Unamerican, traitor's tax evading people

[tonymctones]

morals of how you were raised, told what is right and wrong, looking at a situation and seeing one guy in a company getting paid 300 - 500 x the amount of the normal employee working his ass off getting paid jack shit.  This argument is going in a circle, I do not begrudge them, they need to help pay their fair share in taxes so the working poor and going to be poor soon can find a way up the ladder in this economic catastrophe we are in now, and the rich don't want to help at all in the time they are needed the most.

you answered the question, without answering the question...YES i know you feel this is wrong but what in your moral beliefs makes you feel this way. Simply saying b/c i was raised this way isnt the cause...what moral beliefs make you feel they rich must take care of the poor?

what in your mind is their fair share?

the 1% paying oh 90% or so of all federal income tax collected isnt enough yet?

[JBGRAY]

We got a spending problem.  Closing a few tax loopholes and increasing tax rates isn't going to help balance the budget.  We're spending almost twice as much as we take in and a tax increase isn't going to come even close to closing the budget gap.

Re-prioritize the budget.  If you want to maintain almost one thousand overseas military installations, stop beating around the bush and just outright say we have an Empire to maintain.  Otherwise, close up shop and let the military personnel come home.

[tonymctones]

^^^
Agreed

I dont know if rep is arguing for that though seems like he is arguing more for redistribution of wealth. He doesnt sound like he wants the govt to pay down debt. He sounds like he wants the govt to take away from the 1% and give to the 45% b/c he feels its not "fair"

[reppingfor20]

^^^
Agreed

I dont know if rep is arguing for that though seems like he is arguing more for redistribution of wealth. He doesnt sound like he wants the govt to pay down debt. He sounds like he wants the govt to take away from the 1% and give to the 45% b/c he feels its not "fair"

True, the rich got rich in a good economy, now when the economy is bad the rich do not want to help the poor get to the place they are.  A tax rate of 45% would be good for people making over 1 million a year, and 40% for people making 250,000 and above is their fair share.  We would not have deficit problems if it were not for wars we need not be in for the past 10 years, and tax cuts.  If you cut taxes you cut revenue.  Simply as that.  We need more revenue to help with out situation and stop so much defense spending and the worthless wars.

Those making less than 30,000 a year individually, not household should not have to pay any income tax, but pay state tax and sales tax.  Helping people get up in the economy is good for the rich anyways, then the middle class can have money to buy their products and will make them even more rich, they seem not to understand that.  Soon most will be poor and not have enough money to buy many of their products and their sales will fall dramatically.

The moral question, it is just simple, ok I'll give you a comparison, if you see someone get knocked out, then the guy goes over and headstomps him, you know that is not right, it is just innate human characteristic, we know murder is not ok and stealing is bad, it is not hard to know the rich having all the money is not good either.

 

[bears]

We got a spending problem.  Closing a few tax loopholes and increasing tax rates isn't going to help balance the budget.  We're spending almost twice as much as we take in and a tax increase isn't going to come even close to closing the budget gap.

Re-prioritize the budget.  If you want to maintain almost one thousand overseas military installations, stop beating around the bush and just outright say we have an Empire to maintain.  Otherwise, close up shop and let the military personnel come home.

good post.  but the young liberal masses will simply not accept this as truth.  they simply do not want to hear this shit.  they want a scapegoat.  it speaks to their mantra of absolute and total denial of any personal responsibility.

[Soul Crusher]

True, the rich got rich in a good economy, now when the economy is bad the rich do not want to help the poor get to the place they are.  A tax rate of 45% would be good for people making over 1 million a year, and 40% for people making 250,000 and above is their fair share.  We would not have deficit problems if it were not for wars we need not be in for the past 10 years, and tax cuts.  If you cut taxes you cut revenue.  Simply as that.  We need more revenue to help with out situation and stop so much defense spending and the worthless wars.

Those making less than 30,000 a year individually, not household should not have to pay any income tax, but pay state tax and sales tax.  Helping people get up in the economy is good for the rich anyways, then the middle class can have money to buy their products and will make them even more rich, they seem not to understand that.  Soon most will be poor and not have enough money to buy many of their products and their sales will fall dramatically.

The moral question, it is just simple, ok I'll give you a comparison, if you see someone get knocked out, then the guy goes over and headstomps him, you know that is not right, it is just innate human characteristic, we know murder is not ok and stealing is bad, it is not hard to know the rich having all the money is not good either.

 

He idiot - in many states they are already over 50% when state taxes and property taxes are factored in.   

[bears]

True, the rich got rich in a good economy, now when the economy is bad the rich do not want to help the poor get to the place they are.  A tax rate of 45% would be good for people making over 1 million a year, and 40% for people making 250,000 and above is their fair share.  We would not have deficit problems if it were not for wars we need not be in for the past 10 years, and tax cuts.  If you cut taxes you cut revenue.  Simply as that.  We need more revenue to help with out situation and stop so much defense spending and the worthless wars.

Those making less than 30,000 a year individually, not household should not have to pay any income tax, but pay state tax and sales tax.  Helping people get up in the economy is good for the rich anyways, then the middle class can have money to buy their products and will make them even more rich, they seem not to understand that.  Soon most will be poor and not have enough money to buy many of their products and their sales will fall dramatically.

The moral question, it is just simple, ok I'll give you a comparison, if you see someone get knocked out, then the guy goes over and headstomps him, you know that is not right, it is just innate human characteristic, we know murder is not ok and stealing is bad, it is not hard to know the rich having all the money is not good either.

 

ZERO knowledge of tax policy and economics.  that statement is simply wrong.  i know that it makes sense to you and you WANT it to be right.  but it's just flat out wrong

[reppingfor20]

He idiot - in many states they are already over 50% when state taxes and property taxes are factored in.   

we were having a intelligent discussion, we were talking about federal income taxes, not state or sales tax or property tax.

ZERO knowledge of tax policy and economics.  that statement is simply wrong.  i know that it makes sense to you and you WANT it to be right.  but it's just flat out wrong

Of course because the old argument by republicans is if you raise taxes, rich people will all the sudden stop working to make more money, not true, it is a old lie that is repeated.  In Clinton years this did not happen, etc etc, the rich always want to get richer no matter what the tax rate is, it's called greed.

[howardroark]

Of course because the old argument by republicans is if you raise taxes, rich people will all the sudden stop working to make more money, not true, it is a old lie that is repeated.  In Clinton years this did not happen, etc etc, the rich always want to get richer no matter what the tax rate is, it's called greed.

Two things that throw a wrench in your analysis:

(1) Government spending as a percent of GDP was less during the Clinton years than during the Bush years.

(2) The economy benefited from a secular tech boom that had nothing to do with Clinton.

[howardroark]

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."

[...]

Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase.

[...]

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

[...]

The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases.

[howardroark]

Hmmmm....

Federal spending as a percent of GDP fell during the Clinton era, and we had a balanced budget and an economic boom:


While federal spending as a percent of GDP rose during the Bush II era, and we had budget deficits and economic stagnation:

[reppingfor20]

Hmmmm....

Federal spending as a percent of GDP fell during the Clinton era, and we had a balanced budget and an economic boom:


While federal spending as a percent of GDP rose during the Bush II era, and we had budget deficits and economic stagnation:

you will do anything to discredit high taxes on the rich, let's take the time after the great depression.  The rich did very well, and still made tons of money while taxes where at record highs.  No matter what the tax bracket is for the rich, they will still get richer and richer, they will still try and earn more money because they are controlled by greed.

[howardroark]

you will do anything to discredit high taxes on the rich, let's take the time after the great depression.  The rich did very well, and still made tons of money while taxes where at record highs.  No matter what the tax bracket is for the rich, they will still get richer and richer, they will still try and earn more money because they are controlled by greed.

lol, of course the rich will try to get richer! in fact, everyone tries to get richer! that doesn't mean that taxes don't place a damper on that! do you think people will work just as hard when there's a 99% tax rate as they will when there's a 10% tax rate?

and then there's also the issue of resources... at a 10% tax rate you'll earn a lot more and thus will have more to REINVEST than at a 20% tax rate.

[reppingfor20]

lol, of course the rich will try to get richer! in fact, everyone tries to get richer! that doesn't mean that taxes don't place a damper on that! do you think people will work just as hard when there's a 99% tax rate as they will when there's a 10% tax rate?

and then there's also the issue of resources... at a 10% tax rate you'll earn a lot more and thus will have more to REINVEST than at a 20% tax rate.

did you look at the chart for top 1 percent, when their tax rate went up, so did their income.

[howardroark]

did you look at the chart for top 1 percent, when their tax rate went up, so did their income.

I could just as easily post a chart that shows that when the tax rate goes down so the income of the top 1% rises. It really doesn't prove anything either way; there are many variables which effect income and tax rates are but one of those variables.

[reppingfor20]

I could just as easily post a chart that shows that when the tax rate goes down so the income of the top 1% rises. It really doesn't prove anything either way; there are many variables which effect income and tax rates are but one of those variables.

then do it.  If the taxes go up for the rich, they pay more into federal gov't,  Federal gov't can then assist the poor and create jobs, those poor get those jobs and spend money thus enriching the rich. 

[howardroark]

then do it.

Done:


Lower tax rates = higher tax revenues, which means higher incomes

  If the taxes go up for the rich, they pay more into federal gov't,  Federal gov't can then assist the poor and create jobs, those poor get those jobs and spend money thus enriching the rich. 

If taxes go down for the rich then they invest more in factories, capital machinery, etc. This has two effects:

1) More factories, machines, etc. means that more goods are produced. This increases supply which decreases prices, making goods more affordable per unit of income (in other words: higher real incomes for everyone, including the poor).

2) Labor is needed to work the factories. Thus, demand increases for labor, thereby pushing wages real higher.

What you don't understand is that government cannot do this #1 as efficiently as the free market. That is why capitalism will always be superior to government.

[Primemuscle]

sorry 40% bracket doesn't exist.  Rich people mostly always over exaggerate how much they pay in taxes.  Their tax bracket is where it is for a reason, not to be semi criminally screwed around with to get around it. 

In the highest of the six tax brackets, 2011 Federal tax rate for a single filer or married filing joint with an adjusted gross income (after deductions) of $379,151 or more is 36%. An adjusted gross income of more than $34,501 but less than $83,600 for a single filer is 25%. For married, filing joint an adjusted gross income of more than $69,001 but less than $139,350 puts one in the 25% tax bracket.

[howardroark]

In the highest of the six tax brackets, 2011 Federal tax rate for a single filer or married filing joint with an adjusted gross income (after deductions) of $379,151 or more is 36%. An adjusted gross income of more than $34,501 but less than $83,600 for a single filer is 25%. For married, filing joint an adjusted gross income of more than $69,001 but less than $139,350 puts one in the 25% tax bracket.

Income taxes don't tell the whole story... when investing, the wealthy have their investments taxed twice, first by a 35% corporate income tax and then by a 15% capital gains tax. That comes out to a total of a 45% tax rate.

[reppingfor20]

Done:


Lower tax rates = higher tax revenues, which means higher incomes

If taxes go down for the rich then they invest more in factories, capital machinery, etc. This has two effects:

1) More factories, machines, etc. means that more goods are produced. This increases supply which decreases prices, making goods more affordable per unit of income (in other words: higher real incomes for everyone, including the poor).

2) Labor is needed to work the factories. Thus, demand increases for labor, thereby pushing wages real higher.

What you don't understand is that government cannot do this #1 as efficiently as the free market. That is why capitalism will always be superior to government.

You do not understand, taxes are low now, almost the lowest they have ever been, where are the factories, jobs, that were suppose to be created by these bush tax cuts.  You can spew your talk, but when it comes to actual real life, the corporations and rich just pocket the money for themselves and do not reinvest it for the most part as you can see with the jobs crisis. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/400px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png

Please show me how taxes being low help the economy, use this graph.

[reppingfor20]

Income taxes don't tell the whole story... when investing, the wealthy have their investments taxed twice, first by a 35% corporate income tax and then by a 15% capital gains tax. That comes out to a total of a 45% tax rate.

you are starting to use funny math howardroark, Prime thanks for providing the facts.

Howard you have shown your self to be nothing other than a shill for the rich.  That is two different incomes being taxed, what they make working, what money makes for them sitting and doing nothing, so your argument doesn't hold any weight.

Facts posted below from Prime :

In the highest of the six tax brackets, 2011 Federal tax rate for a single filer or married filing joint with an adjusted gross income (after deductions) of $379,151 or more is 36%. An adjusted gross income of more than $34,501 but less than $83,600 for a single filer is 25%. For married, filing joint an adjusted gross income of more than $69,001 but less than $139,350 puts one in the 25% tax bracket.

[howardroark]

you are starting to use funny math howardroark, Prime thanks for providing the facts.  Howard you have shown your self to be nothing other than a shill for the rich.

Funny math? Sounds like someone failed high school...

You have $100 in profits. First it's taxed 35% at the corporate level, so you have $65 left. Then that $65 is taxed 15% at the individual level, so you have $55.25 left. That means that you only get to keep 55.25% of profits after taxes - which translates to a 44.75% tax rate.

Too difficult to understand for you?

[howardroark]

You do not understand, taxes are low now, almost the lowest they have ever been, where are the factories, jobs, that were suppose to be created by these bush tax cuts.

Unemployment was pretty low before the housing bubble blew up. And what created the housing bubble? Government policies. Hmmmm...

You can spew your talk, but when it comes to actual real life, the corporations and rich just pocket the money for themselves and do not reinvest it for the most part as you can see with the jobs crisis.

A few posts ago you were saying that the rich were greedy so they'd always try to get richer 

What do you think the rich do with their money? Just bury it in the ground? No. They buy stocks, save it in a bank, start a business, etc. All of these are productive activities which create jobs and economic wealth.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/400px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png

Please show me how taxes being low help the economy, use this graph.

How about an econometric study which proves that lower corporate taxes increase economic growth? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272704001343#SECX11

[reppingfor20]

Funny math? Sounds like someone failed high school...

You have $100 in profits. First it's taxed 35% at the corporate level, so you have $65 left. Then that $65 is taxed 15% at the individual level, so you have $55.25 left. That means that you only get to keep 55.25% of profits after taxes - which translates to a 44.75% tax rate.

Too difficult to understand for you?

Yes funny math.  Income tax is what we were talking about.  You claim it was higher than it actually is, Prime posted the facts.  Then you came back with oh how about their investments.  

Investments are a whole different thing, just like sales tax.  They choose to invest and have to pay tax on the money they make investing simple as that.  If they chose not to invest they wouldn't have to pay that tax.  

While were at it, why don't want talk about sales tax, property tax, state tax, and down the line and add that in as well, you simply diverted the discussion because you were confronted with the truth.

[reppingfor20]

Unemployment was pretty low before the housing bubble blew up. And what created the housing bubble? Government policies. Hmmmm...

A few posts ago you were saying that the rich were greedy so they'd always try to get richer  

What do you think the rich do with their money? Just bury it in the ground? No. They buy stocks, save it in a bank, start a business, etc. All of these are productive activities which create jobs and economic wealth.

How about an econometric study which proves that lower corporate taxes increase economic growth? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272704001343#SECX11

lol the housing bubble was from the private sector, not the gov't.  You blame gov't policies LOL get a grip on reality.

The rich save their money, buy new houses personal items, they don't create new businesses with it or take any chance with their money to create jobs that is for sure.  How many new businesses have the rich started and helped created jobs in the past 10 years?  They have kept all their money from the tax cuts and created hardly any jobs, tax cuts are terrible!

Most corporations pay hardly any tax at all anyway, states try that to get corporations to come to their state.  Corporations are terrible and should be eliminated, only family owned businesses/small businesses, no incorporating your business, it's terrible for the people, no corporations, no stock market, no more jew tactics used to screw the average American out of his savings.