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 -
THE MATRIX

Americans agree: The rich should pay higher

338 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Br Cornelius
/

Free ride? The top 1% of wage earners already pay close to 40% of all taxes collected while the bottom 50% of wage earners paid less than 3%. Seems like "the poor" are getting the free ride.

It seems it is the corporations which are getting the free ride.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

It seems it is the corporations which are getting the free ride.

Br Cornelius

My gosh, this is an understatement.

The write offs alone. Wowza.

Fair and square legitimately, there are plenty of deductions.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

The answer to your question is that no the quarterback doesn't do it all himself and he is generally overpaid for what he does. He is part of a team, and because of his roll he deserves a bigger cut - but only by a reasonable margin.

What's a reasonable margin and who decides it is a reasonable margin and why do they get to decide?
Its about teams not stars - America has lost sight of that and is suffering as a consequence.
It's about living within your means, keeping what you earn, and reminding the government that the money I earn is not theirs to give to someone else.
As a Christian I would have thought you would have understood all this, or are you of the Calvanist flavour.
As a Christian I freely give to who I want or feel led to give.

Except right now that is not fair. The rich are directing the non-rich to fight for them rather than fighting on their own behalf. That is not fair.

Common sense, a sense of fairness, and an understanding that people who live on the dole will want more and more and will give their vote to anyone who will give them more is why I oppose this, no one is "directing" me.
And I will remind you - the fact that the govt is asking those that have benefited the most from the country to pay the most does not seem inherently unfair to me.
They already pay more than their fair share, how is it fair to take more of what they EARN away from them?
And the fact that the top 1% earners in the country hold onto almost 90% of the money does not seem at all out of whack to you? And then saying "Heck, let them have more - we can pay for that by taking things away from the rest of the people" doesn't seem even more out of whack?
Actually, the data shows they only make 20% of the wealth, and pay more than 23% of it in taxes, so they "hold" on to only 77% of what they EARN, while the bottom 50% hold on to 96% of what they make. That seems out of whack, it definitely is unfair.

Again - why is it that the rich expect to get perks in the form of tax cuts/credits and expect the middle class and poor to pay for it in the form of lowered social services?

They're already paying 40% of the total taxes collected.
And those top wage earners hold 90% of the wealth in the country. 1% of the country holds 90% of the wealth. That is unfair - asking them to pay for the privilege of being wildly more wealthy than every other person is not unfair.

Where do you get this because that is not at all what the data indicates. The top 1% earn 20% of the wealth and pay 40% of the total taxes collected at a tax rate of over 23%.

It seems it is the corporations which are getting the free ride.

Br Cornelius

No, the data clearly shows the bottom 50% are getting a free ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

It seems it is the corporations which are getting the free ride.

Br Cornelius

The funniest thing being that the solution to giving the top 1% cuts in taxes means that the bottom 99% pay for those cuts. What that translates into is handing the top 1% perks that are paid for by the bottom 99%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Common sense, a sense of fairness, and an understanding that people who live on the dole will want more and more and will give their vote to anyone who will give them more is why I oppose this, no one is "directing" me.

They already pay more than their fair share, how is it fair to take more of what they EARN away from them?

Actually, the data shows they only make 20% of the wealth, and pay more than 23% of it in taxes, so they "hold" on to only 77% of what they EARN, while the bottom 50% hold on to 96% of what they make. That seems out of whack, it definitely is unfair.

They're already paying 40% of the total taxes collected.

Where do you get this because that is not at all what the data indicates. The top 1% earn 20% of the wealth and pay 40% of the total taxes collected at a tax rate of over 23%.

No, the data clearly shows the bottom 50% are getting a free ride.

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"?

A person who has derived more from society deserves to support that society more than a person who has not. The rich have benefited from this country much more than the poor have. Therefore hurting the poor (By taking away services to pay for the tax cuts to the rich) is far from "Fair".

And they may be paying 40% of the taxes. They also have 90% of the wealth. So, sorry - that is not "Fair". If it was "Fair" they shoudl be paying 90% of the taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius
No, the data clearly shows the bottom 50% are getting a free ride.

So an economy which has left a substantial part of the population on or below the bread line now expects that they pay more taxes to cover the 1% of the population who earned their 90% cut of the wealth through the efforts of their now redundant labour force.

Nice equitable thinking there.

Lets let them starve - that'll make the 1% happy :devil:

And I don't think it should be the quarterback who decides how much he pays himself.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

or, they will stop earning money, ie shut their companies down.

Or move them again ... overseas. How many times has this happened in the past decade??? Why do many people not grasp this issue??? If you can earn twice the amount making sneakers in China as you would here ... why not move your company???

This is not biomechanical calculus folks!!! Sometimes common sense has the strongest key to the lock!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

Rich people don't create jobs. Businesses create jobs. Taxing individuals won't affect employment rates.

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!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Or move them again ... overseas. How many times has this happened in the past decade??? Why do many people not grasp this issue??? If you can earn twice the amount making sneakers in China as you would here ... why not move your company???

This is not biomechanical calculus folks!!! Sometimes common sense has the strongest key to the lock!!!

Yes yes - I keep hearing this. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

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"?

A person who has derived more from society deserves to support that society more than a person who has not. The rich have benefited from this country much more than the poor have. Therefore hurting the poor (By taking away services to pay for the tax cuts to the rich) is far from "Fair".

And they may be paying 40% of the taxes. They also have 90% of the wealth. So, sorry - that is not "Fair". If it was "Fair" they shoudl be paying 90% of the taxes.

The most exploited people in America tend to be poor. IMO

The problem is in the 'ignorance' they fight and support the ideas that keep them exploited.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Or move them again ... overseas. How many times has this happened in the past decade??? Why do many people not grasp this issue??? If you can earn twice the amount making sneakers in China as you would here ... why not move your company???

This is not biomechanical calculus folks!!! Sometimes common sense has the strongest key to the lock!!!

Unfortunately you have stated the fundamental flaw with capitalism, it has no loyalty and will chew up anything that comes in its way.

Just think your country will fail because capitalism decided that it was more profitable to work in China, how ironic.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

Yes yes - I keep hearing this. 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.

I support all of our presidents ... even the bad ones.

Yet this is not a president issue it is a tax payer issue.

Tax cuts do not cut greed. Never have and never will. My argument is plain and simple and is very, very valid and true. Greedy rich folks will do everything they can to make their money. Therefore how could a smart "greedy", "rich" person not take their company overseas or cut jobs if these greedy b******* feel they are being overly taxed???

I have "rich" in my family. I am well off, yet I am not my uncles, my aunt or my grandfather. Even though they are very good people they feel the need to make "more" money next year than this year. This upsets me, yet it is true. For example our cities mayor, Uncle Dale who owns two large hardware stores cut his own nephews job last year. That is hardcore!!!

Yet this is how those in the top one or two percent work. They are not living paycheck to paycheck, yet they simply want more and more. Is this a sickness??? It is if you lose your job!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

I support all of our presidents ... even the bad ones.

Yet this is not a president issue it is a tax payer issue.

Tax cuts do not cut greed. Never have and never will. My argument is plain and simple and is very, very valid and true. Greedy rich folks will do everything they can to make their money. Therefore how could a smart "greedy", "rich" person not take their company overseas or cut jobs if these greedy b******* feel they are being overly taxed???

I have "rich" in my family. I am well off, yet I am not my uncles, my aunt or my grandfather. Even though they are very good people they feel the need to make "more" money next year than this year. This upsets me, yet it is true. For example our cities mayor, Uncle Dale who owns two large hardware stores cut his own nephews job last year. That is hardcore!!!

Yet this is how those in the top one or two percent work. They are not living paycheck to paycheck, yet they simply want more and more. Is this a sickness??? It is if you lose your job!!!

You did not answer my questions. Tell me - were the top 1% earners in the country utterly destitute under the Clinton tax structure? Has the Bush tax cuts led to huge amounts of growth in employment?

Unless you can honestly answer "Yes" and "Yes" to those two questions, your argument in this respect is invalid. We are not talking presidents - we are talking about historical facts here. and the facts do not support the argument you and Daniel are making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

Unfortunately you have stated the fundamental flaw with capitalism, it has no loyalty and will chew up anything that comes in its way.

Just think your country will fail because capitalism decided that it was more profitable to work in China, how ironic.

Br Cornelius

Maybe this is only the third or fourth time ... :lol:

However I agree with you as this is a fundemental flaw with capitalism. GREED!!!

Like a lawn mower it chews everything in its path, even down to killing bunny rabbits.

We had a company here which employed over 100 folks move to China around 5 years ago ... and our county has suffered over 10 percent unemployment since. Very fine people worked there and worked hard. However greed once again stuck its lepers foot up the tails of our citizens.

Just a few simple rules and morales would change this ... I am sick and tired of the sick and tired in our county!!! Especially teaching and seeing children with torn, ripped clothes and shoes without soles on them. I spend around a thousand a year on my students ... what if I needed this money???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

You did not answer my questions. Tell me - were the top 1% earners in the country utterly destitute under the Clinton tax structure? Has the Bush tax cuts led to huge amounts of growth in employment?

Unless you can honestly answer "Yes" and "Yes" to those two questions, your argument in this respect is invalid. We are not talking presidents - we are talking about historical facts here. and the facts do not support the argument you and Daniel are making.

Not a presidential issue Wookietim. The top 1 percent earners were not hurting under Clinton, Bushes, Reagan ... they have always done fine. The issue is greed, not a president.

The issue with the tax cuts can be debated all day, week, month and year. What would these cuts have accomplished if there had never been 9/11 or Katrina??? Republicans will argue these two points until their eyes bleed.

Simply stating again if we tax the rich harder it will trickle down to affect the poor. Seems like the poor are always the first to be kicked!!! :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Not a presidential issue Wookietim. The top 1 percent earners were not hurting under Clinton, Bushes, Reagan ... they have always done fine. The issue is greed, not a president.

The issue with the tax cuts can be debated all day, week, month and year. What would these cuts have accomplished if there had never been 9/11 or Katrina??? Republicans will argue these two points until their eyes bleed.

Simply stating again if we tax the rich harder it will trickle down to affect the poor. Seems like the poor are always the first to be kicked!!! :hmm:

Again - as I flatly stated I was not making this a "presidential issue" and was asking two questions... Two questions you still seem unwilling or unable to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

Again - as I flatly stated I was not making this a "presidential issue" and was asking two questions... Two questions you still seem unwilling or unable to answer.

Sorry if you thought I misunderstood you about making it a presidential issue. I am simply trying to stay on topic and note why I do not believe the rich should pay higher taxes.

TAX THE RICH ATTACK THE POOR

This happens daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. Greed has a way of keeping "its" money and will do whatever it takes to keep it. If it costs the jobs of the poor they do not care ... if it means a whole company has to move to a poorer country then so be it. Our poor needs not to be harmed and also no I cannot answer you question as it would not ony be off topic but is invalid as it is an opinion issue with all the hell this country endured during the latter Bush years.

Again ... what would things have been like if Katrina, 9/11 and those stupid donked wars did not come to be???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Sorry if you thought I misunderstood you about making it a presidential issue. I am simply trying to stay on topic and note why I do not believe the rich should pay higher taxes.

TAX THE RICH ATTACK THE POOR

This happens daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. Greed has a way of keeping "its" money and will do whatever it takes to keep it. If it costs the jobs of the poor they do not care ... if it means a whole company has to move to a poorer country then so be it. Our poor needs not to be harmed and also no I cannot answer you question as it would not ony be off topic but is invalid as it is an opinion issue with all the hell this country endured during the latter Bush years.

Again ... what would things have been like if Katrina, 9/11 and those stupid donked wars did not come to be???

So, in other words you don't want to answer two simple yes or no questions... Could the be as much about the fact that you would have to admit that you and Daniel are wrong in your argument that if we increased taxes on the rich that the rich would (apparently) flee the country? Because I asked the questions in direct reference to your post - therefore it is not "off topic"...

Edited by Wookietim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

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

A person who has derived more from society deserves to support that society more than a person who has not. The rich have benefited from this country much more than the poor have. Therefore hurting the poor (By taking away services to pay for the tax cuts to the rich) is far from "Fair".

If anyone is deriving more from society it's the ones who are not paying any taxes and yet receiving "benefits" paid using the taxes of those who do.
And they may be paying 40% of the taxes. They also have 90% of the wealth. So, sorry - that is not "Fair". If it was "Fair" they shoudl be paying 90% of the taxes.

Where do you get that they have 90% of the wealth? You might be talking about the top 50%, who did earn 87% of the wealth, but DID pay 97.3% of the taxes. So, if that's your argument about fairness that those earning 90% of the wealth should pay 90% of the taxes then the current situation is STILL NOT FAIR, since they earned less than 90% of the wealth but paid almost 100% of the taxes.

So an economy which has left a substantial part of the population on or below the bread line now expects that they pay more taxes to cover the 1% of the population who earned their 90% cut of the wealth through the efforts of their now redundant labour force.

This is an absolute lie. The portion of the population which is at "bread line" levels is much smaller in the US than any other nation other than the Arab countries. Also the 1% did NOT earn 90% of the wealth, the top 50% did, and they paid almost 100% of the taxes. The bottom 47% paid no taxes at all.
Nice equitable thinking there.
Not equitable at all.
Lets let them starve - that'll make the 1% happy devil.gif
No, but they can pay their fair share of taxes, and they can stop living off the dole and off the back of the 53% who do actually work.
And I don't think it should be the quarterback who decides how much he pays himself.
It isn't. But you're avoiding the questions:

What's a reasonable margin?

A margin of what?

Who decides it is a reasonable margin?

Why do they get to decide?

What about Hollywood actors or performers? Can Barbra Streisand put together a concert by herself? Why does she make millions and the guy who sets up the wiring make a few thousand? How is that "equitable?"

So, in other words you don't want to answer two simple yes or no questions... Could the be as much about the fact that you would have to admit that you and Daniel are wrong in your argument that if we increased taxes on the rich that the rich would (apparently) flee the country? Because I asked the questions in direct reference to your post - therefore it is not "off topic"...

It's happening in New York, California, and Illinois people and businesses are leaving due to the high tax rates and people and businesses are moving to Texas because of the LOW tax rates.

Here's a very interesting interactive map which shows you what counties people are moving from and to. You will see the moves are out of high tax states to low tax states very obviously.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

So, in other words you don't want to answer two simple yes or no questions... Could the be as much about the fact that you would have to admit that you and Daniel are wrong in your argument that if we increased taxes on the rich that the rich would (apparently) flee the country? Because I asked the questions in direct reference to your post - therefore it is not "off topic"...

Not one for getting off topic. Plus no I do not want to answer those questions as it would cause a whole other debate. If you want or have the need to create a whole other topic I would gladly upon reason get into the debate. However Clinton, Bush, Bush and Obama have little to do with greed of the rich.

I have always protected the poor and it is a poor judgement to tax the rich more when they already pay most of our taxes. Where am I agreeing with Daniel??? Do not connect me with him when I "sorry Daniel" only agree with him on certain issues ... such as this. No more taxing the rich. No more taxing anyone. The middle class is the structure of our nation and is dying. Spend less ... spend more wisely. It is not that hard!!!

Also do you live in this country??? If you are you would see how many buisnesses and companies do flee the country for lesser tax rates and cheaper labor. This is the truth. Period, exclamation ... no question about this. I do read the papers and watch the news. How much proof do ya need??? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Not one for getting off topic. Plus no I do not want to answer those questions as it would cause a whole other debate. If you want or have the need to create a whole other topic I would gladly upon reason get into the debate. However Clinton, Bush, Bush and Obama have little to do with greed of the rich.

I have always protected the poor and it is a poor judgement to tax the rich more when they already pay most of our taxes. Where am I agreeing with Daniel??? Do not connect me with him when I "sorry Daniel" only agree with him on certain issues ... such as this. No more taxing the rich. No more taxing anyone. The middle class is the structure of our nation and is dying. Spend less ... spend more wisely. It is not that hard!!!

Also do you live in this country??? If you are you would see how many buisnesses and companies do flee the country for lesser tax rates and cheaper labor. This is the truth. Period, exclamation ... no question about this. I do read the papers and watch the news. How much proof do ya need??? ;)

I will quote the argument of yours I was responding to :

"Or move them again ... overseas. How many times has this happened in the past decade??? Why do many people not grasp this issue??? If you can earn twice the amount making sneakers in China as you would here ... why not move your company???

This is not biomechanical calculus folks!!! Sometimes common sense has the strongest key to the lock!!! "

My questions directly refute your argument you made, in this thread. Therefore, since (In your own estimation) you do not get off topic, and my questions responded to a post by yours, the answers to those questions are relevant to the topic.

Why is it you cannot answer questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

We cannot cut so much as to cripple our nation's future. We also need to be careful to not stunt our economic growth. We can't afford to fall back into recession.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Interesting. Why do you think it should be a sales tax?

Is that 38% a percentage of their income, or a percentage of the total tax collected?

that way the rich cant add their tax to the price, if they do they shot themselves in the foot,. the higher the price, the higher the tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

No. Corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals. They don't pay personal income taxes.

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignus Fatuus

I will quote the argument of yours I was responding to :

"Or move them again ... overseas. How many times has this happened in the past decade??? Why do many people not grasp this issue??? If you can earn twice the amount making sneakers in China as you would here ... why not move your company???

This is not biomechanical calculus folks!!! Sometimes common sense has the strongest key to the lock!!! "

My questions directly refute your argument you made, in this thread. Therefore, since (In your own estimation) you do not get off topic, and my questions responded to a post by yours, the answers to those questions are relevant to the topic.

Why is it you cannot answer questions?

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!!! :lol:

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.