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.
But, do you think that whatever amount Mitt pays influences his family's day-to-day living in a real, substantial way?
I don't. However, you take a family making 400k, or 300k, or 200k, or 100k and think about whether or not dropping their tax rate to 18% would help them in a substantial, day-to-day sort of way and the answer is likely YES.
Trust me. If I start making Romney money and I've got Romney bank, I'll be the first to be glad to pay my 18%. LOL.
As it is, I don't mind paying more in taxes than people less fortunate than me because I care about the whole of society and not just my wallet.
But, that's me.
And when a Mitt pays $7,000,000 in income tax in a year, the people selling class warfare tell those they hold down to get their votes, "He should pay his fair share!"
I don't pay $7,000,000 for anything, and I'm not jealous of Mitt, and I would not lie to poor folks merely curry votes and to advance my career in political games.
so there's no confusion, I'm not claiming that you're anti-rich, or we may somehow be on different sides here, Redzin. And I also believe that we could raise taxes on some folks and it wouldn't affect their behavior.
Further, I do believe that many instances of wealth in our society are being created just by avoiding taxes. Look at how many CEO's and "Wall Street-types" are paid in non-income fashion, purely so that they don't pay a 36%+ marginal rate. I think that's wrong. But I also think there are some instances where the money was "earned" once, it was taxed at that time, and the earnings generated off the "profit" shouldn't be taxed again and again.
I don't know where we draw the line. Is it "exclude up to $400K a year in gains"? More? Less? I just also know when we engage in class warfare that's really class envy. And that the top 1% is not as "rich" as some believe.
Nor is the top 5%.
I haven't seen the factoid since the Recession, but before that, it was state that we could confiscate every asset of the top 1% and it wouldn't pay 1 year's budget. Then what would we do? Wait for them to accumulate it again, and take it again?
And when a Mitt pays $7,000,000 in income tax in a year, the people selling class warfare tell those they hold down to get their votes, "He should pay his fair share!"
I don't pay $7,000,000 for anything, and I'm not jealous of Mitt, and I would not lie to poor folks merely curry votes and to advance my career in political games.
The huge income disparity is fairly new. While I don't think of myself as engaging in class warfare, when you have a fairly large and growing population of poor and a shrinking population of wealthy, continuing to become wealthier and wealthier, something is out of kilter.
That's third world country material, not America.
Instead of thinking how much the guy paid in taxes, we need to question a society that is compensating people that much more than an average Joe.
Well, to try to tie the two debates going on here: Yes, the cuts for teacher assistants are very troubling, and the cuts to driver's ed don't make any sense at all (those cuts screw people with modest incomes). But you also have to acknowledge that the Senate budget also provides funding for smaller class sizes. And increases teacher salaries. I'm not sure whether the parts add up to a good or bad whole, but you have to acknowledge the education changes aren't all in one direction, even if some seem clearly stupid.
As far as the "fair tax" proposals go, I have some sympathy for the idea of a national sales tax. Economists like consumption taxes, and liberals might like some of the effects, especially if it slowed down wasteful consumption. But the idea that it's a "23%" tax is a lie, since it's actually a 30% tax (the 23% number comes from saying that of every $100 spent, $23 goes to taxes--but in reality, you're buying something that's $77 and adding $23 of taxes, a 30% rate) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax). And even though it seems simple, the idea of a "prebate" (=check from the government every month, i.e., welfare) is not simple in the least--how that number is set is a huge political kidney stone. If basic necessities (food, clothing, medicine, a housing allowance, education, and child care) were exempted rather than covered with a monthly check, I'd be happier with that.
The point is, we are all usually quick to jump on what we don't like instead of taking time to understand the whole picture.
so there's no confusion, I'm not claiming that you're anti-rich, or we may somehow be on different sides here, Redzin. And I also believe that we could raise taxes on some folks and it wouldn't affect their behavior.
Further, I do believe that many instances of wealth in our society are being created just by avoiding taxes. Look at how many CEO's and "Wall Street-types" are paid in non-income fashion, purely so that they don't pay a 36%+ marginal rate. I think that's wrong. But I also think there are some instances where the money was "earned" once, it was taxed at that time, and the earnings generated off the "profit" shouldn't be taxed again and again.
I don't know where we draw the line. Is it "exclude up to $400K a year in gains"? More? Less? I just also know when we engage in class warfare that's really class envy. And that the top 1% is not as "rich" as some believe.
Nor is the top 5%.
I haven't seen the factoid since the Recession, but before that, it was state that we could confiscate every asset of the top 1% and it wouldn't pay 1 year's budget. Then what would we do? Wait for them to accumulate it again, and take it again?
Well, someone getting $400k in passive investments is, in my book, wealthier than the guy who has to hustle to make that $400k. They are in different leagues.
One has considerable assets, one might not have a dime to his name. But their income is the same.
I certainly agree, it's BS dividends are taxed as you've already put in after tax money (unless withdrawing from a retirement account). But a cap should be in place. This has the benefit of encouraging investment.
And when a Mitt pays $7,000,000 in income tax in a year, the people selling class warfare tell those they hold down to get their votes, "He should pay his fair share!"
I don't pay $7,000,000 for anything, and I'm not jealous of Mitt, and I would not lie to poor folks merely curry votes and to advance my career in political games.
Well, he should. If his "fair share" under our current system is being skirted by tax loopholes, those loopholes need closing.
I'm confident that closing them won't break his piggybank.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Well, he should. If his "fair share" under our current system is being skirted by tax loopholes, those loopholes need closing.
I'm confident that closing them won't break his piggybank.
Do you seriously not look for every 'loophole' or deduction that you can to lower your tax burden? Of course you do, we all do. But it is only wrong when the evil billionaire does it.
Also, he was double taxed for a huge chunk of his income. 35% corporate tax, then his income tax. But, I am sure you will say that I am a mindless sheep who is blindly supporting the rich because of fox news, and that I am doing so to my own detriment.
Do you seriously not look for every 'loophole' or deduction that you can to lower your tax burden? Of course you do, we all do. But it is only wrong when the evil billionaire does it.
We should distinguish looking for loopholes and creating them. Billionaires hire lobbyists; the ordinary taxpayer does not.
It was wheelsup that would call you a mindless sheep. Not Redzin.
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.
