit too far in one direction...
In this one part, you're referring to both my parents & myself - so I'm a bit conflicted on how to feel. All I know is that I work very hard for my OWN money, and haven't yet seen these benefits you speak of. One day, hopefully very far in the future, I will inherit their money... and when that happens, I'll be an honest tax-paying individual, just like the rest of you all. And since I'll be paying a much higher rate of taxes, I still don't see how it's a benefit. I wouldn't normally share this info with "strangers", but thought it was important to bring a real person into the debate... we can't just generalize "the rich", as we shouldn't do it to "the poor" or middle-class either.
I certainly respect the efforts that you and your parents worked hard to attain a high standard of living. I suppose I was speaking to those who do generalize the supposed lack of effort that the lower class make to better themselves. Like I said earlier, effort isn't always an indicator of economic success.
Quote:
My mom's favorite restaurant is Denny's - LOL. It's not like we go to 5-star restaurants every night, and only eat on silver platters. My parents worked extremely hard for their money (not in "ceremonial jobs", fyi), and do enjoy certain luxuries - but for the most part, they're pretty normal, just like most others in that tax-bracket. I get your points, and agree with some of them, but the stereotyping is kinda unfair IMO.
Hey I've heard about that book "The Millionaire Next Door" where many successful people live below their means and go about their business like the "everyday American". I wouldn't be surprised to hear that someone from Omaha saw Warren Buffett at the local Denny's.
I certainly think most people work very hard to make a living, no matter what their income level. My view happens to be that the upper class have advantages that give them access to information - like tax loopholes per this topic - that reduce their direct contribution to the common good. I'm glad we agree on some things... and I apologize if it seemed like I stereotyped on others.
I certainly respect the efforts that you and your parents worked hard to attain a high standard of living. I suppose I was speaking to those who do generalize the supposed lack of effort that the lower class make to better themselves. Like I said earlier, effort isn't always an indicator of economic success.
That's absolutely true, and the generalizations work both ways... I just don't think it's fair to stereotype one class, while defending the other - know what I mean? It's like if I posted a whole thread about the middle-class, and said things like "all middle-class people are jealous of the rich", "They don't have enough education, and that's why they're not rich", etc. And no, I don't believe those statements at all! But could you imagine the angry responses I'd get if I did post that in a serious manner? Anyway, I do appreciate your comments, and agree with the overall ideas on this thread... especially the parts about a flat-tax, which I would likely support.
Quote:
Hey I've heard about that book "The Millionaire Next Door" where many successful people live below their means and go about their business like the "everyday American". I wouldn't be surprised to hear that someone from Omaha saw Warren Buffett at the local Denny's.
I certainly think most people work very hard to make a living, no matter what their income level. My view happens to be that the upper class have advantages that give them access to information - like tax loopholes per this topic - that reduce their direct contribution to the common good. I'm glad we agree on some things... and I apologize if it seemed like I stereotyped on others.
It's okay, I just get a bit sensitive about this topic, since people think it's acceptable to demonize the upper-class... and since it's my family that's being insulted, I have to say something in their defense! I grew up around the "rich", and there are people of all types, just like among the lower & middle classes. So the Libra in me hates that unfair stereotyping, even if I didn't have a personal connection.
As for the tax loopholes, I believe that's much less common than you think... I don't know anyone who "cheats" or even takes advantage of that stuff. But honestly, any legal deductions are only fair, since that's how the system is set up - would you ignore a tax break if it existed? I mean, that would just be stupid, no matter how much money you have! Anyway, my parents donate more (to charity) every year than the average person earns, so why shouldn't they get a few deductions for that? But they do it out of the goodness of their heart, and certainly not for the tax write-offs. I'm sure most people are the same way, so it's not right to assume they all try to "work the system". Maybe that's just the media influencing everyone's perception, since they always like to focus on the bad apples.
I personally would prefer a flat tax rate for everyone.. Why should any person or class of people be punished or rewarded for their success or lack thereof...
DITTO THAT!
Why should I pay for college. Bust my butt to pay for that college. Bust my butt to get my job and climb the ladder. Then pay higher taxes than...
...the guy who delivers pizza and then goes home and drinks a 12 pack. For life.
There ya go! Some thinking outside the box! A 50% across the board tax rate would have resulted in receipts of $3,022 billion in 2004, as against the $832 billion that were actually received. There's a lot you can do with an extra couple of trillion dollars. Of course, there might have been some really troubling side effects. We'll need to work on those. But for my money at least, you're on the right track. The imbalance that we have today on the private-public goods scale in this country is that we have too few public goods. Oh sure, anyone can point to excessively socialistic economies and see what an imbalance in the other direction can produce, but that hardly makes imbalance a one-way street. All of us would benefit from things like knowing we had a secure retirement to look forward to or that we had reliable health insurance that would be with us for as long as needed. The private sector has done little to provide us with either one of these. The private sector really doesn't care so much about what we want. It cares about making a profit. The public sector doesn't care so much about making a profit, but it does care about what we want. All economies are some mixture of the two, but we may have wandered off a bit too far in one direction...
Your theme song could be titled "Its all about me!" What ever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you , but rather what you can do for your country!" Some guy called JFK I believe!
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.
It's not like we go to 5-star restaurants every night, and only eat on silver platters. 
My parents worked extremely hard for their money (not in "ceremonial jobs", fyi), and do enjoy certain luxuries - but for the most part, they're pretty normal, just like most others in that tax-bracket. I get your points, and agree with some of them, but the stereotyping is kinda unfair IMO.
