Tax The Wealthy More?

[FTJoe]

Great points Jkimbo...

To get rid of them would be more difficult than many would think. They truly are the puppets for and supported by the true elite of the country/world. They will not go down without a fight.

[Kragax]

Violence may not be the best option,....but it's still an option.

[Michelle]

Who paid more?

A poor man who gave 10% of his earnings or a rich man who gave 10% of his earnings?

10% to the poor man is a bigger loss then to a rich man. That does not even take in consideration the economic structure.

The rich man paid more. Simple math. 10% is still 10% whether we're talking hundreds or millions.

[Brian]

The gov needs to tighted it purse strings. While I would love to see a flat tax also, don't think it will happen. And if there was a flat tax I think it would go something like this...

Flat tax is 10%. Most everyone is happy with that. Oh, wait, gov needs more money... what to do. Ah, so now the flat tax is 10% if you make less than X dollars and then it goes to 20%. Then we're right back where we are now.

I don't think most "rich" poeple (don't know how you define rich) mind paying a little more. However, when is enough enough? How much is fiar? What about the state and local taxes, and sales taxes and all the other taxes/fees out there? How much is fair? 45%? 50%? More? That becomes the question.

[Uma]

Aren't taxes supposed to be a temporary fix to a temporary crisis? Aren't they supposed to be "voluntairy" as well? Aren't our taxes supposed to help educate our children and defend our country? Tell that to the schools with chain locked doors, and to the military with jammed up guns.

We need a revolution.

I vote BEERCITYVAPER for President!

[Jkimbo]

The rich man paid more. Simple math. 10% is still 10% whether we're talking hundreds or millions.

Not so simple math.

Your not factoring in cost of living. Losing millions to a billionaire is nothing. Losing $100 for a poor man can be devastating. Now what was that about simple math?

[Jkimbo]

Sorry, but I would rather error for the poor and middle class, those struggling to make ends meet. I have no sympathy for a millionaire feeling the pinch while he has to (gasp) sell one of his homes, or yachts. My sympathy goes to the families who lost their only home, who don't have enough money to buy their children school clothes this year because money is so tight. So when ever this topic comes up on forums I lmao. I mean really, wtf? I love the "it's not fair" argument. Life is not fair, then you die. I will not support any measure that eases the rich person's tax burden at the added expense of the more needy.

[Jeffb]

IRS data shows that in 2004, the richest 50% of the taxpayers paid 96.7% of all income taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the share paid by the richest half increased from 93.5% to 96.7%, and the share paid by the richest 1% increased from 25.75% to 36.89%. At the same time, the amount paid by the poorer half decreased from 6.5% in 1986 to 3.3% in 2004. While the poor's contribution was cut in half, the richest Americans saw their contribution increase by nearly 50%. When you get past the propaganda, for the last two decades the rich have been paying more and more while the poor have been paying less and less.

[Jkimbo]

Good

[FTJoe]

IRS data shows that in 2004, the richest 50% of the taxpayers paid 96.7% of all income taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the share paid by the richest half increased from 93.5% to 96.7%, and the share paid by the richest 1% increased from 25.75% to 36.89%. At the same time, the amount paid by the poorer half decreased from 6.5% in 1986 to 3.3% in 2004. While the poor's contribution was cut in half, the richest Americans saw their contribution increase by nearly 50%. When you get past the propaganda, for the last two decades the rich have been paying more and more while the poor have been paying less and less.

Propaganda? You left out one little point, according to the numbers I see, the top 50% pay 97% of the taxes in 2008 and they also made 87% of reported adjusted gross income. So boohoo they paid a little more than the lower 50%, but they also made a ton more than them as well. That's the point.

Yes - the time frames you start with is when Reagan undid the rates that were high. The propaganda is ignoring, right or wrong, the really high rates (91%) the rich were paying before hand and using the mid 80s as a starting point.

[Jeffb]

The title of this thread is "Tax the Wealthy More?" ... if the wealthy are paying over 96% of the tax burden then I say no, they should not be taxed more.

[FTJoe]

We wouldn't even have to discuss it if the state and federal governments had a shred of fiscal responsibility. There was nothing inherently wrong with the tax breaks that took place in the 80s other than the fact there was still a pretty big deficit. We actually went to a surplus near the end of the century for a few years, and my point is, we are on a path of true destruction. The bailouts, quantitative easing (second round coming up), the continued reckless spending and the federal budget will be a shambles. Much of it (IMO) has to be laid at the feet of the folks who believed greed is good. Get rid of those pesky rules that prevent wall street from making money out of nothing. Make the SEC a joke that does nothing because the argument goes, if you put another billion dollars in a hedge fund managers pocket, everybody wins. Most of those rule changes were coming from ex-goldman sachs people or those who were in bed with them. And they're still around making these "suggestions" to the governemnt. Larry Summers was Robert Rubin's boy, Geithner, Paulson recently, the list goes on. Funny thing is it seems the most amount of damage by these thieves occurs under the democratic watch (at least when a dem is president) though the bailouts started at the end of GWB's term. I really hated those, they would blow up a couple of companies, feed the remains to GS and JPM at a very nice price, then bail them all out. Too big to fail? Anytime someone says we live in a capitalist environment I shudder.

Ummm - what were we talking about? ;-)

[Schizophretard]

No tax at all is not possible. Do you mean switch to a use tax? Cause if you like your interstate highways, we have to pay for them somehow. Along with a standing army, the central government, whatever welfare is in place, etc? State taxes have to continue for infrastructure, unemployment, etc.

If you phrase it like they pay more just because they are successful that does sound horribly unfair. ;-) But I think the original idea was more like shifting SOME of the burden from those who would feel the pinch to those who are more comfortable with it. Would we really take people that are making money who are basically at or below the poverty line and say, "you still got to cough it up"? Make no mistake, it is forced welfare payments, but I always felt those levels were indicative of ability to pay and still live comfortably. Makes some more past 50K, pay a little more on that money as well.

Its how its been done but with the changes made recently in the last couple of decades, there has been a push to relieve the rich of that burden. The rich are becoming richer, the poor will become poorer. The deficit will balloon and the economy will tank. Increasing that burden back to where it was just a couple of decades ago will help tremendously. Unfortunately, with the current attitudes in Washington, even if we ever got back to a surplus, they'd piss it away n something stupid. Fiscally responsible is not something our crew in Washington is capable of.

The wiki has interesting pros and cons for a progressive tax.

http://en.wikipedia....Progressive_tax

No tax at all is very possible. Most transactions are not forced but are voluntary. I don't believe the rich or the poor should have the burden of their property being forced from them. I'm against the force but see nothing wrong with people voluntarily paying. You are correct. If you want things then you have to pay for them. If people really want the services provided by the government then they don't need to be forced to pay. People pay for what they want and don't pay for what they don't want. If all taxation became voluntary then do you think the government would collapse?

[Kragax]

Yes.

[Kragax]

I don't see the need for me to continue in this thred anymore as I really don't have anymore to say than this. Regardless of what your opinions are, the midterms are coming up. In my opinion, if you don't vote you don't have a right to ***** one way OR the other. Get out and vote.

[Michelle]

Not so simple math.

Your not factoring in cost of living. Losing millions to a billionaire is nothing. Losing $100 for a poor man can be devastating. Now what was that about simple math?

It's still simple math...if you make/have more money you pay more in taxes. I find it interesting how people think billionaires can lose millions and not care. When you break it down, though it's still more money overall, there is no difference if we are talking hundreds or millions. A loss is a loss and it's all equal to those paying the tax. Lose enough millions of your billions and you are left with millions, and so on.

The problem in these cases is nobody can seem to remove their compassion from the truth of the matter. While the poor man may be devastated and the rich man won't, it doesn't mean it's okay that the poor man pay nothing and the rich man pay more.

[Jkimbo]

pardon me if I have no sympathy for the rich :lmao:

[FTJoe]

No tax at all is very possible. Most transactions are not forced but are voluntary. I don't believe the rich or the poor should have the burden of their property being forced from them. I'm against the force but see nothing wrong with people voluntarily paying. You are correct. If you want things then you have to pay for them. If people really want the services provided by the government then they don't need to be forced to pay. People pay for what they want and don't pay for what they don't want. If all taxation became voluntary then do you think the government would collapse?

Well its still a tax, just a "use tax". Makes a lot of sense.

[FTJoe]

If you don't vote you don't have a right to ***** one way OR the other. Get out and vote.

I couldn't disagree more; what a hallmark sentiment, like every vote counts!!! First, I think since I pay taxes and am a citizen I have every right to b----. In fact, no matter who you voted for in the last election I think I have a right to make fun of you for voting as well!! ;-)

Are you really saying I have to choose the lessor of two blowhards to have a right to complain? I was just talking to someone last night who only votes republican no matter what. I mentioned that means if the candidate really doesn't even have to have a plan or stated policies? Yup. So what are you really voting for then, the basic tenets of the party's national committee? Weird. He actually was going to storm out when I said GWB was not only the stupidest president alive, but might just be the stupidest human alive. Okay, I meant to get a reaction with that, it quieted down after I said Ronny wasn't that bright either, difference was (IMO) Ronny put some pretty smart people around him, GWB had is poker buddy cronies, he let Cheney run that show. I thought Ronny was great, point of this was this person was convinced I was a bleeding heart liberal if I criticized GWB, its all or nothing to him!! Wife was cracking up I was being described as a liberal, she gets me.

[Schizophretard]

I don't see the need for me to continue in this thred anymore as I really don't have anymore to say than this. Regardless of what your opinions are, the midterms are coming up. In my opinion, if you don't vote you don't have a right to ***** one way OR the other. Get out and vote.

Will they be having "none of the above" on the ballots?

[Schizophretard]

Yes.

If it will collapse from voluntary taxation then most people must not want it's services.

[Schizophretard]

Well its still a tax, just a "use tax". Makes a lot of sense.

As long as the tax is voluntary and the government isn't a monopoly of force then I don't have a problem with it.

[Schizophretard]

Beginning with the FDA of course

Amen!

[Jkimbo]

I couldn't disagree more; what a hallmark sentiment, like every vote counts!!! First, I think since I pay taxes and am a citizen I have every right to b----. In fact, no matter who you voted for in the last election I think I have a right to make fun of you for voting as well!! ;-)

Are you really saying I have to choose the lessor of two blowhards to have a right to complain? I was just talking to someone last night who only votes republican no matter what. I mentioned that means if the candidate really doesn't even have to have a plan or stated policies? Yup. So what are you really voting for then, the basic tenets of the party's national committee? Weird. He actually was going to storm out when I said GWB was not only the stupidest president alive, but might just be the stupidest human alive. Okay, I meant to get a reaction with that, it quieted down after I said Ronny wasn't that bright either, difference was (IMO) Ronny put some pretty smart people around him, GWB had is poker buddy cronies, he let Cheney run that show. I thought Ronny was great, point of this was this person was convinced I was a bleeding heart liberal if I criticized GWB, its all or nothing to him!! Wife was cracking up I was being described as a liberal, she gets me.

I run in to similar situations. Conservatives call me a liberal, liberals call me a conservative, I call them both retards.

[Schizophretard]

I run in to similar situations. Conservatives call me a liberal, liberals call me a conservative, I call them both retards.

What do you call yourself?