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.
If i read this correctly, you're not in favor of taxing the rich out of principle? Then.....
you basically agree with me that, in principle, it's a good idea to tax the rich?
Just wondering.....
In principle, I don't think you should be taxed more because you do more or provide an expensive service that people are willing to pay for... but if you are earning income without doing anything, then I don't think that's right... man, the socialists are coming out all over the place to steal someone else's money (pathethic losers that they are)... I would tax the poor more if they sat around doing nothing but taking in government money... I wouldn't tax people more because they do more... the socialists don't care, if you have it, they want it... I suppose in their eyes, there is no such thing as success...
In principle, I don't think you should be taxed more because you do more or provide an expensive service that people are willing to pay for... but if you are earning income without doing anything, then I don't think that's right... man, the socialists are coming out all over the place to steal someone else's money (pathethic losers that they are)... I would tax the poor more if they sat around doing nothing but taking in government money... I wouldn't tax people more because they do more... the socialists don't care, if you have it, they want it... I suppose in their eyes, there is no such thing as success...
Do you think all rich people are employers/entrepreneurs?
It sounds as if you're saying, dont tax the personal income of people who through their own direct efforts create jobs. Is that right?
It's the loopholes that need to be closed down. The "rich" are taxed more and pay 98% of all the taxes on a yearly basis. In death, they get taxed another 55% on their estate. So they do get taxed, however its delayed till death.
the rich pay a higher tax percentage already than the rest of us
the rich create jobs with their income
take away their income and you take away middle to low income jobs
and finally, it's because we're not a communist nation the way Democrats want us to become.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCaliforniaBear
I was looking at another thread. Someone suggested that the very wealthy should be taxed more. Lots of people agreed, but a lot of people were against the idea.
Why would you possibly be against this idea? I doubt many people on this forum fall into the category of being very wealthy, so why should you be against the idea?
And if you ARE very wealthy, then you should pay up a little bit more money. Do not be greedy, if you care about America it seems as though you would not mind paying a little bit more of your riches to help the USA prosper.
The rich are ones who can afford it. Low income workers in America are simply unable to take on any more expenses. They are already stretched to the limits financially, and they are already paying quite a lot of taxes. Taxes must come from SOMEWHERE, the rich have gotten lots of new tax breaks over the past few decades. We must start taxing them more once again. Bring it back to where it was at around the 70s and 60s.
It's called propaganda, that's the reason so many American's have bought into the notion that in some twist of fate the rich are getting screwed and the poor are dinging them to death.
This is an old theme for the rich to get their payed for harpies to scream about on radio and BS TV. An example of the extrapolated version of screwees and screwers is the TV specials that show the worker scamming L&I for a back injury that really didn't debilitate him. Do we ever get to see the documentary that profiles the worker in the coal mines getting killed by careless and thoughtless bosses?
If you show one sided arguments often enough you will get the mindset you're looking for, today's ill educated populace is especially prone to the fast moving world of TV, with it's shallow treatment of news, and it's one sided reporting they don't need to show the balanced version, just the one that was payed for by big bizz.
If you noticed the slant toward "liberal" blame for all the US ills, you needn't look any further than the nightly news to get the latest reports of the "whipping" the rich are taking at the hands of the proletariat, those low payed scums that are always scamming on the poor business man. You know them, your neighbors and friend's, family and co-workers, they are the "problem", please donate to the "save the banker fund" by paying your lopsided share of dollar$$$$ in taxes this year.........
Incentive? let's get real about that myth, GM, Ford, and others are certainly not going away because they are "taxed out of existence" , they drove their own business' into the ground by making shoddy products, and unlike the Chinese shoddy products, they wanted top dollar for their junk. Any serious student of economics understands the reason for progressive taxes, it is central to the notion of fairness, after all, who gets to set the standards of wealth distribution? I'll give ya a hint, it aint the low men.
I guess we should be carefull who we tax, if we up the ante on the rich they'll just go to work in the coal mines like so many poor folks do everyday, If your thinking is running toward this scenario you could be in need of a good education.
It's the loopholes that need to be closed down. The "rich" are taxed more and pay 98% of all the taxes on a yearly basis. In death, they get taxed another 55% on their estate. So they do get taxed, however its delayed till death.
Where do you get 98%? The top 1% in 2007 paid 40%.
Beating the estate tax -- that's what tax advisory firms are for. Rich people have them, trust me.
And they remain "the rich", you notice. Their cruel tax burden never makes them them "the poor" or "the middle class".
...and this is what happens when the U.S. Government is overly dependent on a certain segment of the population for income tax revenue...
Income tax revenue dropped a whopping 44% while unemployment was only8.8% (2009 Q1). "6 million people lost jobs in the 12 months ended in April — and that means far fewer dollars from income taxes. Income tax revenue dropped 44% from a year ago." IRS tax revenue falls along with taxpayers' income - USATODAY.com
How can that be? Higher income earners pay a disproportionately high percentage of the income tax and they are among those who have either lost their jobs or have taken a pay cut. Simple math will tell you that rolling back tax cuts will do very, very little to even make a dent in that 44% income tax revenue drop, let alone even come close to starting to close the HUGE GAPING deficit gaps Obama has planned for us. Bush vs Obama Deficit - washingtonpost.com
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.
