Taxing The Rich Will Kill Jobs... BULLSHIT

the top 5% of taxpayers already pay about 60% of all income tax revenue, while half of American either pay nothing at all, or get money back that they didn't earn. That is a troubling trend... How can you complain when you are dependent on others for charity? And what is "rich"? Where is the line drawn? :2 cents:

That's EXTREMELY deceptive. They pay that much of INCOME tax, it's just to bad there are a lot more taxes people pay than that. When one adds what they pay in taxes per the money they make they don't really pay anymore than most people and very very often pay a lot less. That's why Warren Buffet can correctly claim he pays less taxes per dollar he makes than his secretary.

It's not like some rich guy goes to the store and buys and item and pays 5,000 percent the sales tax that any other person does because he makes 50 times more than the average person, they don't pay any more tax for gas, they don't pay as much on what they make on what they earn for things like social security, the tax rates on businesses are low, the tax rates on what people make from stocks is very low, they have more methods both shady and sadly legal to shelter themselves from taxes that normal people don't have often not paying taxes at all for all practical purposes. They can afford to same up money unlike people living paycheck to paycheck allowing them to shelter it in away from taxes in a manner most average people can't. Almost every tax people pay anymore is regressive and hurts poor people more, with the exception of income taxes which is almost often cited in a deceptive way by people that like to side with the rich for some reason.

As to where I draw the line where somebody is rich...I don't. That's why there should be a realistic ever increasingly higher tax burden the further one goes on the resources and wealth ladder. The more somebody can reasonably pay the more they should.




In any case in regards to people here that complain they shouldn't pay or more or even more laughable notion that they "deserve" it. Most rich people are rich because of luck more than any other factor. Either because of being born in the right place at the right time to the right people or having a fortuitous situation happen to them when they needed it. I could probably find thousands if not millions of people that work just as hard, are just as capable of learning, and have just as much talent, if not skill, that are a lot poorer though no fault of their own and through circumstances out of their control.

Furthermore, most of the rich have gotten rich off the exploitation of people poorer than them and the utilization of the society they live in, or at least they inherited from somebody that did, with very few exceptions. They got even richer by having access to politicians and practically being able to write the laws they wanted (like the tax code) to benefit them themselves, all while milking the society they came from, not to mention utilizing near de facto like slave conditions in other places in the world when the people here became to expensive for them to the detriment of almost everybody else.

So no, they don't deserve it. Still I could point to the fact they should give more because they are the most capable of doing so with it hurting them the least. It's part of the duty they have to society.

For example, if there was a war and our country was about the get invaded, we wouldn't draft old grandmas, and the sick to go fight the war, we would use young healthy men capable for fighting because THEY ARE THE MOST CAPABLE OF FULFILLING SOCIETY'S NEED AND DUTY FOR THEM WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF HARDSHIP. It's as simple as that in that regard. The way our society operates now in how it treats people economically is metaphorically the equivalent of sending the old women and handicap out to fight the battle of people trying to invade us.

Still, I can even argue that in times decades past when we taxes both the rich and corporations a lot more than we did now we were at our height economically. It was also the time of the growing middle class, economic stability, and our dominance in the world's economy. So to actually think that somehow now when taxes are lower than they have been in decades and we are falling apart economically, and the middle class is disappearing, and our society is falling apart that it will somehow hurt us if we tax the rich like we used to is utter nonsense.

Along with that we need to actually punish the elite and corporations that act selfishly. We need to get rid of the type of globalization we have now. We have to quite being afraid of the "socialist bogyman" just because of blind ideology that opposed to it that doesn’t make any sense. We need to realize their are businesses, like healthcare and medicine, for example that should never be treated like normal businesses and should probably be controlled by the government as a non-profit to keep cost low and ethical. We need to have those that most gained and most exploited the society they live in, not to mention other people societies and resources, pay more not only because it's their duty but because it's plain the right thing to do. We need laws that are tailored to benefit the most people in society and not be practically written by an elite few to benefit themselves at the expense of everybody else.
 
Its got nothing to do with being jealous & tax isn't a punishment.

Plus it's overly simplistic to surmise that rich people are rich because of "hard work and sacrifice". Its not always the case but adhering to that belief makes it easy to be dismissive of those at the lower end of the economic scale, because your logic implies that they are poor because they haven't worked hard or made sufficient sacrifices. . .

I could not have said it better myself. This idea that the rich became wealthy because of hard work is just bullshit from the GOP. It is typically the opposite. Most of the wealthy today come from old money. They generally never lifted a finger to gain their wealth. It was just passed down to them. But lets not forget how hard Bernie Madoff worked at stealing peoples money. So yes a couple actually work to steal their millions.

But lets use the logic that hard work makes you successful and rich. I guess all these poor and middle class tea partiers are just lazy bums. If they actually took the time to work hard they would be rich.
 
Taxing "the rich" will not necessarily kill jobs, but it seems to be the left's White Whale... if they can just do that, everything will be great. The reality is it won't raise that much more money, certainly not enough to make a dent in the bloated spending of Washington. And while it sounds great in theory, the top 5% of taxpayers already pay about 60% of all income tax revenue, while half of American either pay nothing at all, or get money back that they didn't earn. That is a troubling trend... How can you complain when you are dependent on others for charity? And what is "rich"? Where is the line drawn? :2 cents:

Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap. Your statement that half of America doesn't pay any taxes is false. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.
 
I could not have said it better myself. This idea that the rich became wealthy because of hard work is just bullshit from the GOP. It is typically the opposite. Most of the wealthy today come from old money.



:1orglaugh
 

SlamJack

Banned
Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap. Your statement that half of America doesn't pay any taxes is false. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.


I'm middle class. Not upper middle class. I worked my way through college. Took a crap job, worked hard at it and rose to middle management by middle age. Is it a movie success story? No, but I am proud of my accomplishments and I don't appreciate anyone telling me they did it for me. I'm thankful that I live in a country where I could get an education and a job.

I'm considered by the chart I read in the top 5%. I guess I'm surprised that the majority of the country is not earning more.

I have no idea why anyone else is in the situation they are in. I have no problem paying my fair share of the taxes, but what I'm reading is basically "fuck 'em, tax 'em till they puke."

There has to be a way to pay a fair share without demotivating people. Also, there is the concept of property.
 
:goodpost:

Wow.. my sentiments exactly. The tax code is BS in the US.. it's completely unfair for someone who makes $250k a year to be considered rich and taxed the same amount as someone who makes 250 Million a year. I also like the idea of a job being factored in to it.

The 'rich' are taxed at 36 pct. now. Letting expire the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 pct... would mean the top tax rate would go from 36 back to 39% like it was under Clinton..(when the debt was actually going down).

There was a time when the tax rate on the 'rich' was at 90 %....:2 percents:

BTW, you're near perfect..:drool2: That is all...
 
clearly the bush tax cuts have created a veritable plethora of jobs and at the same time fixed the debt issues this country is facing...oh and i think it's funny how they're called the bush tax cuts...he didn't pass them he just signed them into law, just like the tarp
 
clearly the bush tax cuts have created a veritable plethora of jobs and at the same time fixed the debt issues this country is facing...oh and i think it's funny how they're called the bush tax cuts...he didn't pass them he just signed them into law, just like the tarp

It was his policy...and his party members in congress agreed so they crafted the law/code at the direction of his policy makers.

Example, Bush didn't pay a single dime for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan congress did and Bush signed it.

According to your understanding, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are congress' just because they drew up the authorization Bush asked for.:nono:
 
to pretend the president is much more than a figurehead is just silly and congressional approval trumps the presidents wishes

'trumps'? Well, there is this thing called separation of powers to that there is a reason why congress passes bills but they're not law until the president signs them.

If anything, the part of the process where it's one man with the final say would seem to have the power....

It's the Bush tax cuts and the Obama stimulus for a reason....they were policies emanating from their policy makers..not congress.:2 cents:
 
the president isn't really a policy maker...more a policy listener :D with the power to veto the policy that gets passed (but really how many of those do they use...bush used 11 i think and obama has used 2 i believe), the presidents real power lies with his appointment powers...particularly when they get to do those supreme court ones
 
the president isn't really a policy maker...more a policy listener
:confused:Well who's idea was it to invade Iraq and Afghanistan?:1orglaugh
:D, and the presidents real power lies with his appointment powers...particularly when they get to do those supreme court ones

Really? Did you know a president doesn't appoint a single person even though they are called 'appointees'. The president nominates a person then the Senate confirms (or not) then the candidate is sworn in.

Point is, even with his so called 'appointees' it's still not something he has sole jurisdiction over.

The only choice the president has sole choice to decide is his VP.:2 cents:
 
so yet again congress gets the final vote :D

:1orglaugh ...So yet again, from who's mind springs the idea (of who gets voted on)?

Wasn't that the point you were arguing against??:o
 

Facetious

Moderated
:Face-palm:Raising taxes on the 'rich' isn't simplistically raising it on business. Everyone making over 250k...income isn't a business
So sorry, I forgot about the politicians:facepalm: Where did I say that all people earning over such and such an amount were businesses?
:confused::rolleyes:.
Even as such, businesses still operate within the general laws of demand elasticity. They will not just willy nilly pass on business costs to their customers if demand won't support the pricing increase.

..Business 101... if you raise income taxes on the wealthy, they either A) raise prices across the board on the goods and services they sell (as do their competitors - there goes your ''demand elasticity'') OR
B) They simply pack up shop and get the hell out of their business/ wealthy income hostile environment and relocate or offshore their operations... Now what the fuck are you gonna do, if businesses pack up (like many have already done in business hostile democrap party dominated California... a once promising destination for businesses :facepalm:) you've just increased the ranks of the unemployed and you also lost more of your tax base! Now what, megy, readjust your 250K down to 100k - 80k+ in order to meet the demands of the needy populace?

..Sorry, bad plan, trim govt overexpenditures instead, kick the habit! ...after all, the government does not create the wealth and prosperity req'd to pay down the costs of your social spending spree, the private sector does... that is, the ever dwindling private sector, thanks to the business hostile party of stubborn jackass(es). :p
 
^
If your hypothetical doom and gloom scenario were to happen (businesses leave Cali en masse or offshore operations out of U.S. or into "safety state") then all that is required is, what a surprise, changes to the tax code! Simply create massive taxes against those who offshore and sell inside Cali and offer tax breaks for big and small businesses who actually have physical being in Cali. There you go. Problem solved.

Another thing that Cali has to address, and you won't like it but it's true -- revoke Prop 13. That's been the real misery-maker in California. As someone who spouts a "free market ideal" I'm surprised you don't support revoking Prop 13 and letting a TRUE real estate market exist in Cali. Sure, some property taxes will increase, but it will weed out those who can't afford to own a home and bring in those who can and help those who can not pay $500k for a piece of shit shack somewhere....
 
As they have never been really taxed like they are more so in Europe one can not say. Try it and see if they really love there country or are in fact just milking it till it dies the death many of us can see coming.
 
Top