Americans agree: The rich should pay higher

[Wookietim]

Do believe I gave the same answer before. Who would not choose to be rich over poor??? Not me!!!

The rich are greedy. They will find ways of making their money one way or the other. Have to keep one eye on the rich. And again, tax the rich attack the poor. Unemployment as it is is a curse. The rich if they make a million last year are set out to make a million this year. Greed is an ugly thing!!!

And all of that is in direct opposition to your first statement : "Americans are ignorant ... the rich already pay most of the taxes in america. When will us americans become wise enough to understand this. I understand that they are better off even after these taxes yet we cant push the envelope and force the rich to pay more. If we do then they will cut their costs by cutting jobs. This is a unwise decesion!!! There has to be a more wise solution to our problems. Force more taxes ... unemployment will rise and even more jobs will be sent to other countries."

After all, if they pay the slight increase in taxes that have been suggested they will not suddenly lose their fortunes, it will still be better to be rich than poor and the rich will still make gobs of money.

Therefore your argument against raising taxes on the rich (As quoted) means you are perfectly okay with the concept of Greed dictating our tax code.

The poor as I also have stated are on the governments nipple. They are lazy. We have to educate them better and get those who are on their feet to do things for themselves. This milk which comes from our taxpayers does nothing but hurt the taxpayer. Giving people more money for having more kids??? Are you kidding me???

Ahhh - so everyone that is poor is poor because they are lazy. Well, then, I guess that's the answer right? Insult anyone that is poor because they don't need social services to help them - they just need people to insult them. Right?

I will posit something here : You are not rich or in the top 1% of the wage earners in the country. So why are you so lazy if that is true?

[Guest]

I will posit something here : You are not rich or in the top 1% of the wage earners in the country. So why are you so lazy if that is true?

Br Cornelius

[Wookietim]

Br Cornelius

I have to laugh at Ignus... So far, his arguments go like this :

Taxes shouldn't be raised because then the rich will flee the country even though it's still better to be rich even with higher taxes than it is to be poor. But of course the reason why the rich would do this is Greed. Even though the only reason the poor are still poor is because they are too lazy to be greedy.

Seems to me that Ignus is all over the place in his argument here... He seems to have lost all connection with trying to make a coherent point and is just grabbing every possible right wing talking point he can think of.

[questionmark]

I have to laugh at Ignus... So far, his arguments go like this :

Taxes shouldn't be raised because then the rich will flee the country even though it's still better to be rich even with higher taxes than it is to be poor. But of course the reason why the rich would do this is Greed. Even though the only reason the poor are still poor is because they are too lazy to be greedy.

Seems to me that Ignus is all over the place in his argument here... He seems to have lost all connection with trying to make a coherent point and is just grabbing every possible right wing talking point he can think of.

It helps no American to leave the US if he/she earns over $70.000 a year (as I can report 1st hand) you still have to pay taxes on all over that amount to the good old US of A, besides being taxed in the country you reside in (unless it has a double taxation accord with the US, then you only pay the balance between what Uncle Sam got and what you would have had to pay in that country).

That one goes straight into the trash can.

[conspiracybeliever]

Yup ... as with those down the road who are payed half minimum wage I would have to agree with you on this one. However it is the greed as I stated before that is a problem.

Yet if they are here ... pay them what they deserve and tax them like they are true americans. We just cant continue to let the rich get away with robbery while our folks do not have jobs due to this. Cant understand how so many here do not get this common sense issue??? They send a lot of their money home to their families ... hell who can blame them??? I love my family, yet they are rich. What if a family is starving to death???

However they are continuing to rob us of our jobs. Even at minimum wage this is still a job and they are being payed 4 dollars an hour. They also work harder. Sick, sad and sorry this is!!!

Our economy??? It would be a trickle down effect. Without the cheaper labor the poor would get more. The rich would have to give "some" but would still be rich. Illegal immigrants are a pain!!!

Also still do not know how 8 people live in that 2 bedroom apartment!!! Yet I can guarantee it probably is better than sleeping in sand!!!

That is some place you live in! I mean with the skanky single mothers dropping babies to get more welfare and the illegals stealing your jobs and not paying taxes and sending the money out of the country to their families right down the road. Why don't you just move?

[Blizno]

Americans are ignorant ... the rich already pay most of the taxes in america. When will us americans become wise enough to understand this.

I understand that they are better off even after these taxes yet we cant push the envelope and force the rich to pay more. If we do then they will cut their costs by cutting jobs. This is a unwise decesion!!! There has to be a more wise solution to our problems. Force more taxes ... unemployment will rise and even more jobs will be sent to other countries.

Forrest Gump was right ... stupid is as stupid does.

The tax rate on the wealthy is at almost historical lows. It used to be much higher than it is now. The economy didn't suffer because of higher tax rates on the wealthy; that's a right-wing myth.

The amount of wealth in the hands of the top few is staggering. The super-wealthy are not suffering and do not need tax breaks. They are sucking vast wealth out of the US economy.

[Blizno]

1 corporations are individuals.

2 income to corporations are taxed twice, once for the corporation and once for the shareholder when they get their dividends.

or your blind to the reality of what is going on, but that is what those politicians in washington want you to be.

Corporations are not individuals. The far-right forcing of that obscene decision must be repealed. Individuals are people only, and certainly not corporations. Talk about corruption!

[questionmark]

Corporations are not individuals. The far-right forcing of that obscene decision must be repealed. Individuals are people only, and certainly not corporations. Talk about corruption!

Correct, How was that?

Corporation (noun)

Ingenious device to privatize the gains without privatizing the obligations?

[Blizno]

The top 1% of wage earners made 20% of the wealth in the U.S. in 2008... but they paid 38% of the taxes. The bottom 50%of the wage earners made 12.75% of the wealth, but paid less than 3% of the taxes. And now this bottom 50% (the majority of that 72% from the poll) which already basically pays no taxes wants "the rich" to pay their "fair share" of the taxes!? Really?? Exactly what is the "fair share?"

The wealth of USA has been concentrated more and more in the hands of the super-wealthy for decades. The disparity is shocking. I don't care about who pays how much tax. The super-wealthy are getting much too rich much too fast and the rest of us are barely holding steady. It's not because they're talented or brilliant. It's because US capitalism is under far too little control.

[BlindMessiah]

Yes, he did. Here's a nice video of him saying it: Link

*sigh* Perhaps you should watch your own video. He's saying pretty much the same thing as my quote. It's a metaphor he used several times. He doesn't say back of the bus a single time. You're lying. Please stop. You can disagree with me on increasing taxes on the rich and say that liberal, socialist, progressive, Marxist, baby eating atheists such as myself are ruining the country, but please quit lying.

[Blizno]

No, there is a need for reduced spending. We do not have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.

If we keep increasing taxes on "the rich" we're going to see a national situation that will mirror what is happening in California, Illinois, and New York. The "rich" got tired of getting more and more of their money taken away, and they began to leave. New York is almost at the point that even if you tax every resident at over 50%, it still will not be enough to cover the spending. At some point, "the rich" will leave, and then we really will be at a point where we can't pay back.

We need to cut spending. It's not going to be easy, it's not going to be popular, but it is the mature thing to do. We are now at a point that even if we go back to the Reagan Era taxes, we still won't be able to cover spending.

Are you including military spending in your calculation? If yes, I will partly agree with you. I very much disagree with the right-wing's obsession over cutting Medicare and Social Security. Many far-rights even want to cut early education funding! Then there was the nonsense over cutting funding to NPR. That level of funding was insignificant. The far-rights attacked NPR only because it wasn't far-right controlled like Fox News.

If we can look at money being spent and figure out how to make cuts that spread the pain reasonably, fine. My concern is that the Republican obsession with gutting social programs will devastate USA.

[Blizno]

make the cuts first and then we can talk higher taxes.

That is the single least reasonable thing I have ever heard anybody say regarding the economy.

"Do everything that I want first and then maybe we can talk about what you want."

[Blizno]

sorry corporations are legally individuals and taxed as such,

That legal designation is corrupt and wrong. It was forced upon us by the Right wing so that the vast wealth of corporations could join the vast wealth of the rich in paying for Republican officials.

[BlindMessiah]

That legal designation is corrupt and wrong. It was forced upon us by the Right wing so that the vast wealth of corporations could join the vast wealth of the rich in paying for Republican officials.

Ignoring the morality of the issue, he doesn't know what he's talking about. His claim is that corporations, because of that ruling, are subjected to a personal income tax. In reality, corporations pay a corporate income tax, and paid that before the Citizens United case.

[Harte]

Now, if you would rather be rich even with higher taxes than poor, why is it bad to raise taxes on the rich? That way we have the money to help the poor raise themselves up.

Actually, that's not true.

I mean, before Reagan, the highest marginal rate was, what, 75%? 78%?

I suppose poor people didn't go without in the 1980's?

Harte

[TFSM]

Actually, that's not true.

I mean, before Reagan, the highest marginal rate was, what, 75%? 78%?

I suppose poor people didn't go without in the 1980's?

Harte

Of course poor people still struggled, but the distribution of wealth was much less severe in the 80s than it is today and there were a lot fewer people living below the poverty line back then.

[TFSM]

Corporations are not individuals. The far-right forcing of that obscene decision must be repealed. Individuals are people only, and certainly not corporations. Talk about corruption!

This is exactly correct. The issue of corporate personhood is still highly debated. So far, Corporations has limited personhood, consisting mostly of the benefits of being an individual and very few of the drawbacks. It all lies in the issue of "limited liability". The owners (the decision making people) are not liable for the deeds of the company unless they do something significantly criminal, and even in those cases they are rarely personally prosecuted.

This would be like if you did some horrible act in the name of greed, but didn't get in trouble because technically your body did the act, but your brain made the decision and your brain has limited liability for the acts of your body.

[questionmark]

Actually, that's not true.

I mean, before Reagan, the highest marginal rate was, what, 75%? 78%?

I suppose poor people didn't go without in the 1980's?

Harte

While I agree that nobody should pay taxes like in Sweden getting governmental services like in Bangladesh, fact of the matter is that, with current tax laws, if you earn more than $300.000 and pay more than 15% net in taxes you should fire your accountant. Everybody earning $20.000 a year pays a higher portion of his salary.

0

[TFSM]

Everybody earning $20.000 a year pays a higher portion of his salary.

If you include sales and property taxes, you are absolutely correct.

There was a statistic that republicans clung to recently stating that somewhere around 45% of households paid no taxes. The fact that they omit is that a portion of that 45% were people making over $100,000 per year. Keep in mind that this only covers federal income taxes, which are only a part of taxes paid by individuals (along with state, local, property and sales taxes, which are all regressive)

This chart is from CNN Money

Edited April 29, 2011 by TFSM

[Wookietim]

If you include sales and property taxes, you are absolutely correct.

There was a statistic that republicans clung to recently stating that somewhere around 45% of households paid no taxes. The fact that they omit is that a portion of that 45% were people making over $100,000 per year. Keep in mind that this only covers federal income taxes, which are only a part of taxes paid by individuals (along with state, local, property and sales taxes, which are all regressive)

This chart is from CNN Money

I might also add that even in that 45% taxes are paid in the form of Sales taxes, gas taxes, etc...

[conspiracybeliever]

Of course poor people still struggled, but the distribution of wealth was much less severe in the 80s than it is today and there were a lot fewer people living below the poverty line back then.

This is true. In the late 70s and early 80s I had a job that paid minimum wage and I could live on that. I make more than double what minimum wage is in this state and I barely get by.

[Harte]

Of course poor people still struggled, but the distribution of wealth was much less severe in the 80s than it is today and there were a lot fewer people living below the poverty line back then.

Sorry, don't think so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

The poverty rate as a percentage has been remarkably stable over the last 40 years or so, hovering between 12 and 14%.

Of course, that's the U.S. in general and there are areas of the US where the rate is much higher (and much lower.)

Harte

[conspiracybeliever]

What about this note at the top of the page in your link?

Parts of this article (those related to the 2010 poverty definition reform) are outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information. (November 2010)

[Harte]

What about this note at the top of the page in your link?

Parts of this article (those related to the 2010 poverty definition reform) are outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information. (November 2010)

What about it?

We were talking about the 1980s.

The wiki site doesn't have data for the entire year of 2010. So, they want it updated.

Why don't you do so, if it concerns you so much?

Harte

[conspiracybeliever]

What about it?

We were talking about the 1980s.

The wiki site doesn't have data for the entire year of 2010. So, they want it updated.

Why don't you do so, if it concerns you so much?

Harte

Oh calm down!! I don't care what those numbers say. I think it's pretty obvious there is too much money at the top in this country. If something isn't done soon we'll be a third world country. That's where we're headed.