Americans agree: The rich should pay higher

[Wookietim]

With this you have not made one strong point on "why" to raise taxes on the rich when the greedy tards only increase the unemployment rate. This topic was never about presidents, yet that was your first debate and now you are trying reverse psychology as you are against the wall. Simple and clear ... greed is greed. Tax the rich, attack the poor. These are not my opinions, they are facts.

Why get off topic??? This topic is "americans agree the rich should pay higher". They already do pay higher and again if they are taxed higher that trickles down and takes the jobs of quite a few poor folks.

I have answered the questions. Why should the rich be taxed more??? They should not because for the last time Tax the rich and attack the poor. The rich do need to step back and mom and pop stores need to once again grow. Many of the poor need to get off the governments nipple and work harder.

So many issues at hand but one non debatable fact is that we just cannot keep taxing the rich when so many lazy 9 kids having mommies who refuse to work get more money for every child they have. Our government spends money like they are insane or even evil. No more donking taxes!!! If we give the government more money ... they will spend more money, like a spoiled brat child.

This is all common sense ... why are so many here acting like they do not have a lick of "cents"??? Oh yea ... tax the rich!!! That will solve everything!!!

1. You are right - this topic is not about presidents. Which is why I did not ask a question about the presidents but simply referred to the tax rates during specific time periods. Sounds to me like someone is going to great lengths to not have to answer a question.

2. You have not answered my questions. I asked two very specific questions. I have yet to receive an answer to either of them. All i have received is blather and stumbling and refusal to answer them.

Why is it you can't answer direct questions related to one of your posts? I'll tell you what common sense is at this point : Common sense is that someone doesn't want to answer questions and is making every possible attempt not to...

And, P.S. : This continued attempt to derail the questions by claiming they are either "About Presidents' (Which they are not) or they are "off topic" (And since they address one of your own posts directly they are not) tells me that you are simply tap dancing around having to admit you are wrong.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Wookietim

[BlindMessiah]

That looks like a shedload of different credits. Do people have to apply for those prior to filling in their tax returns, or do they do that at the time they make the return?

When we do the return.

[BlindMessiah]

then why does the irs have a corporation income tax form.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120.pdf

Because they pay corporate income taxes? I didn't say they don't pay income taxes. I said they don't pay personal income taxes, which they don't.

[BlindMessiah]

i didnt say anything about crippling. the proposal on the table is to return spending to 08 lvls.

Which proposal on the table? Most proposals are to make huge cuts in spending without increasing revenue. We need to slowly decrease spending and slowly increase taxes. If we simply make sudden huge spending cuts we'll stifle the economy.

[BlindMessiah]

Hmmmm???? How create a buisness if you are not wealthy enough to start that buisness???

Also who stated to tax individuals??? I just claimed that taking more taxes from the "greedy" "WILL" cause them to cut their losses by cutting jobs or worse. Period!!!

Most jobs aren't supplied by proprietors, and even less are supplied by a newly formed proprietorship.

Who stated to tax individuals? That's what this thread is about... increasing the personal income tax rate of the upper class. And I am telling you that personal income taxes doesn't affect job production.

[IamsSon]

Hey, Wook, you seem to have missed this reply, so I'm reposting it.

So - it's now common sense to hand out perks to people only because they are rich and to harm people who are not because that is "fair"? In what sense is that "Fair"?

Maybe you're having trouble seeing, so let me use larger font size

Top 1% earned 20% of the wealth, but paid 38% of the taxes at a rate of 23%

The bottom 50% earned 13% of the wealth, but paid only 3% of the taxes (and the bottom 47% did not pay ANY taxes) at a rate of 3%. Source

Obviously, the "fair" thing to do would be to have everyone pay taxes at more common rates. How is it fair to have some people pay no taxes, receive benefits paid for from the taxes of those who do pay taxes and then claim that those who pay the most taxes are getting off unfairly?

I would really like your explanation because I cannot make any sense of what you're saying

I really am interested in how you rationalize this.

[FurthurBB]

Maybe you're having trouble seeing, so let me use larger font size

Top 1% earned 20% of the wealth, but paid 38% of the taxes at a rate of 23%

The bottom 50% earned 13% of the wealth, but paid only 3% of the taxes (and the bottom 47% did not pay ANY taxes) at a rate of 3%. Source

Obviously, the "fair" thing to do would be to have everyone pay taxes at more common rates. How is it fair to have some people pay no taxes, receive benefits paid for from the taxes of those who do pay taxes and then claim that those who pay the most taxes are getting off unfairly?

I would really like your explanation because I cannot make any sense of what you're saying

Do you really believe someone in this country pays no taxes? I would really like to hear your explanation, because I thought most people stopped believing this around the 3rd grade.

[IamsSon]

Do you really believe someone in this country pays no taxes? I would really like to hear your explanation, because I thought most people stopped believing this around the 3rd grade.

We're talking income taxes. It was reported in the news: Link Link2 Link3

Hey, by 3rd grade you should have been able to read complete sentences, so you should be able to sound out the big words and actually READ, so you can be informed about things learned beyond the 3rd grade.

Edited April 26, 2011 by IamsSon

[FurthurBB]

We're talking income taxes. It was reported in the news: Link Link2 Link3

Hey, by 3rd grade you should have been able to read complete sentences, so you should be able to sound out the big words and actually READ, so you can be informed about things learned beyond the 3rd grade.

Well, it is one thing to have someone believe that you are juvenile it is another to start typing and absolutely prove it. Also, even if someone gets all their taxes back in a tax return, they have already provided the government with the money they use for benefits that are provided. So, again, this argument is not a very sound one.

[danielost]

Which proposal on the table? Most proposals are to make huge cuts in spending without increasing revenue. We need to slowly decrease spending and slowly increase taxes. If we simply make sudden huge spending cuts we'll stifle the economy.

ron pauls plan.

[IamsSon]

Well, it is one thing to have someone believe that you are juvenile it is another to start typing and absolutely prove it.

I'm glad you realized that. I was trying to make sure I stayed at your level, just to be sure; I figured it was the nice thing to do you know, so you wouldn't feel uncomfortable.

Also, even if someone gets all their taxes back in a tax return, they have already provided the government with the money they use for benefits that are provided.

OK, time to sound out the words again. Maybe take it a few words at a time, so you don't get lost. If they get their taxes back in a tax return, then that means the government didn't keep any of their money. So then obviously, they are receiving benefits paid for by the taxes of those who actually paid taxes, you know, the people who didn't get all their money back from the government.

So, again, this argument is not a very sound one.

It takes a little bit of thought, but I am really confident you can do it.

Really starting to regret that "3rd grade" remark, huh?

Edited April 26, 2011 by IamsSon

[cerberusxp]

Once again, an individuals income is separate from the corporation they own. They're separate entities.

Corporations are controlled by share holders, not CEOs. Shareholders aren't going to shut their company down because their CEO is paying more in taxes. The leaps in logic are absurd.

Where did they say they were going to raise taxes on rich individuals? All I have heard was to raise tax on $250,000 and up period. That would include my employer, and he has already been cutting back. Family small business grosses around $3,000,000 per year. Net? Around $340,000 Much of which has to go back into the business new trucks and equipment plus the costs added on for certain regulation etc. etc.. A new truck costs around $150,000 today, we run about 30 company and 12 owner operators. We have been running these trucks over and above the mileage that we used to because of cost already, and another tax hit just might close us down. Putting 65 people out of work. There are close to 300 thousand small companies like ours across the country with any where from 10 to 200 employees. So 300,000 times average 100 employees is another 30 million out of work in one whack. Not to mention other companies in other sectors of our country. The law only requires a corporation to have three people a CEO a treasurer and bookkeeper.

Edited April 26, 2011 by cerberusxp

[BlindMessiah]

Where did they say they were going to raise taxes on rich individuals?

The original post is about Americans agreeing that the rich should pay higher taxes. It was posited that this would lower employment. My post was a rebuttal to this claim. Your employer's personal finances are separate from the company he owns. Raising taxes on individuals won't affect employment.

[BlindMessiah]

ron pauls plan.

Ron Paul hasn't proposed a budget plan.

[IamsSon]

Where did they say they were going to raise taxes on rich individuals? All I have heard was to raise tax on $250,000 and up period. That would include my employer, and he has already been cutting back. Family small business grosses around $3,000,000 per year. Net? Around $340,000 Much of which has to go back into the business new trucks and equipment plus the costs added on for certain regulation etc. etc.. A new truck costs around $150,000 today, we run about 30 company and 12 owner operators. We have been running these trucks over and above the mileage that we used to because of cost already, and another tax hit just might close us down. Putting 65 people out of work. There are close to 300 thousand small companies like ours across the country with any where from 10 to 200 employees. So 300,000 times average 100 employees is another 30 million out of work in one whack. Not to mention other companies in other sectors of our country. The law only requires a corporation to have three people a CEO a treasurer and bookkeeper.

Great example.

The original post is about Americans agreeing that the rich should pay higher taxes. It was posited that this would lower employment. My post was a rebuttal to this claim. Your employer's personal finances are separate from the company he owns. Raising taxes on individuals won't affect employment.

LOL! Yeah, right.

[Ignus Fatuus]

1. You are right - this topic is not about presidents. Which is why I did not ask a question about the presidents but simply referred to the tax rates during specific time periods. Sounds to me like someone is going to great lengths to not have to answer a question.

2. You have not answered my questions. I asked two very specific questions. I have yet to receive an answer to either of them. All i have received is blather and stumbling and refusal to answer them.

Why is it you can't answer direct questions related to one of your posts? I'll tell you what common sense is at this point : Common sense is that someone doesn't want to answer questions and is making every possible attempt not to...

And, P.S. : This continued attempt to derail the questions by claiming they are either "About Presidents' (Which they are not) or they are "off topic" (And since they address one of your own posts directly they are not) tells me that you are simply tap dancing around having to admit you are wrong.

Woot" " kiem.

The only debate here again is americans believing the taxes should be raised on the rich. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not going to debate you about it as I have answered why they should have not. You getting angry with me??? Sorry yet I am sticking to that one point. Tax the rich ... attack the poor!!!

[Ignus Fatuus]

Do you really believe someone in this country pays no taxes? I would really like to hear your explanation, because I thought most people stopped believing this around the 3rd grade.

There are eleven illegal immigrants a half mile down the road scattered in a two bedroom house who pay no taxes. I do not know about his/hers explanation, yet it does happen.

[Wookietim]

Woot" " kiem.

The only debate here again is americans believing the taxes should be raised on the rich. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not going to debate you about it as I have answered why they should have not. You getting angry with me??? Sorry yet I am sticking to that one point. Tax the rich ... attack the poor!!!

And the argument against raising taxes on the rich you advanced was that if we do then the rich may take their money elsewhere. I countered that by asking you if, when the taxes actually were higher, if the rich were not rich or if employment had went up since we starting cutting their taxes - an entirely ion topic question to ask you. and you have spent every post since then trying not to answer the question - first you incorrectly tried to label it a "Question about presidents" then you tried to claim it was off topic then you tried to claim it was a "presidential" question again.

Scared to answer a question, aren't you?

[Wookietim]

There are eleven illegal immigrants a half mile down the road scattered in a two bedroom house who pay no taxes. I do not know about his/hers explanation, yet it does happen.

Hmmm... I thought that this was a discussion about the rich paying taxes and you hated to get off topic. But I guess Illegal immigrants are part of discussing the rich and their taxes now?

[danielost]

Ron Paul hasn't proposed a budget plan.

i may have the wrong rep. i seem to mix two of them up, but the plan that everyone is talking about.

[danielost]

There are eleven illegal immigrants a half mile down the road scattered in a two bedroom house who pay no taxes. I do not know about his/hers explanation, yet it does happen.

not really when they send their money home, they pay mexican taxes and then use ours for their health care and education. mexico wants that money because it is their largest industry

[cerberusxp]

Again where did they say they where going to raise individual tax on $250,000 and up? They are eliminating the mortgage interest right off which would be in actuality a tax hike on home buyers. This would not effect the rich as most rich already own or just buy a house out right without carrying a mortgage. Again wipe out the middle class, this is the goal. The Government just ripped off the American people to the tune of TRILLIONS and most of it went over seas and to the Uber rich like Soros. So go ahead and go along with wiping out the middle class. It is a spending problem not a revenue problem. We are borrowing money from China @ nearly $4 billion per day and giving billions in foreign aid with 0 return and you want to spend spend spend and tax tax tax? We have been down graded to a negative by Standard and Poors the dollar is about to lose it's status as the world reserve currency which in turn if that should happen we could tax everyone @ 100% and it would not be enough to even pay the interest we OWE. I figure this is going to happen on June 11-11 this will be considered DAY 1 no matter how you add it up 6 +1+1+1+1 = 10 drop the zero because it has no value 6+11+11= 28 2+8= 10 = DAY 1

[ninjadude]

Tell me, both of you - were the rich destitute during the Clinton years? Have the Bush era tax cuts caused huge growths in employment lately? Unless the answers are "Yes" and "Yes", that argument is invalid.

Wookietim, I think you're just going to have to answer it for them because plainly they either don't get it or don't want to answer. The answer is that the tax rate for the rich during the Clinton years and before that, were much higher than now because of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. The Bush tax cuts resulted in huge debt because much less revenue is being collected and the unemployment rate skyrocketed. The clear, very clear need is for the Bush tax cuts to "go" and for the tax rates for the rich to go back to at least what they were during Clinton. If they already understand this, then they just don't want the masses of people to understand how the rich have fleeced the nation and want to continue to do it.

[BlindMessiah]

Again where did they say they where going to raise individual tax on $250,000 and up? They are eliminating the mortgage interest right off which would be in actuality a tax hike on home buyers. This would not effect the rich as most rich already own or just buy a house out right without carrying a mortgage. Again wipe out the middle class, this is the goal. The Government just ripped off the American people to the tune of TRILLIONS and most of it went over seas and to the Uber rich like Soros. So go ahead and go along with wiping out the middle class. It is a spending problem not a revenue problem. We are borrowing money from China @ nearly $4 billion per day and giving billions in foreign aid with 0 return and you want to spend spend spend and tax tax tax? We have been down graded to a negative by Standard and Poors the dollar is about to lose it's status as the world reserve currency which in turn if that should happen we could tax everyone @ 100% and it would not be enough to even pay the interest we OWE. I figure this is going to happen on June 11-11 this will be considered DAY 1 no matter how you add it up 6 +1+1+1+1 = 10 drop the zero because it has no value 6+11+11= 28 2+8= 10 = DAY 1

Who is they? The idea being put forth in this thread is to raise upper class income tax. Standard and Poors is a joke. They're half to blame for our debt in the first place. Six plus what what? Is this some sort of numerology nonsense or what?

[cerberusxp]

Wookietim, I think you're just going to have to answer it for them because plainly they either don't get it or don't want to answer. The answer is that the tax rate for the rich during the Clinton years and before that, were much higher than now because of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. The Bush tax cuts resulted in huge debt because much less revenue is being collected and the unemployment rate skyrocketed. The clear, very clear need is for the Bush tax cuts to "go" and for the tax rates for the rich to go back to at least what they were during Clinton. If they already understand this, then they just don't want the masses of people to understand how the rich have fleeced the nation and want to continue to do it.

Do a fact check revenue after the Bush tax cut actually went up and more jobs were created. In the PRIVATE sector. It has been predominantly regulation coupled with taxation killing jobs. Over spending over regulation and Government WASTE is the main problem. Belgium right now has NO Government and they are doing OK. I say shrink the Government by at least 60% that would fix all of Americas problems.

What if all of us that produce wealth were to quit? Think about it do you produce wealth? If so do you produce enough for the Government to rake 20% 30% 40%? If I factor in all the tax I pay I am actually forking over nearly 40% of my income and I only gross about 30K I spend nearly 8K on living expense when I am away from home. That doesn't leave much to pay bills food at home, electric, water, sewer, satellite TV, internet phone and all of which has rising prices as we speak the hiher the price the more revenue goes to Government, GAS GAS GAS which carries a huge tax in it.

Who here is defending GE which actually received a few BILLION from the Government and paid no taxes. They just did it again by purchasing 1,000 volts from GM to get the tax credit and the green credit so again they will pay 0 taxes and receive money from tax payers like ME!!! You people don't seem to be seeing the SCAM. Against the middle class.

It doesn't matter how much you tax, if you have a Government that overwhelms it's private sector with burdens this is what you you get, exactly what is happening now. The simple TRUTH of it!

Edited April 26, 2011 by cerberusxp