Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
questionmark

`Joe the Plumber' Owes Back Taxes

218 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

questionmark
Then tell us what is moral, 2X? 8X?

Ask a preacher.... but GREED surely is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
no

Hence, the need for "middle man" to ensure that people in your situation are looked after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
no, Nor do I think you would send anyone 300,000 just out of the kindness of your heart better for the government to steal it from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Are you saying that 420-1 is fair?

I say if the guy earned it honestly then it is fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Ask a preacher.... but GREED surely is not.

But you wanting those who earn more than you do to not earn way too much, isn't that greed as well???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
Are you saying that 420-1 is fair?

Tell us sir how much of that 420 is payed out in property tax, house hold staff pay, insurance tax, other taxes that I can't think of, insurances that I can't think of.

We pay up to 80 percent in taxes now depending on where we live. This includes all taxes. Rich and poor. I think the bush tax cuts cut that too 75 percent. This includes local, state, federal, sales, property, and any that I missed.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
I say if the guy earned it honestly then it is fair.

The only honest way to establish a salary is the plus-value an employee generates for a company. Nobody can tell me that in any company one person "honestly" produces as much as 420 others. If that was the case those 420 should be fired, they are useless. But one can exploit those 420 giving them a lower salary to increases one's own.

That is called GREED.

ED: Typo

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
The only honest way to establish a salary is the plus-value an employee generates for a company. Nobody can tell me that in any company one person "honestly" produces as much as 420 others. If that was the case those 420 should be fired, they are useless. But one can exploit those 420 giving them a lower salary to increases owns own.

That is called GREED.

A ceo is hired by the company. If the company is willing to pay the ceo 420 to 1 then he is worth the 420 to that company.

Who are you to tell a company that they can't spend their money any way they want to.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
The only honest way to establish a salary is the plus-value an employee generates for a company. Nobody can tell me that in any company one person "honestly" produces as much as 420 others. If that was the case those 420 should be fired, they are useless. But one can exploit those 420 giving them a lower salary to increases one's own.

That is called GREED.

ED: Typo

So, 419 is not greed?

When is it not greed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HKCavalier
Small business owners don't make over $250.000 a year before taxes, big business owners are corporations who don't pay income taxes.

Who is left? Hollywood stars, starlets, CEO's of fortune 500 companies and speculators, besides Warren Buffet, who does not mind to pay the extra tax either.

And, no matter what they say now, whoever gets voted in will have to increase taxes or reduce the military in half to pay for Dubya's left-over mess.

Y'know, QM, I don't think they understand that a quarter of a million dollars is ton of money. Y'know, the only people's salaries we hear about regularly are these stars and starlets and CEO's and baseball players, etc. and they all make millions. I mean, if Harrison Ford made $250,000 from a movie we'd think he was washed up, wouldn't we? The government spends millions and billions and now trillions of dollars faster than you or I can use up a tank of gas. In that reality-free context a mere $250,000 sounds like pocket change. When they hear that 90% of folks in this country make less than that, if they think about what that means at all, they see every 10th person on the street getting a tax hike from Obama.

The other depressing fallacy I see them carrying around in their head is the sad, sad notion that effort = cash. Anyone who puts in the effort can make $250,000 a year. And corollary-wise, anyone who makes over $250,000 does so by the sweat of their brow. What this means, of course, is that if you ain't rich, you're lazy. You see where this takes us? All the many jobs--the vast majority of jobs out there, in fact--that don't make $250,000 a year are lazy people's work. Teachers, artisans, fishermen, chefs, firefighters, police officers, soldiers, most everyone--even plumbers!--are lazy losers and a burden on the rich!

The craziest thing I see here is these right wingers are extremely cynical folk--except when it comes to the sacred free market. Somehow, while there's corruption in every other area of life, their precious free market is a pure measure of value. So Britney Spears is a better person than you or I, 'cause she's found a way to make millions and you and I are part of the pathetic 90% of Americans. And of course, so are most of these right wingers. They all love the rich and experience themselves as underachievers and losers. When they talk about taxes on the rich benefiting the lazy and the failures, they're mostly talking about a group that includes themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
A ceo is hired by the company. If the company is willing to pay the ceo 420 to 1 then he is worth the 420 to that company.

See, that is what most people don't get, I don't want to pay taxes to get poor...I want to pay taxes to stay rich. If I the few rich have it all it is worthless... that is what caused the great depression in '29 where suddenly almost all were poor.

The reason they are paying CEOs 420 to one is not because that guy makes that kind of money for the company, nobody does that much... but because that is the going rate. At the same time the salaries of the middle class were shrinking in the same relation, because if you pay an indecent salary to one you have to reduce it from the others to stay profitable.

Now, who generate the biggest turn-over in a economy, those few CEOs or the middle class? Right... and that is why the real economy was shrinking and only artificially kept growing by running on credit.

Now people like you and some worse off have to bail out those driven by greed...that is the real story. And that is what you are advocating with your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
Tell us sir how much of that 420 is payed out in property tax, house hold staff pay, insurance tax, other taxes that I can't think of, insurances that I can't think of.

We pay up to 80 percent in taxes now depending on where we live. This includes all taxes. Rich and poor. I think the bush tax cuts cut that too 75 percent. This includes local, state, federal, sales, property, and any that I missed.

Actually, Daniel - The rich pay far less in percentages of their taxes than the poor. Warren Buffet, for example, pays much less than his secretary, or his cleaner - 17.7%, and he's not even trying to minimise his tax payments.

Which is pretty much the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
See, that is what most people don't get, I don't want to pay taxes to get poor...I want to pay taxes to stay rich. If I the few rich have it all it is worthless... that is what caused the great depression in '29 where suddenly almost all were poor.

The reason they are paying CEOs 420 to one is not because that guy makes that kind of money for the company, nobody does that much... but because that is the going rate. At the same time the salaries of the middle class were shrinking in the same relation, because if you pay an indecent salary to one you have to reduce it from the others to stay profitable.

Now, who generate the biggest turn-over in a economy, those few CEOs or the middle class? Right... and that is why the real economy was shrinking and only artificially kept growing by running on credit.

Now people like you and some worse off have to bail out those driven by greed...that is the real story. And that is what you are advocating with your opinion.

So you suggest a slary cap on CEO's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
So, 419 is not greed?

When is it not greed?

When they are worth what they make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Actually, Daniel - The rich pay far less in percentages of their taxes than the poor. Warren Buffet, for example, pays much less than his secretary, or his cleaner - 17.7%, and he's not even trying to minimise his tax payments.

Which is pretty much the point.

Yes, Warren Buffet use tax shelters, and what are tax shelters? Business expenses, money thrown back into the economy.

When they are worth what they make?

And who determines that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
And who determines that?

Who do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
Yes, Warren Buffet use tax shelters, and what are tax shelters? Business expenses, money thrown back into the economy.

No. He doesn't, Aroces. That's the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
No. He doesn't, Aroces. That's the point.

You suggesting then Warren had it all in his bank account??? :rolleyes:

I'm sure there are those who have done business and is doing business like myself who knows what I am talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Who do you think?

The one who pays them. So what is the hoopla all about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
You suggesting then Warren had it all in his bank account??? :rolleyes:

I'm sure there are those who have done business and is doing business like myself who knows what I am talking about.

What having money wherever has to do with paying taxes?...nice attempt at a diversion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
What having money wherever has to do with paying taxes?...nice attempt at a diversion.

Diversion??? Go ahead then lead me back in, what diversion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
You suggesting then Warren had it all in his bank account??? :rolleyes:

I'm sure there are those who have done business and is doing business like myself who knows what I am talking about.

Are you suggesting that he's a liar?

I've held directorships in over 10 companies. I know *exactly* how business is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Are you suggesting that he's a liar?

I've held directorships in over 10 companies. I know *exactly* how business is done.

If he is saying that his tax bracket is at 17% then he is certainly a liar!

But he said he ends up paying only 17% after the CPA did it's job, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
If he is saying that his tax bracket is at 17% then he is certainly a liar!

But he said he ends up paying only 17% after the CPA did it's job, right?

Because if you earn more than $200.000 a year there are so many loopholes in the tax law (most compliment of Republican Congresses) that you don't have to cheat, you just do what is legal and your tax bracket is lower than your maids. So much for fair taxation.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

From the article:

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.