RE: Let's Raise Taxes

RE: Let's Raise Taxes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:27:52 AM)
Stephann already said it, those cuts don't mean shit because they lead to deficits that must still be paid off. Anyone supporting them is basically a thief stealing from their children in the future. I see the BS fly and all I think is that people haven't learned the lesson well enough yet. They need another 4 years of this garbage. Maybe 8. Maybe 12. Maybe the whole country has to utterly tank before some people will see the light. Unless you are specifically favored by Republican policies, and in my view very few people are, then you have no business voting against your own interests. That just makes you a fool and dupe. The Republicans are the new tax (in the future) and spend party. It's just offensively stupid not to recognize that fact.

Estring -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:31:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver There is taxing the rich and there is asking the rich to pay their fair share to the health of society that allows them to accummulate wealth. America is a welfare state for the rich which is why America has more rich people and more poor people than other western states. What is the problem with expecting people who can afford it to contribute to a society that allows them to accummulate and enjoy their wealth? Interesting how a ward of a "nanny" state will comment on how much the rich should pay here in the US. The rich already pay the majority of the taxes in the US. The poor in the US do not pay taxes. And the rich contribute tons of job opportunities to this society. What do you contribute?

BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:32:42 AM)
If you redistributed the wealth tomorrow the rich would have it back within 5 years, why?Because we need to teach ,to empower the poor with the power of money,how to use it ,how to make it grow, to be able to hold it close and to learn even tho you can afford to spend for some thing, take a step back and ask your self do I really need it..I was taught the value of a dollar by my dear old Grannie and now while not filthy rich I can afford what we desire ,admitted our desires and wants are those of a simple country Master..Yes Clinton did leave the country in good shape but the bush's agenda was to rob the country to the benefit of the top of the food chain ie his cronies...bounty

Owner59 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:33:08 AM)
Could we all at least agree,that folks who earn a living from investments(ie stock brokers,money traders,etc)ie. "capital gains" should pay the same rate as those who earn wages? Could we at least agree that "capital gains" should be taxed at the same rate as regular income? If yes,say bub-bye to the "leave no millionair behind" tax cut law.

Archer -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:36:11 AM)
Funny the documented facts show they lead to LOWER per year deficits (Personally that's good but not good enough for me) As I have said several times it is the spending side of the equation that needs to be handled. Doesn't seem to matter which party of the two is in Congress both spend beyond a ballanced budget. How much beyond makes some difference but not enough to get us out of debt.

Archer -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:41:57 AM)
Nope because the jobs wage earners go to are paid for by the folks who deal with capital gains. A HUGE part of the tax cuts purpose was to stimulate job growth, job growth only happens when those evil rich bastards and corporations who make money through capital gains hire people. (see the title of the bill itself Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003) Wage earners don't create jobs, they create demand but the middleman is and always has been the wealthy willing to front the production costs and hire workers.

camille65 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:42:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Could we all at least agree,that folks who earn a living from investments(ie stock brokers,money traders,etc)ie. "capital gains" should pay the same rate as those who earn wages? Could we at least agree that "capital gains" should be taxed at the same rate as regular income? If yes,say bub-bye to the "leave no millionair behind" tax cut law. That is, quite literally what I live on. Interest from investments. It comes to a whopping 16 grand a year, out of that 11 grand goes to medication and 4 grand to property taxes.I still have to pay federal taxes on it. Not everyone living off investments is living large. Actually I have about 4 months before I sink lower than the Titanic.

BitaTruble -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:57:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 However U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2008 Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008 Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250 So just where are you drawing the middle class to claim there was no tax cut for the middle class? 1999 - I made $10.00 and paid $3.00 in taxes which left me $7.00 to spend. With that $7.00 I was able to buy 3 1/2 gallons of gas. 2008 - I made $10.00 and paid $2.00 in taxes which left me $8.00. However, the worth of my dollar in 2008 is only about 70% of the worth of my dollar in 1999, so, I really only have $5 in 2008 to spend. ($10 minus 30% minus the $2 in tax) With that $5 I get less than 2 gals of gas. Okay, so it's simple math but then, I'm a simple girl. Bottom line is how much bang are you getting for your buck? I'm getting much less bang now then I did in 1999. We don't need a tax cut, we just need more gang bangs. ::chuckles:: Celeste

luckydog1 -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:58:34 AM)
IF you have got the EITC, which doesn't include mostly millionaires, you got a tax cut under bush. If you have a home office you got a substantial tax cut under Bush. Under Clinton if you had a seperate room for just bussiness related work, you could write it off. Under Bush you could use it dual use, ie not be rich enough to have a seperate room in your home or Apt to get the cut. You can't make tax cuts permenant....They can always be changed later. Even if you did have a Constitutional amendment to create a constitutional tax code, it could later be amended via constitutional process. The thinking behind having a lower rate of tax on investments is that the investments create jobs and employ people (which is a social benefit)...and investments are risky, not always paying off, sometimes being wiped out. There is no FDIC guarding your investments. Or they are safe (which means putting in the bank) which ups the savings rate, which is a good thing and again a social benefit. Could they (Capital Gains) go up 1-2% as a war tax? I would not oppose that, as long as other non monetary measures were included to spur growth. There is a goose laying golden eggs involved, and killing it is not a good idea. However if it is crapping in the well, we need to do something. The reason for the good times in the Clinton years had far more to do with the massive recession in Latin America and Asia, than tax policies. The recession caused world investors to shift thier money into the USA (which was a short term boost) and caused demand for Gas to drop causing very low energy prices. Was Clinton purposely engineering economic collapse in Asia and Latin America? I have never heard anyone try to argue that before. Combined with the Dot com boom. Far more money was taken from the middle class by the stock boom, than in the current mortage crisis. The economy went well for about half of Clintons term, despite his tax policies. His last year and a half was economic freefall....Then 911 happened, which cost a lot of money....

Mercnbeth -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 11:59:56 AM)
quote: What is the problem with expecting people who can afford it to contribute to a society that allows them to accumulate and enjoy their wealth? MC, First off many, if not most, contribute to society. I see their biggest contribution in the creation of opportunity and jobs. Is their contribution discounted by the fact that they too benefit? The other side of that coin is that they are the ones risking the coin. I know of no company that started with a profit from its inception. Yet at the inception, people were hired and payroll was generated. Isn't that a "contribution"? The "problem" stems from expecting the 'rich' to pay the bill for worthless, counter productive, and failed entitlements. Another problem is most of the rich read and recognize that the request for more money mainly goes to waste and mismanagement, and has a expectation of perpetuity. Somehow every government program implemented as a 'temporary' always manages to evolve into an expected 'entitlement'. There has never been a government agency established that had a termination date. Why ask the "rich" to invest in failure? They became "rich" by avoiding such investment. The rich are a nice target, but the budget can be balanced and a surplus created much more efficiently by cuts rather than tax. Get rid of 100% of corporate welfare, legislate out the possibility of any Federal 'bail out' to corporations and individuals, end farm subsidiaries, return the troops from Iraq, eliminate a great number of worthless wasteful Federal bureaucracies starting with education; and the need for more taxes is gone. The reality is, this fight isn't over raising taxes. The fight is for increasing and/or expanding entitlements. That finger isn't being pointed to individuals. Corporate entitlements, foreign aid entitlements contribute equally.

KenDckey -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 12:05:05 PM)
Where did Owner go? NVM I found him

KenDckey -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 12:13:00 PM)
There you are I couldn't find you before. OK Lets tax capital gains. Let me see. A computer is a capital expense so when I give it to a charity then I should be taxed on the deduction I recieved because it is a gain to me. Then when I sell my house I should be taxed on that because I made a profit from when I bought it at $8,000 even tho I wanted to use the money to purchase a better one since the purchase price is also taxed I have to downgrade when I purchase. Then When I cash in my stocks and bonds I should be taxed because I invested money in the economy. Of coure they will take care of me by raising my taxes and putting me on welfare. Right?

meatcleaver -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 12:15:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: What is the problem with expecting people who can afford it to contribute to a society that allows them to accumulate and enjoy their wealth? MC, First off many, if not most, contribute to society. I see their biggest contribution in the creation of opportunity and jobs. Is their contribution discounted by the fact that they too benefit? The other side of that coin is that they are the ones risking the coin. I know of no company that started with a profit from its inception. Yet at the inception, people were hired and payroll was generated. Isn't that a "contribution"? The "problem" stems from expecting the 'rich' to pay the bill for worthless, counter productive, and failed entitlements. Another problem is most of the rich read and recognize that the request for more money mainly goes to waste and mismanagement, and has a expectation of perpetuity. Somehow every government program implemented as a 'temporary' always manages to evolve into an expected 'entitlement'. There has never been a government agency established that had a termination date. Why ask the "rich" to invest in failure? They became "rich" by avoiding such investment. The rich are a nice target, but the budget can be balanced and a surplus created much more efficiently by cuts rather than tax. Get rid of 100% of corporate welfare, legislate out the possibility of any Federal 'bail out' to corporations and individuals, end farm subsidiaries, return the troops from Iraq, eliminate a great number of worthless wasteful Federal bureaucracies starting with education; and the need for more taxes is gone. The reality is, this fight isn't over raising taxes. The fight is for increasing and/or expanding entitlements. That finger isn't being pointed to individuals. Corporate entitlements, foreign aid entitlements contribute equally. I work for myself (I'm not rich but do OK) and don't have a problem paying my tax. I have first class healthcare, first class public transport outside my door, first class education for my daughters and first class services, you know the sort everyone needs, waste disposal, sewage disposal. If the rich want to keep all their wealth they can trundle off to Brazil and live behind high electric fences, hire a few guards to keep themselve safe and enjoy their money while in the fear of being robbed or they can stay here in a healthy functional society and pay their dues. The choice is theirs. They could even go to America and pay less tax if they want. The problem is the rich want the best of both worlds, they want a functioning society they can enjoy their wealth in but they don't want to pay for it. Sorry, no deal.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 12:28:39 PM)
quote: If the rich want to keep all their wealth they can trundle off to Brazil and live behind high electric fences, hire a few guards to keep themselve safe and enjoy their money while in the fear of being robbed or they can stay here in a healthy functional society and pay their dues. The choice is theirs. They could even go to America and pay less tax if they want. The problem is the rich want the best of both worlds, they want a functioning society they can enjoy their wealth in but they don't want to pay for it. Sorry, no deal. MC, Don't see how what you said is a response to what I said. You believe there is no waste in government, no place to cut, no entitlement that deserves to be eliminated? But anyway... Why is their an expectation for "dues" be paid for success? How is wanting to live well off the work that generated success the "best of both worlds" to want to determine where and how that money is used? Where is it stated that they want to "keep all their wealth"? Do the research, currently the top 1% of income earners pay over 39% of all federal income tax. quote: the top 1 percent and the tax share paid by the top 1 percent have reached all-time highs. In 2005, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 21.2 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of AGI and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes. Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html What "deal" are you saying "no"? And why would anyone want to go off to Brazil?

LotusSong -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 12:34:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I don't think Bush made them temporary. I think it was congress that did that since Bush can't write his own and then sign it. But I agree that it was a mistake not to make it permanent. Ken, My understanding was that they removed the tax break for the higher incomes and kept the ones given to the middle and lower incomes as they are.

Archer -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 12:35:41 PM)
Rarely seen the wealthy say they don't want to pay any taxes, What I have seen is debate about just what is anyone's "FAIR SHARE" of the tax load. If I create a job it takes someone off the dole do I get a break on my taxes since I have removed some of the burden from the government as well as adding a net tax paying citizen to the roles? Problem is we can't come to anything near an agreement on what constitutes fair share.

meatcleaver -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 1:50:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Where is it stated that they want to "keep all their wealth"? Do the research, currently the top 1% of income earners pay over 39% of all federal income tax. quote: the top 1 percent and the tax share paid by the top 1 percent have reached all-time highs. In 2005, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 21.2 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of AGI and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes. Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html What "deal" are you saying "no"? And why would anyone want to go off to Brazil? That figure just shows what an unjust society America is (and Europe but not quite as bad) that some people are allowed (and yes, they are allowed to be rich) to be so wealthy while 40 million Americans can't afford healthcare and many have substandard housing and education. Just imagine, poverty could be wiped out in America if the rich paid a little more and they can afford it. http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html In the United States, the richest 1 percent of households owns 38 percent of all wealth Wolff: The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth. In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively. The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth. The reason the rich get such an easy ride is because people vote against their own interest because they have been brainwashed (mainly due to incessant propaganda paid for by the rich) into believing that rich people deserve to be rich. Most old money rich gained their wealth through extortion and exploitation, many new rich keep their wealth by buying politicians and so keep wealth distribution favourable to the rich. The idea that the wealthy are more deserving than the poor is perverse. Denmark and other Scandinavian countries aren't sinking without a trace because their wealthy have to pay their fair dues.

meatcleaver -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 2:04:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Rarely seen the wealthy say they don't want to pay any taxes, What I have seen is debate about just what is anyone's "FAIR SHARE" of the tax load. If I create a job it takes someone off the dole do I get a break on my taxes since I have removed some of the burden from the government as well as adding a net tax paying citizen to the roles? Problem is we can't come to anything near an agreement on what constitutes fair share. Of course no one can agree what constitutes fair because those who see it in their interest not to pay tax (which are the rich) will disagree with how much of the burden they should take. Edit: spelling

Archer -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 2:33:05 PM)
LOL and of course nobody else does this and slants things so that they benifit while others pay more. meatcleaver the class warfare stuff doesn't fly with me. Those evil rich (undetermined income level since nobody wants to put forth the break point.)of course they don't provide the jobs or anything of social value. How about those who are a net draw or net 0 in the system. What is their "fair share of the cost of government? Nobody thinks the other guy is paying their fair share and if they have to pay anything at all they complain top bottom middle income, they all believe the other guy should be paying more and they should be paying less.

meatcleaver -> RE: Let's Raise Taxes (3/14/2008 2:45:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer LOL and of course nobody else does this and slants things so that they benifit while others pay more. meatcleaver the class warfare stuff doesn't fly with me. Those evil rich (undetermined income level since nobody wants to put forth the break point.)of course they don't provide the jobs or anything of social value. How about those who are a net draw or net 0 in the system. What is their "fair share of the cost of government? Nobody thinks the other guy is paying their fair share and if they have to pay anything at all they complain top bottom middle income, they all believe the other guy should be paying more and they should be paying less. I'm not into class warfare (I'm self employed and doing alright for myself), classes exist because of the iniquities in society. You will find that in higher taxed, more social democratic societies (according to the OCED) there is more social mobility, better health, better education and less crime and as a result, less class divisions than in societies where financial benefits are weighted towards the rich, such as in countries like the USA and Britain.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

9.570313E-02