ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

Ayko

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 591

Report this Aug. 15 2011, 10:10 am

Its just a bunch of zeros printed on a bank book,
and its days are numbered,
just like in Star Trek...

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Aug. 15 2011, 2:14 pm

If warren buffet wants to pay more taxes their is nothing stoping him from taking his check book and writing a check to the federal government in what ever amount he wants to.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Aug. 15 2011, 5:19 pm

Quote: chr33355 @ Aug. 15 2011, 2:14 pm

>

>If warren buffet wants to pay more taxes their is nothing stoping him from taking his check book and writing a check to the federal government in what ever amount he wants to.

>
Exactly right.


The top 1% pay more in income tax than the bottom 95%.  The "rich" pay too much and the rest should "pay their fair share."  If they really think they should pay more, they can always send in a gift.


Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Aug. 15 2011, 5:21 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

>
I didn’t refuse, nor did others.

>Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

>The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

>A review for those that seemed to have missed the point.

>
Not quite.



 


To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Aug. 15 2011, 6:10 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>A made-up graph, how impressive. So you can choose to listen to some anonymous POE on a message board or you can listen to Warren Buffet and a legitimate news source. It is your choice and your country. 

>
Data came from the IRS.


http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html


 


And it was on dozens of news sites, including the NY Times.


 


And by the way, I used to live in Omaha and have met Warren Buffett several times.  I'll listen to him about investing, just not politics.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Aug. 15 2011, 6:51 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>I feel for Jameskirk. My favorite captain fighting an uphill battle, and I can not help him because he can not try to make sense with people who miss the point of his very accurate and sensible data. Whoosh! Right over their heads.

>Captain, perhaps you should try to use a direct approach with the numnut crew. Explain to them very gently, so they dont feel offended, what an income tax is. Than go in for the kill, and explain the percentage of the rich income which comes from Income tax and from capital gains. I doubt these nunuts will give in. They are hellbent on the slaughter of reality. GOOD LUCK. 

>
Yes, the data is quite sensible, but when people push illogical conclusions from it is when things go wrong.  When one group of people is singled out and forced to pay more than their "fair share," they become slaves to the others.  Why do ~47% of the populace not pay income tax --- and the get a "refund" on money they never paid?  Why do people think that just because the "rich" used to have a higher marginal tax rate years ago that they shouldn't be allowed to keep more of their own money?  Why do people think they have a right to demand other people's money?


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Aug. 15 2011, 8:16 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>

>I feel for Jameskirk. My favorite captain fighting an uphill battle, and I can not help him because he can not try to make sense with people who miss the point of his very accurate and sensible data. Whoosh! Right over their heads.

>Captain, perhaps you should try to use a direct approach with the numnut crew. Explain to them very gently, so they dont feel offended, what an income tax is. Than go in for the kill, and explain the percentage of the rich income which comes from Income tax and from capital gains. I doubt these nunuts will give in. They are hellbent on the slaughter of reality. GOOD LUCK. 

>
Yes, the data is quite sensible, but when people push illogical conclusions from it is when things go wrong.  When one group of people is singled out and forced to pay more than their "fair share," they become slaves to the others.  Why do ~47% of the populace not pay income tax --- and the get a "refund" on money they never paid?  Why do people think that just because the "rich" used to have a higher marginal tax rate years ago that they shouldn't be allowed to keep more of their own money?  Why do people think they have a right to demand other people's money?

The anwers to your questions can be found in books by people such as Rawls and Locke. Read them to completion and then think about what they are saying.

John Locke?  He's one of my favorite authors and there's no way he even suggests that it's okay to steal from a small group of people to fund everyone else.  Locke was actually one of the people our Founding Fathers heavily read and referenced.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Aug. 15 2011, 9:30 pm

^^ There is a point about the Will of the Majority, but not at the exclusion to Morals and the rights of the minority.  Additionally, Locked argued extensively for Life, Liberty & Property.  (And if the government penalizes the people who earn property (money,) then they no longer the right to property, would they?)


Locke never suggested that it's okay to force a small minority to be enslaved to the majority.  In fact, he said exactly the opposite:


"'Tis true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and 'tis fit everyone who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion of the maintenance of it". (Second Treatise, Chapter 11).


 


And since the majority of our taxes stolen from the rich is to be redistributed, here's something appropriate:


"For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it, between him and his fellow subjects, if he who commands those subjects, have power to take from any private man, what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good". (Second Treatise, Chapter 11).


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Aug. 16 2011, 1:30 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>^^ There is a point about the Will of the Majority, but not at the exclusion to Morals and the rights of the minority.  Additionally, Locked argued extensively for Life, Liberty & Property.  (And if the government penalizes the people who earn property (money,) then they no longer the right to property, would they?)

>Locke never suggested that it's okay to force a small minority to be enslaved to the majority.  In fact, he said exactly the opposite:

>"'Tis true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and 'tis fit everyone who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion of the maintenance of it". (Second Treatise, Chapter 11).

>And since the majority of our taxes stolen from the rich is to be redistributed, here's something appropriate:

>"For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it, between him and his fellow subjects, if he who commands those subjects, have power to take from any private man, what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good". (Second Treatise, Chapter 11).

>

So for all those that had any doubt and ascribe any merit to bambam I will now prove that he is a disingenuous, quote mining, POE-troll.

"Sec. 140. It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them: for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government: for what property have I in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?" - John Locke, Second Treatise. 

So he totally missed the point, if he is not intentionally lying, and he is twisting and turning in the wind and manipulating his sources. Just like most Conservatives do. Did you not think I read Locke? Did you not think I would check your sources?

"What are you, retarded?"

All his other statements and conclusions are false and wrong as well. Locke was the original troll and if you actually ever read him you will see that those who cite him usually have no idea what they are talking about or what Locke was actually trying to say.

Just because Locke said that the concent of the majority was necessary doesn't mean that he said that the majority could steal from the minority.  He said that EVERYONE should pay.  This means that if the majority agree that a 10% tax is necessary - EVERYONE should pay the 10% tax, not just a small number of people.


 


And none of my statements and conclusions are false.  You may disagree with them, but that doesn't invalidate the data.


Spin Ducky

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10

Report this Aug. 16 2011, 2:34 pm

Tax breaks for the rich are bull. Tax breaks should go to the people that actually produce jobs. In other words, middle-class small business owners.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Aug. 16 2011, 6:06 pm

Quote: Spin Ducky @ Aug. 16 2011, 2:34 pm

>

>Tax breaks for the rich are bull. Tax breaks should go to the people that actually produce jobs. In other words, middle-class small business owners.

>
Uhhmmmm - Obama consideres the small business owners as "rich"....


And remember - the top 1% already pay more that 95% of the rest of us.  If they remove the tax breaks for the "rich", they should remove ALL tax breaks.  (It also would help simplify the tens of thousands of ridiculous and confusing tax rules.)


Spin Ducky

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10

Report this Aug. 16 2011, 6:39 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Aug. 16 2011, 6:06 pm

Quote: Spin Ducky @ Aug. 16 2011, 2:34 pm

>

>

>Tax breaks for the rich are bull. Tax breaks should go to the people that actually produce jobs. In other words, middle-class small business owners.

>
Uhhmmmm - Obama consideres the small business owners as "rich"....

And remember - the top 1% already pay more that 95% of the rest of us.  If they remove the tax breaks for the "rich", they should remove ALL tax breaks.  (It also would help simplify the tens of thousands of ridiculous and confusing tax rules.)


What Obama considers rich is irrelevant.


Who cares if the top 1% pays more than the bottom 95%? They MAKE more than the bottom 95%. So even if everyone paid the same exact tax rate, they'd still be paying more.

Spin Ducky

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10

Report this Aug. 16 2011, 6:41 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Some small business owners are very rich!

>


Then they wouldn't be the middle-class small business owners I specified, now would they?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Aug. 16 2011, 6:49 pm

Quote: Spin Ducky @ Aug. 16 2011, 6:39 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Aug. 16 2011, 6:06 pm

Quote: Spin Ducky @ Aug. 16 2011, 2:34 pm

>

>

>

>Tax breaks for the rich are bull. Tax breaks should go to the people that actually produce jobs. In other words, middle-class small business owners.

>
Uhhmmmm - Obama consideres the small business owners as "rich"....

And remember - the top 1% already pay more that 95% of the rest of us.  If they remove the tax breaks for the "rich", they should remove ALL tax breaks.  (It also would help simplify the tens of thousands of ridiculous and confusing tax rules.)

What Obama considers rich is irrelevant.

Who cares if the top 1% pays more than the bottom 95%? They MAKE more than the bottom 95%. So even if everyone paid the same exact tax rate, they'd still be paying more. Are you saying that since they make more, they should pay less?

Actually, they don't make more than the bottom 95% combined - they only make 20% of the AGI.


So because you make more than someone else, should they have the right to steal from you?  Same concept - you earned your money, so it's not someone else's right to steal it from you.


Everyone should pay the same percentage, regardless of how much they make.  Yes, mathematically, they'd pay more $, but the same percentage.  This way, nobody is being discriminated for or against by the government.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46342

Report this Aug. 16 2011, 8:31 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>You can not be stealing if it's a law. 

>
Legalizing theft is still theft.  Using politicians to pass a law to take from someone else is worse than pulling a gun and doing it yourself.


Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum