Why Aren't The Rich Paying 50% in Taxes?

 
]http://www.youtube.com/v/1auo-HQk-Tk] (http://www.youtube.com/v/1auo-HQk-Tk[/FLASH)
 
 

It's hilarious that these uber-wealthy folks hire an army of tax experts to minimize their liabilities.

They can contribute all they want into the system, yet choose to pay as little as they can. 

I read that the 400 richest families in this country own a higher percentage of the wealth in this country than the bottom 50% combined.....we are on our way to being a country of the haves and have nots, with way more on the have not side of that see-saw....

Brilliant plan: penalize the exceptional earners for using a system that everyone is a part of. Should be a real motivator for us to earn more so it can be taken away.

A real plus!

Thanks Barry.

socialist prick.

It is difficult to get much simpler than a flat tax, a single flat rate that all taxpayers pay on their taxable income.

There are many benefits to a flat tax rate. Efficiency is probably the most compelling.  However, there are some very real, not so obvious, consequences to making such a dramatic change in our tax system. The first would be the almost complete dissolution of the IRS.

Then there are entire companies that are devoted to dealing with taxes. Additionally, we have tax attorneys. And I'm sure there are many others. All these people would lose their jobs with the stroke of the President's pen when he signed such a tax bill into law.

Basically, we suffer from something like "tax system inertia." It is a difficult and painful process to go from a complicated, wasteful tax system like the one we have now, to a quick, clean and efficient system overnight. It would be almost analogous to switching from an oil-based economy to a hydrogen based economy in the same amount of time.
 
Perhaps, the best answer is to ease into the system gradually.
 
America’s biggest fiscal challenge is excessive government spending.  But the corrupt and punitive internal revenue code is second on the list of fiscal problems.

There are two big hurdles that must be overcome to achieve tax reform. The first obstacle is that the class-warfare crowd wants the tax code to penalize success with high tax rates.

The second obstacle, which is more of an inside-the-beltway issue, is that the current tax system is very rewarding for the iron triangle of lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats (or maybe iron rectangle if we include the tax preparation industry).
 
A flat tax for these folks would be like kryptonite for Superman. But more than two dozen nations around the world have implemented a flat tax, so hope springs eternal.
 
This would change the tax system from a progressive to a proportional one. Along with changing the idea of different brackets, they would eliminate all loopholes and deductions in the tax code.
 
The American people want tax reform, but they don’t want more of their money going to Washington. And most Republican politicians have wisely pledged not to support legislation that increases the overall tax burden.
 
There is no doubt that a flat tax would make paying income tax much simpler, and that in itself will garner the idea a good deal of support.
 
 
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kRl2qJN6ToAA91XNyoA?ei=UTF-8&fr=ysp&p=flat+tax+pros+and+cons&rs=0&fr2=rs-top (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kRl2qJN6ToAA91XNyoA?ei=UTF-8&fr=ysp&p=flat+tax+pros+and+cons&rs=0&fr2=rs-top)

yeah, what a penalty!!  they only get to keep 605 grand out of a million after taxes instead of 650 grand.  how will they get by without that extra 4.5% the bush tax cuts provided (if you don't count the other tax cuts for the rick passed later by bush concerning capital gains, dividends earnings and estate taxes).....we are IN DEFICIT, BITCH.  if we raise revenues on the rich and close some huge tax breaks for hugely profitable businesses we don't have to fuck over seniors, poor kids and the sick.  get it?

Flat Tax, Flat tax, no deductions, no IRS .

a flat tax only works in the fevered minds of the delusional and retarded.  bush cut taxes for the rich by 4.5% and it costs about 70 billion dollars a year in revenue.  the rate right now is 35%.....tell me what flat tax rate you have in mind?  30% for everyone?  well, then take another 70 billion a year off the revenue from the rich, and add whatever more the middle class and working poor have to pay to get to 30%...is that what you want- make the rich pay less so everybody else can pay more?  and you call that fair?

Rich or poor, a flat tax is the most fair tax system, everyone pays the same. 15% percent is 15% whether rich or poor.

The Problem isn't with the rich, it with the not so rich that don't pay any taxes at all hodaddy you dumbfunkenassholepeckerhead.

a flat tax only works in the fevered minds of the delusional and retarded
 
 
(http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/obama-flat-tax.jpg?w=500&h=330)
 
 

you are an idiot, of course.  90% of the wealth is in the hands of about 5-10% of the people.  get it?  you could tax everybody at 100% that is not in that upper 10% and still only get a small percentage of the revenue you need to run this country.  you really don't seem to have a clue about how math works.

yeah, what a penalty!!  they only get to keep 605 grand out of a million after taxes instead of 650 grand
 
 
Hoser wants to let em keep about 50 grand. The rest goes for the chilllldrun.

April 7, 2011

Obama offered a detailed rationale for overhauling the tax code at a town hall appearance in Pennsylvania Wednesday. But it boiled down to this: The current code, he said, “is kind of screwy.”

That’s producing unfair results for many businesses as well as individuals, and also is harming U.S. competitiveness, he said.

Obama said he wants to “lower the rate for corporations, but eliminate a bunch of the loopholes so that everybody is paying the same and it’s fair.”

General Electric Co. came in attention recently after the New York Times reported that GE paid no federal income taxes in 2010. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, a top outside adviser to the White House,  has cited the company’s $32 billion in losses at GE Capital, and predicted GE’s tax rate will be “much higher” in 2011.

The current tax system also isn’t working very well for individuals, said Mr. Obama, who called for simplifying the individual tax rules in his State of the Union address.

“Ninety percent of you shouldn’t even have to probably file a return,” Mr. Obama said, resurrecting an idea from his 2008 campaign. “The way electronics works these days, you should be able to — with your W-2, it gets plugged in. It’s on a computer somewhere. Here’s your refund. You sign something electronically. It gets done…. It shouldn’t be some two-week ordeal.”

And it is difficult to get much simpler than a flat tax, a single flat rate that all taxpayers pay on their taxable income.

There are many benefits to a flat tax rate. Efficiency is probably the most compelling. More complicated tax systems require complicated algorithms and long lists of rules to follow. They don't cost money to fill out (unless you are doing them on-line), but they do cost time. They cost time to fill out and time to be processed. A flat-tax system would cut that time dramatically, and all those man-hours saved could be spent doing something far more productive.

It is a difficult and painful process to go from a complicated, wasteful tax system like the one we have now, to a quick, clean and efficient system overnight.

There’s actually much to like in the Administration’s potential plan. Lower tax rates will help the economy by improving incentives for productive behavior. And getting rid of distortions will further enhance growth since people no longer would have an incentive to make inefficient decisions just for tax purposes. And simplification could have a profound impact on cleaning up the horrible mess at the IRS (http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/new-video-exposes-nightmare-of-irs-complexity/). Moreover, a plan that trades lower tax rates for fewer tax distortions would be a welcome change from the poisonous soak-the-rich tax policy the White House has been pursuing (http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/can-we-trade-obama-for-castro/).

(more…) (http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2010/12/10/the-barack-obama-tax-reform-plan/#more-205633)

you are an idiot, of course.  90% of the wealth is in the hands of about 5-10% of the people.


Wealth isn't income. You ain't going to see a tax on wealth, because the Peeelosis, Rockefellers, Bushes, Clintons, Kerrys, et al, would have to shell out a lot of bucks. When one is worth 200 million, one could give two shits less about how much taxes they pay on their paltry little 180K income.

Obama offered a detailed rationale for overhauling the tax code at a town hall appearance in Pennsylvania Wednesday. But it boiled down to this: The current code, he said, “is kind of screwy.”


Yes, it is. Because the nanny state uses the tax code to reward some, and punish others. Social engineering by tax.

Just like liberals , they want to tax the ambitious to pay for the lazy liberals, ho daddy you are the stupid one, get your ass off that couch and get a job if you want more money.

I read that the 400 richest families in this country own a higher percentage of the wealth in this country than the bottom 50% combined.....

So why go after the upper-middle class making a couple million dollars or less when you should go after the uber wealthy?  Because the uber wealthy make the rules, that's why.

Before President Roosevelt’s New Deal, the federal government was just 3% of the economy. Today, it’s over 26%. And when you add in state and local governments, plus the cost of regulatory compliance, plus the cost of all the business that provides goods and services that support all the government agencies, it’s more than 50% of the U.S. economy.

The difference between socialism and communism is that a socialist society is only about economic monopolies, whereas a communist society is about economic and political monopolies.

Since the communist revolution in Cuba in 1959, the country has seen a progressive economic downturn. Without the influx of money from the Soviet Union to bolster its economy, it has seen class equality achieved - everyone in Cuba (except for the ruling class) is poor.

Keep in mind, this all started when Castro had his government seize the wealth and property of his country’s rich and wealthy, and took over the utilities and financial institutions.

Although socialism has long claimed to be for the poor, it has probably done more damage, on net balance, to the poor than to the rich. After all, the rich have enough money to leave the country if they think the socialists are going to do them any serious harm.

Remember - in socialism, there is no equality. There is the ruling class, and everyone else. As evidenced in other socialist countries, the ruling class (those who control the monopolies) get special perks and privileges others do not.

http://www.barackobamataxplan.com/obamas-wealth-redistribution/ (http://www.barackobamataxplan.com/obamas-wealth-redistribution/)

Good point...

We have a tax problem also, too many people don't pay taxes while others are burdened. i.e GE paid no taxes. Leroy Jones paid no taxes.

Until we have a flat tax the tax issues will never be resolved, Just ax this guy about loop holes
 
http://custom.yahoo.com/taxes/article-112485-2306a83f-c6fe-3fe5-af62-1d7e48c47870-most-tax-efficient-man-wsj (http://custom.yahoo.com/taxes/article-112485-2306a83f-c6fe-3fe5-af62-1d7e48c47870-most-tax-efficient-man-wsj)

honestly, anyone with common knowledge of tax law and taxing structure would know that anyone working or who owns a business knows that over 60% of income is given away in some form of tax.
 
even that cell phone has over 100 taxes attached to it by the time you start the service - which has (depending on where you activate it) 6 to 12 different service taxes attached to it.
 
I bet the rich (and anyone else) would be very happy to go to only 50% in taxes then dissolve all of the other fees & ad hoc taxes..
 
never ceases to amaze how the freebie state tries to lobby that the rich don't pay their fair share,
 
when treasoncrat lowlifes haven't even ever stepped up to the table to pay anything.

Why Aren't The Rich Paying 50% in Taxes?

 
And as was pointed out, no one is stopping those wonderful philanthropists from contributing more.  What's sad is that their message seems to have fallen on deaf ears, as only $124,000 has been contributed to retire the national debt this year...that won't even pay for one senator or rep to hit the road...
 
I agree, it's about propriety in spending...not revenues raised.

Alrighty so lets charge every wealthy person say $150,000.00 a year in taxes, not a big deal for the rich, they have no problems spending this kinda cash.
Whats the impact?
-Well it gives the irresponsible Gov millions more spend frivolously
-It WON'T reduce the debt, Pattern of behavior indicates, sorry PROVES BEYOND DOUBT, there is NO CORRELATION between what the gubmint collects in taxes and what they spend.

So they are GIVING the Gov millions of additonal tax revenue, whoopieee.
-MILLION that DO NOT go back into the economy and spur
-more jobs
-Keep people working
-help keep the economy working.

So do we spend that money on the economy or
-A bridge to nowhere
-an airport with no passengers
-cowboy poetry
-3 legged horny frog
??????

Until we have a flat tax the tax issues will never be resolved
 
 
I agree.

Until we have a flat tax the tax issues will never be resolved

 
I agree.
 
Ditto...

As was pointed out, a week ago, if we taxed the 'evil rich' at 100%...everything they make....what would be the impact?

So now for some painful truth that I'm sure will never grace the desk of one Bernie Sanders. But you can arm yourself with this information from the Amerian Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/why_we_cant_tax_ourselves_out.html) when your lib and prog friends claim that all we need to do is "tax the rich, tax the rich!"
 
The tax year of 2008 was the last to date that the IRS has done this kind of analysis. In 2008 the highest marginal tax rate of 35% applied to all AGI above $357,700.00. In that year the total amount of AGI subject to the highest rate was $622.8 Billion. The government collected in taxes $218.0 Billion (35%).
In 2011 the annual budget deficit will be nearly $1.665 trillion and in 2012: $1.1 trillion. If the Liberal Democrats in league with the Socialists, the Unions and the Communists, succeed in raising the highest marginal rate, how much more would Washington D.C. receive, assuming no change in behavior and a general eagerness to pay more?

If the highest rate of 35% were raised by a factor of 20% to 42%, then the additional tax revenue would be $43.5 Billion, not much of a dent in $1.665 trillion. So, let's raise the rate by a factor of 50% to 52.5%; the additional revenue would be $108.9 Billion. Still nowhere near enough, so let's just tax it at a rate of 100%, bringing in an additional $404.8 Billion. Unfortunately the country is still $1.26 trillion in the hole for the year.
 
But wealth envy is a lot easier a campaign platform to run on than facts and figures and the painful truth.

And yet, there are deniers, who can't see that it's the spending, stupid.

It all boils down to "it's easy spending other peoples money"

Yes...Margaret Thatcher had it right concerning the socialist spending....."Socialism is great until the other guy runs out of money."

MAKING THE WEALTHY WEALTHIER...WILL RUIN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
 
 
CONSERVATIVES AND REPULBICONS ARE SIMPLY AIDING IN THAT DESTRUCTION OF THE REAL VISION OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS FOR OUR NATION.  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

The only problem is, you haven't told us your definition of the word "works," hoosier.

Does works mean social engineering, wealth redistribution and equity for the masses?

Or does works mean stable environment for business, maximizing tax revenue, simplifying tax returns, and treating people equally?

If it is the former, then you are correct, it would not work to do that.

Ummmmm, hoosier, didn't you see the chart?  Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was fairly constant regardless of the tax rate.  So raising taxes on the rich will not have the effect you predict.
 
Your issue is not about revenue collection, but about class envy and class warfare.

When you buy a gallon of milk, do you pay according to how much money you earn, or do you pay a flat amount?  Does the rich guy behind you have to pay more for his gallon of milk, or the same?
 
You both receive the same product.  You both pay the same amount.
 
That is why the only "FAIR" tax is a HEAD tax.
 
Since it is not possible to have such a system, we will never have a "fair" income tax system in this country.

Why Aren't The Rich Paying 90% in Taxes?

Like they did under Eisenhower... 

So what?  How is that any of your business?


No, I don't.  The amount of wealth you own is irrelevant.


First of all, wealth is not the same as income.  A great number of the wealthy are retired and have modest income.  Second of all, if you taxed people at 100% nobody would earn income, and you would collect almost no income tax.


Seems you are a static thinker.  You think people will not duck when you swing your fist at their face.

Poor stooopid jock washer. He thinks the taxpayers of Wisconsin are the 'wealthy'. God, what a dumbass.

Maybe its because they buy stocks and bonds, invest in entrepreneurial ventures, lend money, etc etc.
 
Do you really thing the Uber rich just have all this money tucked under their mattress, buried in their back yard, stored in the personal vault?
 
There are two "Uber Rich" entities in this country.  The actual 1% or so thta are the Rich and the United States Government.   Both put money in you pocket.  One you have to work for, the other just takes what you worked for and gives it to other for doing nothing.
 
You figure out which is which.

It makes no sense to speak of a fair tax when there is no fair income. And the 90% of wealth controlled by a handful is everybody's business since everybody else are the ones who create that wealth that the handful hold. The wealthy are the ones leeching thanks to a system that has unfairness and inequality built right in to it, the capitalist system.
 
And class warfare? Please, the rich and their syncophants wrote the book on class warfare and nobody tells them to stop it, only the working class are denounced as "lazy" and having "envy" and wanting to fight class warfare. The powerful just hate it when their victims fight back, nothing pisses them off more than that. And they always blame the victim and often even try to portrary themselves as victims of the mean ole weak and downtrodden.

 
"Fair Income" is whatever people accept for their services.
 
 

No, that is not fair at all.

It depends on what you mean by "fair."  To most people "fair" does not mean "equal."  Fair means you get paid according to how much you produce and how much you provide to your fellow man.


FALSE.  Those who create the wealth are the holders of the wealth, unless they STOLE it, which is illegal.


How is that possible?  They have the money.  How can they leech from those who don't?


Yes.  That is what you are engaging in.  You are attacking people based on their wealth.  That is class warfare by definition.


How so?  How are they attacking people based on wealth?

Your arguments are nonsensical.

Flower said that everyone should receive the same income no matter how much they work.  Because everyone is equal.  There is no such thing as merit.  What you do in life is irrelevant.

To darkheart, a janitor and a brain surgeon deserve the same pay.

MAKING THE WEALTHY WEALTHIER...WILL RUIN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

I would say you are a cluelss moron, but you're just an IGNORANT CHILD
 
 
It makes no sense to speak of a fair tax when there is no fair income
It's an utter disgrace that you call yourself an AMERICAN, you're jealousy and pathetic stupidity are obvious in all your posts

Flower said that everyone should receive the same income no matter how much they work.  Because everyone is equal.  There is no such thing as merit.  What you do in life is irrelevant.
 
 
Truly Darks mentality is why be sucessful when you don't have to, It's easy to be a failure and it's truly pathetic to believe that being a failure IS successsful

The wealthy have been getting wealthier throughout our nation's history.

JW2 is correct.  We do not have a "democracy."  We have a REPUBLIC.  I'm heartened to see that he's finally figured it out.

When folks bring up the 90% tax rate of long ago, they neglect to mention the very generous deductions allowed.

To darkheart, a janitor and a brain surgeon deserve the same pay.
 
GREAT analogy...Let's hope she gets the janitor when she goes to the hospital

Reps think people who "invest" deserve all the wealth and think those who WORK for a living are the lazy ones. Go figure that.
 
And Dan, wealth is what money buys, not the money itself. And the things that money buys are made by labor and then stolen by those who have tons of money thanks to zero labor "investment" which can include not helping but actually screwing people over with financial deals that harm not help. All the game playing with hedge funds and derivatives sure as hell did not help the country, they precipated a credit collapse which has totally fucked the working class. Labor is the only thing that can produce a produce. Finance does nothing but syphon off labor for itself.
 
And fyi, the current system has squat to do with merit.

Marxism is a very attractive, but like heroine or meth amphetamine: it is habit forming and destructive. At first blush it sounds like the answer to all mankinds problems, until you realize people won't work like that. Where the following relationship is removed from an economy: more effort = more reward, workers eventually degenrate to the lowest output allowed for the reward determined for them. If you can't generate a higher reward by your own efforts, the next best thing is restricting your output to maximize rate for actaul work performed. Whether we do it consciously or not it still happens: it's human nature!

"GREAT analogy...Let's hope she gets the janitor when she goes to the hospital"
 
And let's hope you get the brain surgeon to do your cleaning, even though you might get sick since the brain surgeon knows nothing about it. Or how about a brain surgeon to fix your car brakes? Sound like a good idea? What an idiotic statement you made, big fat DUH that one person who does one job might not be good at a totally different job.

Capitalism is extremely destructive, and whether or not one system works or does not has nothing at all to do with the claim of who "deserves" or "earns" or not. They are totally seperate concepts and I am sick and tired of those who argue for capitalism stealing communist arguements (producers, fruits of their labors, etc) when those arguements do not apply at all, the capitalist arguement is utiltarean based NOT moral based. Communism and socialism are the ones that are moral based, being for labor is moral based, being for capital is utilitarean. Argue all you want for utilitarean, just don't go making moral statements for capital.

Reps think people who "invest" deserve all the wealth and think those who WORK for a living are the lazy ones. Go figure that.


Let me give you a clue, I am a Rep, I work, I also invest, NOBODY said those that work are the lazy ones, the lazy ones are those that are capable but unwilling, the really pathetic ones, like yourself, believe YOU DESERVE what I have worked and earned. Get your grubbly little hands out of my pocket bitch. If you haven't amounted to anything more that Gov cheese then I feel truly sorry for you. THis country OFFERS EVERYONE great opportunity you just have to have will and desire, sadly you possess neither

When folks bring up the 90% tax rate of long ago, they neglect to mention the very generous deductions allowed.

Or the lack of tens of thousands of other onerous taxes we now pay on everything we touch.

just say Tax cuts, and the rest of the world can go straight to shit .


to the rightwingwers those two words are like throwing a puppy a bone with a steak wraped around it.


why am I not amazed some piss poor republican making 30K a year would fight to the death and soak the deficit just so Bill Gates can get  5% knocked off his dividend earnings and Exxon can get a subsidy for making $12 billion dollars every quarter?

You you prefer working people not invest and save their money?  Would you prefer they blow all their money each pay period, without saving any of it?

Why don't those who save their money deserve to keep what they save?  When they save money, they make it available to others ... to buy homes, build businesses, etc.  Those are good things, aren't they?  So why shouldn't they be rewarded for making those good things happen?


Liar.  Nobody said working people are lazy.


What do those laborers then do with the money they receive?  They in turn buy other things, huh?  So you see, everyone uses money to buy things.  Not just the rich.


Liar.  They do not steal.  They buy.  You see they can do that when they have tons of money. ;)


And money is the evidence of that labor.  How do I know?  Because money can buy labor.

And let's hope you get the brain surgeon to do your cleaning, even though you might get sick since the brain surgeon knows nothing about it. Or how about a brain surgeon to fix your car brakes? Sound like a good idea? What an idiotic statement you made, big fat DUH that one person who does one job might not be good at a totally different job.

With your initiative and desire I wouldn't hire YOU TO DO MY CLEANING

Funny thing is, I work with a neuro surgey, guy can't even swap out his mouse, forgets his password monthly, but hey that's what he pays me six figures for, I don't do brain surgery and he doesn't fix puters, we're one hell of a team, He espects my abilties and I respect his,

Indeed.  You are the one who said that people should receive the same compensation regardless what they do for a living.

And let's hope you get the brain surgeon to do your cleaning, even though you might get sick since the brain surgeon knows nothing about it. Or how about a brain surgeon to fix your car brakes? Sound like a good idea? What an idiotic statement you made, big fat DUH that one person who does one job might not be good at a totally different job.

Why don't those janitors and car mechanics just go get jobs as brain surgeons, then?

I have a sneakin suspicion that a brain surgeon can learn to clean a toilet or fix some brakes, before those folks could operate on a brain. But that's just me. I'm no 'brain surgeon', like darkheart.

How many years of college loans are required to become a janitor? Mr. Goodwrench? Internet message board useful idiot?
(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/smileys/YahooIM/24.gif)
 

Actually, it does.  By definition, it provides to those who deserve and earn.

I am sick and tired of those who argue for capitalism stealing communist arguments (producers, fruits of their labors, etc) when those arguments do not apply at all[/quote]
Sure they do.  Capitalists get to keep the fruits of their labor.  Communists have to give the fruits of their labor to the government.


Capitalism is by definition inheirently moral, as it allows people to make their own choices, and provides for the most prosperity for everyone.


That is what they claim, but it couldn't be further from the truth.  It robs them of their humanity, it steals their labor, and holds them down in poverty.

Because you know that the wealthy are the ones who create jobs and provide jobs.
 
BTW, tax cuts do not soak the deficit ... SPENDING DOES!!!
 
Working Republicans do not support that.  Your information is incorrect.

Keno, you are no brain surgeon, you are just an elitist asshole. And your sneaking suspicion is wrong, as shown by another post on this board. Your guess that anybody with alot of money can do anything and that everyone else is just too stupid, gods what a boorish attitude, straight out of the middle ages. And talk about being an idiot, do you know what would happen if everybody became brain surgeons? A bunch of starving brain surgeons with dirty toliets and broken brakes, that is what would happen.

Darkflower, how do you earn your livelihood?

BTW, tax cuts do not soak the deficit ... SPENDING DOES!!!
 

 
lol
 
 
 

2/3 of Americans are all for a balanced budget amendment.  So why not do it?

Because when you say that we need to cut SS, the military, Medicaid/Medicare to balanc eour budget, 2/3 of Americans are against that!

Everone wants cuts, as long as they don't affect us.

Repocons have done a good job making tax cuts, sound like they don't cost anything.  A lovely oxymoronic statement, just like them! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/evil.gif)

You've got to be kidding.  It's you libs who pretend to be elitist.  You think you know better than everyone else, so you insist on telling people how to live their lives.  Keno and other capitalists think decision making should be left to the individual.  Individuals know what is best for themselves ... not the government.


Yes.  There would be an oversupply of brain surgeons.  The price of brain surgery would plummet.  The cost to fix a leaky faucet would skyrocket.  People would stop becoming brain surgeons, and start becoming plumbers.  They would do so voluntarily, without some government bureaucrat telling them.

 
If I hire two people to wash my car and one just stands there with the hose while the other does all the scrubbing, I'm going to pay the scrubber more than the hoser. If they made different arrangements between themselves then that's up to them to split the money whatever way they choose.
 
 

You find facts amusing, eh?

Working Republicans do not support that.   


Paul Ryan does... hes not speaking for working republicans? ... you better tell him that right away


Your information is incorrect.


wrong dumbass ... study up and get back with us when you know wtf youre yammerin about

 
You can take 100% of all income earned over $250k per year and stilll be adding over $1 trillion per year to the debt.
 
So what is your solution?

It's quite easy when it's the truth.
 
If I don't give you a dollar, does that cost you anything?  ;)

Evidence, please.
 
A tax deduction is not a subsidy.

Repocons have done a good job making tax cuts, sound like they don't cost anything.  A lovely oxymoronic statement, just like them

Not nearly as good a job as liberal morons who have been convinced that taxing the wealthy is going to  lower the debt, not nearly as good a job as the morons who have been convinced that taxing the rich will bring Gov spending under control. Not nearly as good a job as the morons who have been convinced that somebody else owes you for your failures in life. I do feel sorry for you pathetic fools tho

So what is your solution?

the same as its always been


let the tax cuts expire just like they were supposed to, when the economy regains a healthy momentum, restructure tax breaks for small business and middle income earners

Sounds like Whaler is the one who needs to do the studying up here.

Darkflower, how do you earn your livelihood?

If they paid money to be a class warfare useful idiot, she'd be a fun king millionaire.

You silly little muslim woman, you think I'm an elitist? LMAOROTF. I drive a 13 year old car, my wife and I together make around 60K, I have two kids in college, I like football, rock and roll, a big doobie every now and then, netflix movies. Yeah, I'm one elitist MFR, you moron.

You actually think that a person who has been trained to do delicate surgery on the human brain, couldn't be trained to change brakes on a car? To mop a floor? Are you serious? If so, you're even dumber than I thoughtr, and that was pretty dumb.

BTW, tax cuts do not soak the deficit ... SPENDING DOES!!!
 

 
lol

 
Is that the 'fiscal conservative', coming out in you, whaler?

I didn't see cutting spending anywhere in your answer.  How are you going to generate $1.5 trillion in additional revenues in the form of tax hikes to offset the deficit without cutting spending?

Re: Why Aren't The Rich Paying 50% in Taxes?  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=50178.msg417488#msg417488) « Reply #75 on: Today at 02:20:18 PM » (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Themes/Voicebbs/images/english/reply_sm2.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=50178.70;num_replies=78) So what is your solution? the same as its always been let the tax cuts expire just like they were supposed to, when the economy regains a healthy momentum, restructure tax breaks for small business and middle income earners

 
But, by all means, continue to increase spending. That's what 'fiscal conservatives' would do.
 
(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/smileys/YahooIM/24.gif)

Through fiscal year 2007, tax legislation enacted since 2001 has had a direct cost of $1.3 trillion, according to Joint Committee on Taxation and CBO estimates.  Another $900 billion in direct costs will be incurred by 2018, even if the tax cuts expire as scheduled (and excluding the cost of the recently enacted stimulus legislation).

Because these tax cuts were not paid for, they are also generating substantial increases in the national debt.  The additional debt now being built up will persist even if the tax cuts are allowed to expire on schedule.  As a consequence, the interest payments that must be made each year on the added debt will continue indefinitely, even if the tax cuts are not extended.

With these interest costs included, the cost of the already enacted tax cuts will be $3.9 trillion through 2018.  As noted, the cost of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and providing AMT relief will total $4.4 trillion through 2018.  Thus, the total cost will come to about $8.4 trillion for the period from 2001-2018; some $6.6 trillion of this cost will occur over the coming decade, 2009-2018

BTW, tax cuts do not soak the deficit ... SPENDING DOES!!!  ... well dumbass, IMO thats soaking the deficit


thats the fiscal conservative in me keno


whats your excuse pal?

Cut, cut cut, sounds great, until you actually try and do it.

Only way to cut is to convince America we are in crisis, then make some cuts everywhere.

Nothing is sacred, so everything gets cut.

Military, SS, Medicaid/Medicare, Veteran's disabilities, education, Headstart, Children's Health insurance, farm subsidies, etc...

At the same time, we need to increase taxes for everyone.

I disagree.  IMO SPENDING soaks the deficit.  Not receiving as much money as you thought you were going to does not ADD to the deficit.  You could have zero income and you won't have a deficit UNLESS YOU SPEND.
 
BTW, did you account for the additional economic growth generated from the tax cuts?

Why Aren't The Rich Paying 50% in Taxes?


Why Aren't 50% Paying Any Taxes at all?

Another $900 billion in direct costs will be incurred by 2018, even if the tax cuts expire as scheduled (and excluding the cost of the recently enacted stimulus legislation).


Meanwhile, we have budget deficits of over 1 trillion each year, (7trillion more by 2018, and I bet that isn't close to the real deficits) for as far as the eye can see. But this 900 billion will fix the problem.

What's your solution, pal?

skippy, are you proposing that the tax cuts for all income levels be eliminated?
 
That is what your post is talking about.

Cut, cut cut, sounds great, until you actually try and do it.



Oh, there will be HUGE cuts. Wait until Obozo is done wrecking the economy, and the money runs out. There will be no choice but to cut everything, to zero. But at least the misery will be shared, as it always is, in oppressive countries.

When China stops loaning to us, we won't have a choice but to cut spending.  Our hand will be forced.

What's your solution, pal?


how many people on this thread are going to ask me that? read through the thread, and try and keep up


nonetheless,

Im opposed the tax cuts from day one because we were SPENDING our asses off on some pissant third world puke country

Here's an easy solution.  How about stop spending our asses off?

how many people on this thread are going to ask me that? read through the thread, and try and keep up



Well, let me make it simple for you, Einstein.
 
How is an extra 900 billion by 2018, going to offset 7 trillion in budget deficits?

lol
 
 
how fucking simple minded are you keno, really?

how fucking simple minded are you keno, really?
 
Apparently not nearly as stupid as you. You been taking math classes from booshit?

Apparently not nearly as stupid as you. You been taking math classes from booshit?
 
 
 
the 8.4 trillion dollars through 2018 would erase 7$ billion and create a surplus
 
 
 
 

the 8.4 trillion dollars through 2018 would erase 7$ billion and create a surplus
\
 
 
LMAO. What 8.4 trillion dollars? Are they going to tax every worker and every business at 100%? WTF kind of dream world do you live in?

I'm really curious as to what the federal government would do if every working American suddenly decided to overspend and stop paying their bills (taxes)?
 
I have to balance my checkbook once a month, at least...and not spend more than I make, why isn't it that way for our leadership?

As noted, the cost of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and providing AMT relief will total $4.4 trillion through 2018.  Thus, the total cost will come to about $8.4 trillion for the period from 2001-2018; some $6.6 trillion of this cost will occur over the coming decade, 2009-2018



what part of that escapes your little brain?


but lets use your logic anyway, shall we?

sure we shall ... you quip

How is an extra 900 billion by 2018, going to offset 7 trillion in budget deficits?



how was the pissant 39 billion the republiturds fought for last week going to offset a 7 trillion dollar deficit?


math 101 ...

900 is greater than 39

I ask you again pal, how stupid are you really?

skippy is bull shitting.
 
He does not know the difference between the tax cuts for the "rich" (the tiny part) and the total tax cuts.
 
skippy's "solution" is to have the single largest tax increase in history.  And it still won't be enough to offset the spending so the debt will continue to increase.

First off, the 7 trillion in deficts is on top of the already 14 trillion we're already in debt for.
 
Secondly, if the debt continues to rise, through 2018, as it will, how are we paying off the debt?
 
Got a link to the numbers?
 
[FONT=]The data is contained on the following IRS [/FONT][FONT=]site[/FONT] (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html)[/URL][FONT=]: Section: Tax Generated; subsection; Tax rate and size of Adjusted Gross Income (2008): Table 3.5 (The table is [/FONT][FONT=]here[/FONT] (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/blog/08in35tr.xls)[/URL][FONT=]) [/FONT]


[FONT=]The tax year of 2008 was the last to date that the IRS has done this kind of analysis. In 2008 the highest marginal tax rate of 35% applied to all AGI above $357,700.00.   In that year the total amount of AGI subject to the highest rate was $622.8 Billion.  The government collected in taxes $218.0 Billion (35%).[/FONT]


[FONT=]In 2011 the annual budget deficit will be nearly $1,665.0 Billion and in 2012: $1,100.0 Billion.  If the Liberal Democrats in league with the Socialists, the Unions and the Communists, succeed in raising the highest marginal rate, how much more would Washington D.C. receive, assuming no change in behavior and a general eagerness to pay more?[/FONT]


[FONT=]If the highest rate of 35% were raised by a factor of 20% to 42%, then the additional tax revenue would be $43.5 Billion, not much of a dent in $1,665.0 Billion.  So, let's raise the rate by a factor of 50% to 52.5%; the additional revenue would be $108.9 Billion.  Still nowhere near enough, so let's just tax it at a rate of 100%, bringing in an additional $404.8 Billion.  Unfortunately the country is still $1,260.0 Billion in the hole for the year.[/FONT]
 
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/why_we_cant_tax_ourselves_out.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/why_we_cant_tax_ourselves_out.html)

how was the pissant 39 billion the republiturds fought for last week going to offset a 7 trillion dollar deficit?


 
Oh, it won't. It's a drop in the bucket. One that you and your commu...er, 'fiscal conservative' friends detest as being cruel.

He does not know the difference between the tax cuts for the "rich" (the tiny part) and the total tax cuts


sure I do, do you?



since I didnt say anything about "for the rich" what part of your ass did you pull that out of?


but Like keno, lets yse your logic as well..


the cost of the tax cuts for the top 2% is close to $700 billion ..


in your best beancounter lingo tell everyone why 700 billion is a greater number than 39 billion.

Oh, it won't. It's a drop in the bucket.
 
 
 
psst ... I know
 
 
 
One that you and your commu...er, 'fiscal conservative' friends detest as being cruel.
 
 
I never even mentioned cruel ... I claerly said STUPID, IE the holdup over PP cuts
 
 
easy to see why youre consused ... cruel and stupid rhyme.
 
 
 

 
I should have put this, from Bloomberg, in this thread.
 
 
Veronique de Rugy on Bloomberg Discusses The Truth About Spending Cuts

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL8mlqiD2TU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL8mlqiD2TU)

 

$700 billion over 10 years.  And the $39 billion was over 5 1/2 months.
 
Do I need to do the simple math for you?  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

700 billion without interest or penalties.
 
 
nonetheless, cutting 70 billion a year or 35 billion every 6 months for the next ten years is not acceptable to the newfound deficit hawks ...
 
fucking hypoctites plain and simple.

the cost of the tax cuts for the top 2% is close to $700 billion ..



According to whom? Over how long a period?

It certainly ain't in a year. I just posted what taxing them at 100% would bring in. 400 billion. Meanwhile, deficits are still 1.26 trillion higher, just this year alone. If it's 700 billion a year, it still means we're spending more than is coming in. What part of that don't you understand?

keep up keno or drop out

keep up keno or drop out
 
equals
 
whaler has no answer and is caught in his bullshit again.

Easy to propose cuts, when you are well off and living high on the hog.
 
Easy to propose making Americans suffer.
 
As part of any compromise, I think Repocons need a War Tax to pay for the Iraqi War.  We can have everyone pay for the Afghani War, and Liberals can pay for the Libyan War.
 
What could be more fair than that?
 
 

whaler has no answer and is caught in his bullshit again.
 
 
 
nonetheless, cutting 70 billion a year or 35 billion every 6 months for the next ten years is not acceptable to the newfound deficit hawks ...
 
fucking hypoctites plain and simple.
 
 
 
are you for the tax cuts keno?

Easy to propose cuts, when you are well off and living high on the hog.



Yeah, that's me. Super rich, not a care in the world. Phuck the poor.

You idiot.

nonetheless, cutting 70 billion a year or 35 billion every 6 months for the next ten years is not acceptable to the newfound deficit hawks ...
 
But it is to you?

fucking hypoctites plain and simple.

Yes you are.

 
are you for the tax cuts keno?
 
Yes, I'm for them. I'm also for spending cuts, or you can tax folks out of existence, and it STILL won't matter, so long as nanny funds every fun king thing coming down the pike.
 
Are you for trillion dollar bullet trains, that will run deficits each year, and save 30 minutes over a car ride?

What about a War Tax?
 
We ahve all benefitted from the War in afghanistan, so everyone helps pay for that.
 
Repocons pay for their war in Iraq.
 
Liberals pay for their war in Libya.
 
Independents get to ignore the last two. 
(This will only apply to TRUE independents.  Those who claim independent and vote Repocon or Liberal, will be suitably re-classified.)

Yes, I'm for them. I'm also for spending cuts, or you can tax folks out of existence, and it STILL won't matter, so long as nanny funds every fun king thing coming down the pike.


ahhhhhhh ... fucking hypocrite


Thanks for playing

What do you mean by that?  How would Americans suffer if they didn't receive government subsidies?

How would Americans suffer if they didn't receive government subsidies?
 
 
under Ryans budget they will recieve government subsidies

Really?  What page is that on?

Really?  What page is that on?
 
 
its on the page where the government provides subsidies for seniors to buy insurance
 
 
 
dumbass

Reducing our deficit requires cutting programs and raising tax revenues.  Ryan's plan call for (among other things) further tax cuts and converting Medicare to a private voucher program.  Any tax cuts should be paid for by closing tax loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations.  A Medicare voucher program is probably not a good idea.  Cutting Medicare payouts would be better achieved by improving the Medicare payment system (especially Part B payments to physicians, who make way too much money and often order unnecessary services for patients to increase their fee for service payments  e.g. unnecessary surgery etc.) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/afro.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/afro.gif)

Doctors order a multitude of tests to cover themselves against malpractice.  It's called "Defensive Medicine" due to the
  greedy personal injury lawyers chomping at the bit to sue anything and everything that exists anywhere near a patient!!
  The tort lawyers are completely in bed with the Dems to NOT clamp down on the lax oversight of the lawyers' abuses.
 
 

I like it.  That's actually a pretty good idea.
 
Why just the wealthy?  Why not close loopholes for everyone?  Are the lower classes getting tax cuts?  If so, why shouldn't their loopholes be closed too?

THE RICH GET MORE WELFARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAN ANY OTHER GROUP...THE RICH ARE THE BIGGEST FREE LOADERS IN THE WORLD.

John Stossel's documentary on fox is a must watch if you want to see who is robbing the tax payers blind.

how much money could you get from people that only make up about 10% of the income generated each year anyway?  and how would that affect the economy if they had even less chance of owning a home, buying a car, buying new clothes or new appliances?  are you people really this fucking stupid?

apparently, they are that fucking stupid.

10% of the collections.


It would make it grow.


They would have MORE chance.

I'm jumping in on this late, and I'm not going to scroll thru 13 pages, and I realy doubt anybody has brought this up.
 
Take the 3 people from the video. I realy doubt the Clintons want to pay more taxes so much as they want everybody else to, so they are parroting the Liberal agenda.
 
As for Steven King and Warren Buffet, those two have more money right now than they can spend in their lifetime. So 50% less from this point forward isn't much of a bite.
 
They live off accumulated wealth, not income.
 
Tell them we want to tax accumulated wealth at 50% and watch how fast they cange their tune.

the thread was more or less directed at individuals who do earn, although the Gates and Buffetts do come into play .. but taking the first as an example:
 
the ceo of a big corp makes $1 million a year .. he/she gets a tax break of about $120K
 
that individual wont quit his/her job and invest $120K to do a fresh upstart company in the business world, create jobs or do anything else that the so called trickle down theory indicates  ... $120 wont get the legal aspects of a startup covered much less get one off the ground and rolling .. tax breaks for millionaires creates jobs myth debunked.
 
what they will do is take the family or girlfriend to eurpoe on a nice vacation or slap the $ in their stock portfolio, and other than buy the everyday things their million dollar salary already buys, what eaxctly can they do with $120K ?
 
reinvest in themselves and make themselves more money ... nothing more, nothing less. 

National Sales Tax on everything anout 23-25% should do it, and when I say everything I mean everything, no one should have to pay taxes for the work he performs...the more you buy the more taxes you pay

That is not a subsidy.  That is returning to the seniors what they paid in. 
 
When you file an insurance claim, is the insurance company subsidizing you when they pay the claim?  No.  You are fetting the servie for which you paid, "dumbass".
 
 
 

That is exactly what Rep. Ryan is proposing.  Glad to see that you support his proposal.

the more you buy the more taxes you pay
 
and that crushes who?
 
the people making 40K with three kids who need everything all the time, mom and dad need a car, house food etc etc
 
or
 
the mega millionaire who can live on what they already have OR simply would never miss a damn dime if they spent $5K a day, every day?

Whaler,

The vacation creates jobs and helps the economy. Sales of stocks allow companies to purchase capital equipment and expand.

Secondly, I don't think you should presume to know what a millionaire does with his money. Most are charitable people, you didn't consider they might just give money away.

And that from the hypocrite that wants to raise taxes on EVERYBODY!!!!  Even the 50% of Americans that pay no income taxes.

The vacation creates jobs and helps the economy.

in Italy, France, the Bahamas?

how ?

Sales of stocks allow companies to purchase capital equipment and expand


thats why unemployment is 8% huh?

hint ... it allowed them to pay CEOs huge bonus plans rather than hire people

And that from the hypocrite that wants to raise taxes on EVERYBODY!!!!  Even the 50% of Americans that pay no income taxes
 
you have me confused with Paul Ryan
 
nice try though

Nope, that is what you said your "plan" was.
 
And hold on, I thought you said that Paul Ryan was proposing to CUT taxes.
 
Come on Sybil, which is it?

Those who choose to have sex and can't afford to raise children get no sympathy from me.  They made their choice.
 

With a consumption tax, everyone pays.  Everyone participates.  Even those who cease to earn income will pay.  When people have a stake in government, they tend to take a greater interest in how that money is spent.  Those who don't pay taxes don't care if money is wasted on planned parenthood and NPR.

indeed I said let the tax cuts sunset ... every damn one of them


And hold on, I thought you said that Paul Ryan was proposing to CUT taxes.


not on the middle class ... do keep up.

Those who choose to have sex and can't afford to raise children get no sympathy from me.  They made their choice
 
 
under the current tax code system ...NOT if the current system changes to a fla tax
 
 
poor denise, such a difficlut time keeping up .. you and tommie are twins from the same moron daddy aint cha?

I said you shouldn't presume to know how they spend their money. Now you presume to know where they vacation.
 
There's no hope.

 
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v478/Appy/halliaaa.jpg)

very good !
 
 
when did your wife take that pic of you?
 
 
obviously before she beat the shit out of you and made you go hide in the closet huh?
 
 
you appear larger than I imagined though ...

No arrows left in your quiver I see.
 
Not surprising however.
 
Flaccid as usual.

Yes.  Even then, Petunia.
 
Yeah, you do.

Whaler's even getting bad at his insults now.

 
 
 
It would eliminate the income tax. All taxes would be collected by retail businesses as they sell goods and services.
 

There would be no tax forms for citizens to fill out.
It would eliminate the need for the IRS. the Treasury could handle Tax revenues. It would be administered just like current state sales taxes.
 
i'ts the only way to go......n.s.t.

Why Aren't The Rich Paying 50% in Taxes?



Why are almost 50% not paying any taxes at all?

Why are almost 50% not paying any taxes at all?
 
 
That is the bottom line,and a flat tax of 10 to 15 percent would solve the problem.

You could not escape taxes with a NST