If we taxed the rich more, how would it affect job creation?

[b2386]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: b2386

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: b2386

Originally posted by: techs
If the super rich want to leave because we raise taxes, I say let the traitors leave.
We should drop them off, with all their money in cash, in Somalia.
Or lets send them to Russia. Putin will have them in jail in a hot minute.
Or I guess they can go to the those Reagan economic republics of Ireland and Iceland. Where the economic collapse could bankrupt them.

Or better yet, just take back from them the money they made because they lived in the US.
Bill Gates would still be a pauper and never had created Microsoft if he lived in any other country on earth.
So let Bill go anywhere he wants. He can take 50 grand with him.
If he is such a great entrepenuer and job creator lets see how he does in Botwsana.

Wow, that sort of thinking is about as un-American as you can get. I am new to this part of the forum so pardon me for asking, but are you being serious?

Un American? You mean people who make alot of money in this country and then threaten to leave because their asked to pay their fair share are patriots?
There freakin leaches who we should all spit on as traitors.
And if you agree with them than you should go somewhere you'll fit in, like China or Russia.

Let's say I was a tenant in an apartment paying $500 a month for rent. I had an extremely nice landlord who was always on top of things that needed to be fixed or otherwise taken care of. Suppose I received a notice from the landlord on day saying my rent was going to be doubled to $1000 a month. If I told the landlord I was moving out due to the increase in rent, am I somehow betraying the landlord by doing do? Even though he was a great guy who did provide me with a place to live, would you really expect me to be obligated to stay? By your logic, the landlord should throw me out on the street and keep any belongings I had stored inside the apartment. That does not make any sense.

Who is getting their Taxes Doubled?

*sigh* Replace $1000 with any number greater than $500.

 

[her209]

If you are a foreigner who owns a share in a US company, do you pay personal income taxes to the US government on profits distributed to you?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Craig234
If you make up specious, fallacious analogies that lack any common sense, are you a right-winger? Probably.

When the flaws are reasonably small, they can pretty easily be discussed. When they're bogglingly large, it's a waste of time to try.

Here you go...Higher taxes cost jobs...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...01087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.

As for the new issue you raise about Microsoft's comments, I think Obama's loophole closing makes sense and that the massive reductions we've had in the corporate share of taxes has room for some swing back the other direction. We should work with other governments to try to prevent forcing governments into a race to the bottom.

Microsoft reported an overall effective tax rate of 26 percent for 2008 in its last annual report. ?Our effective tax rates are less than the statutory tax rate due to foreign earnings taxed at lower rates,? the report said.

Barry Bosworth, an economist in Washington at the Brookings Institution research center, said many software companies such as Microsoft have exploited tax and trade rules in the U.S. and other countries to achieve a low overall tax rate.

 

[b2386]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: b2386
Let's say I was a tenant in an apartment paying $500 a month for rent. I had an extremely nice landlord who was always on top of things that needed to be fixed or otherwise taken care of. Suppose I received a notice from the landlord on day saying my rent was going to be doubled to $1000 a month. If I told the landlord I was moving out due to the increase in rent, am I somehow betraying the landlord by doing do? Even though he was a great guy who did provide me with a place to live, would you really expect me to be obligated to stay? By your logic, the landlord should throw me out on the street and keep any belongings I had stored inside the apartment. That does not make any sense.

If you make up specious, fallacious analogies that lack any common sense, are you a right-winger? Probably.

When the flaws are reasonably small, they can pretty easily be discussed. When they're bogglingly large, it's a waste of time to try.

I am an independent, as my voting record can attest to.

But from the smugness and elitism apparent in your post, I don't feel like going into any more detail on the subject with you.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: b2386
I am an independent, as my voting record can attest to.

But from the smugness and elitism apparent in your post, I don't feel like going into any more detail on the subject with you.

Your argument, your analogy, was a right-wing one.

We'll 'agree to disagree' on the issue per your preference.

If it helps, the criticisms I cited are a lot smaller than many posted here, mainly to do with the loss of complexity and related issues between the obligation to pay taxes and rent.

For your analogy to fit, just one of the types of changes that might help would be your rent having used to be $1,000, and your having gotten it down to $500 by having inappropriate leverage over the landlord, while all your neighbors pay more to carry your share, and the landlord going bankrupt to support you, and you then whining to have any of your reduction taken away with an increase closer to a fair rent.

Then when you drive the landlord into foreclosure, you buy the property cheap and rent out the same place for $2,000. That's a bit closer analogy.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: b2386

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: b2386

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: b2386

Originally posted by: techs
If the super rich want to leave because we raise taxes, I say let the traitors leave.
We should drop them off, with all their money in cash, in Somalia.
Or lets send them to Russia. Putin will have them in jail in a hot minute.
Or I guess they can go to the those Reagan economic republics of Ireland and Iceland. Where the economic collapse could bankrupt them.

Or better yet, just take back from them the money they made because they lived in the US.
Bill Gates would still be a pauper and never had created Microsoft if he lived in any other country on earth.
So let Bill go anywhere he wants. He can take 50 grand with him.
If he is such a great entrepenuer and job creator lets see how he does in Botwsana.

Wow, that sort of thinking is about as un-American as you can get. I am new to this part of the forum so pardon me for asking, but are you being serious?

Un American? You mean people who make alot of money in this country and then threaten to leave because their asked to pay their fair share are patriots?
There freakin leaches who we should all spit on as traitors.
And if you agree with them than you should go somewhere you'll fit in, like China or Russia.

Let's say I was a tenant in an apartment paying $500 a month for rent. I had an extremely nice landlord who was always on top of things that needed to be fixed or otherwise taken care of. Suppose I received a notice from the landlord on day saying my rent was going to be doubled to $1000 a month. If I told the landlord I was moving out due to the increase in rent, am I somehow betraying the landlord by doing do? Even though he was a great guy who did provide me with a place to live, would you really expect me to be obligated to stay? By your logic, the landlord should throw me out on the street and keep any belongings I had stored inside the apartment. That does not make any sense.

Who is getting their Taxes Doubled?

*sigh* Replace $1000 with any number greater than $500.

Rents increase all the time.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
Lets look at these companies discussed in a different thread on another issue:


Bill Gates worth $57 billion
co-founder of Microsoft which provides about 89,000 jobs world wide.
$640,000 in wealth for every person employed.

The four Walton children $93 billion combined.
Father founded Wal-Mart which provides 2,100,000 jobs
$44,000 in wealth for every job provided



Lets say we upped the top income tax bracket to 75 percent. Would Bill Gates have said its not worth it start Microsoft? Of course not. And the money that built Microsoft didn't come out of Gates pocket, but out of bank loans and stock.
AND I submit that if Gates paid more taxes that would mean the middle class would pay proportionatly less. Meaning they would have more money for software.
SO TAXING BILL GATES AT A HIGHER RATE WOULD CREATE MORE JOBS.


The four Walton children did squat to create any jobs. Their father did. And so the kids are tying up 93 billion dollars that if say, 25 billion had been paid in taxes, would proportionatly lower the middle class and poors taxes. Meaning they would have more money to spend at WalMart. Which would create more jobs.SO TAXING THE WALTON KIDS AT A HIGHER RATE WOULD CREATE MORE JOBS.

Hopefully this will end the discussion. Higher taxes on the rich leave more money for everyone else, which stimulates demand, which creates jobs.

So, you're saying lower taxes on the middle class (the poor don't pay income taxes) results in greater demand/growing economy and more jobs?

Did you become a Republican over the weekend?

Sounds like you're now endorsing the Republican version of stimulus to generate jobs and an economic recovery - cutting taxes on the middle class, while raising them significantly on the upper class.

Fern

No, he's not. Fixed for you.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: nycromes
This post demonstrates one thing that many politicians just can't comprehend. People aren't stuck in one place (well the middle class and poor are in many ways) but the rich are free to leave and leave they will. With them will go many businesses and jobs. Your example sadly just expects the rich to take large pay cuts, but in reality they will demand more of their current workers and try to increase their wages to offset the difference. They will be less likely to want to hire another person as this will lead to much higher costs.

There was a recent article in the Buffalo News (NY) about a family thinking about relocating their family business to Florida from NY. They wanted to expand their business. NY was a pita, higher taxes, wouldn't help them. Florida and other locations actively sought to make their move as smooth as possible & help them expand. Got them low cost land, tax breaks, etc. Guess what they decided to do?

They hated leaving, but financially, they couldn't justify staying in NY.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: SammyJr
-snip-
Nonsense. The rich aren't going to leave. They didn't leave when the top rate was 90% after WWII. They're not going to leave now. All things are not equal. The only places with similar quality of life to the U.S. have equal or higher tax rates.

Bill Gates isn't going to move Microsoft anywhere either. Moving Microsoft facilities would cost a tremendous amount of money. He'd lose a lot of access to the U.S. business and Government market. Microsoft will ship some development work abroad and they'd do that regardless of our tax rates.

And make sure you read up on marginal tax rates. The country is full of people who don't get it.

I don't know how you're so sure the rich didn't leave when we had high tax rates after WWII?

IIRC, in the 80's when we had lower taxes than Europe many of them relocated here.

I suspect you're laboring under the mistaken impression that when the wealthy 'relocate' for tax purposes they actually stay in the country of 'tax residence'. That's wrong.

I've done country-by-country tax comparison studies for wealthy people. They are looking to find where their country of (tax - income, estate & gift and wealth tax etc) residence will be. But that has nothing to do with where they actually spend their time. They'll still stay their apartments in NYC, Paris, Switzerland etc. I.e. While the point of the study was to choose the best country of residence for tax purposes, it had no real effect on where they actually spent their time or where they stayed.

BTW: If we raised our income tax rate as significantly as the OP suggests our rate w/b the highest in the world. You do know that many wealthy/famous 'live' in Monaco which has NO income tax? (In fact, there are plenty of nice islands that have no income tax rate. Just buy a mansion there and claim it as your tax residence and go about your normal business.)

The other part of the equation not addressed here so far is that we'd like successful/wealthy people from other countries to move here, that sure as heck won't happen with a 75% income tax rate.

Finaly, high rates encourage evasion; there's no doubt about that. Also, capital would leave the US to be deployed in other lower tax juridictions and that's a negative for us. Plus, the wealthy have a great deal of flexibility as to when they recognize income, they'd be able to plan around this rate increase hoping it would eventually come down. A lot less income would be reported if such a rate went into effect. I do think the very high earners could handle a few more percent in their tax rate, but one must be careful of the psycological effects of an income tax above 50%. When factoring in federal, state, local income tax rates and Medicaid/medicare some are already close to 50% now.

Fern

Exactly, with 75% tax rate, people are going to 1) leave the US, 2) hire CPA's to figure out a way to evade tax. Either way the gov is not going to get much more tax revenue and capital flow into the US will decrease and out of the US will increase. Number of job available will certainly decrease if companies can't get funding/capital to expand.

I don't know why all these leftist/socialist are coming out of the woodwork since Obama got elected. How many socialist/communist government have to fail before they learn the lesson that oppressing higher income people hurts the economy, hurts job creation, hurts innovation and hurts investment.

 

[rudder]

Just ask the state of Maryland how well it is working.

 

[lupi]

your flawed idiotic theories are a tear in FDR's dusty eyesocket.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: SammyJr
-snip-
Nonsense. The rich aren't going to leave. They didn't leave when the top rate was 90% after WWII. They're not going to leave now. All things are not equal. The only places with similar quality of life to the U.S. have equal or higher tax rates.

Bill Gates isn't going to move Microsoft anywhere either. Moving Microsoft facilities would cost a tremendous amount of money. He'd lose a lot of access to the U.S. business and Government market. Microsoft will ship some development work abroad and they'd do that regardless of our tax rates.

And make sure you read up on marginal tax rates. The country is full of people who don't get it.

I don't know how you're so sure the rich didn't leave when we had high tax rates after WWII?

IIRC, in the 80's when we had lower taxes than Europe many of them relocated here.

I suspect you're laboring under the mistaken impression that when the wealthy 'relocate' for tax purposes they actually stay in the country of 'tax residence'. That's wrong.

I've done country-by-country tax comparison studies for wealthy people. They are looking to find where their country of (tax - income, estate & gift and wealth tax etc) residence will be. But that has nothing to do with where they actually spend their time. They'll still stay their apartments in NYC, Paris, Switzerland etc. I.e. While the point of the study was to choose the best country of residence for tax purposes, it had no real effect on where they actually spent their time or where they stayed.

BTW: If we raised our income tax rate as significantly as the OP suggests our rate w/b the highest in the world. You do know that many wealthy/famous 'live' in Monaco which has NO income tax? (In fact, there are plenty of nice islands that have no income tax rate. Just buy a mansion there and claim it as your tax residence and go about your normal business.)

The other part of the equation not addressed here so far is that we'd like successful/wealthy people from other countries to move here, that sure as heck won't happen with a 75% income tax rate.

Finaly, high rates encourage evasion; there's no doubt about that. Also, capital would leave the US to be deployed in other lower tax juridictions and that's a negative for us. Plus, the wealthy have a great deal of flexibility as to when they recognize income, they'd be able to plan around this rate increase hoping it would eventually come down. A lot less income would be reported if such a rate went into effect. I do think the very high earners could handle a few more percent in their tax rate, but one must be careful of the psycological effects of an income tax above 50%. When factoring in federal, state, local income tax rates and Medicaid/medicare some are already close to 50% now.

Fern

How many people living in Monaco founded software companies that made hundreds of billions of dollars there/
Zero.
By your reasoning we should set our tax rates based on whatever country has the lowest in the world.
Well, Microsoft could have ONLY been founded in America and only succeeded in America. We funded the space program which enable the advancement of the microprocessor, etc.
If Bill Gates had bought and tried to hawk DOS in Paraguay or Chile what would have happened. Nothing.
I say raise the tax rate now. Then when the next Bill Gates decides to take his 20 Billion and go to Monaco, that's half of what he has now. In fact, raise it so he only goes with 10 billion. Since he could neve had made that money anywhere but here, he should be on his knees thanking America for the 10 billion he can leave with.
And as for those tax haven little islands, well, I guess they think they don't need taxes because they don't need an army or navy.
Well, we can certainly do something about that. After all, if they want the US to keep peace in the world and make sure the next neighboring island doesn't attack and take them over, they owe us the tribute equal to the tax rate on all the billionaires who claim they live there.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: techsWell, Microsoft could have ONLY been founded in America and only succeeded in America. We funded the space program which enable the advancement of the microprocessor, etc.

Yeah, because only Americans are smart enough to develop software and only Americans purchase software.

Here's a list of the top 100 software companies.........lots of 'em were founded outside of the USA.

Silly liberals.

 

[BrownTown]

The point is that none of these meg-rich people started out billionaires. They started out just trying to make a decent living, then get rich, then get mega rich. But there was a point in their lives when they were working 80+ hours a week to get these companies going, and I doubt they would have done that if they knew 75% of their work was going to support a bunch of freeloaders. I mean, I work 60 hours a week right now to make good money, I sure as fuck would NOT work this much is the tax bracket were 50% for example because its simply not worth it. IF the tax bracket were 10% I'd probably be working 70 horus a week (if my company let me). Its simple economics here, people will work harder for a larger reward. IF you have a guy making 100k before taxes and there is a 10% rte he gets 90k, if there is 30% he gets 70k, if there is 70% he gets 30k. Are you really gonna tell me that a guy working 60 hours a week to make 100k would still do it if he were only making 30k? No, he sure as hell wouldn't because the government would probably be paying 20k in welfare, as essentialyl what he is working 3000 hours a year for is 10k, that's 3.33$/hr. Same for right now where we have 30%, if you make 100k and only get 70k and that is 55 more than welfare then you really only end up with 20$/hr instead of 50$/hr, any higher taxes (or larger welfare checks) and you only incentive people to work less.

I mean, its not like I work because i love doing it, or because I have some moral fiber that tells me I should, i do it for the mother fucking MONEY. If I don't make enough money I'm not gonna fucking work, its that simple. OR at the very least I'm not going to work 60 hours a week paid, plus 10 more hours a week unpaid trying to get ahead in the company. IMO if youwant to crate jobs you stop giving welfare out to so many people, and you stop taxing hard working people . I mean our country takes money from hard working people and gives it to lazy people, how the fuck is that fair or moral?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The point is that none of these meg-rich people started out billionaires. They started out just trying to make a decent living, then get rich, then get mega rich. But there was a point in their lives when they were working 80+ hours a week to get these companies going, and I doubt they would have done that if they knew 75% of their work was going to support a bunch of freeloaders. I mean, I work 60 hours a week right now to make good money, I sure as fuck would NOT work this much is the tax bracket were 50% for example because its simply not worth it. IF the tax bracket were 10% I'd probably be working 70 horus a week (if my company let me). Its simple economics here, people will work harder for a larger reward. IF you have a guy making 100k before taxes and there is a 10% rte he gets 90k, if there is 30% he gets 70k, if there is 70% he gets 30k. Are you really gonna tell me that a guy working 60 hours a week to make 100k would still do it if he were only making 30k? No, he sure as hell wouldn't because the government would probably be paying 20k in welfare, as essentialyl what he is working 3000 hours a year for is 10k, that's 3.33$/hr. Same for right now where we have 30%, if you make 100k and only get 70k and that is 55 more than welfare then you really only end up with 20$/hr instead of 50$/hr, any higher taxes (or larger welfare checks) and you only incentive people to work less.

I mean, its not like I work because i love doing it, or because I have some moral fiber that tells me I should, i do it for the mother fucking MONEY. If I don't make enough money I'm not gonna fucking work, its that simple. OR at the very least I'm not going to work 60 hours a week paid, plus 10 more hours a week unpaid trying to get ahead in the company. IMO if youwant to crate jobs you stop giving welfare out to so many people, and you stop taxing hard working people . I mean our country takes money from hard working people and gives it to lazy people, how the fuck is that fair or moral?

You really don't know what you're talking about, when you talk about people making much more than you do.

Look, Bill Gates is giving 9% of his money away. Does that ring any alarm bells for you as you lecture us about what he would and wouldn't do if he got to keep less of the billions?

Silly question, of course not. His choices with billions are just like yours with thousands.

I'm so tired of clueless people duped who support bad economics and hurt our nation.

The level of ignorance is just so appalling. These people who are wage slaves are losing sleep over any of their money going to the dreaded 'lazy poor'.

They are just clueless about how their wages go up and down, and where the money taken from them really goes, and what would help them make more money.

Until we figure out how to educate the public to get past the ideology, they're going to get screwed more and more.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: techs
If the super rich want to leave because we raise taxes, I say let the traitors leave.
We should drop them off, with all their money in cash, in Somalia.
Or lets send them to Russia. Putin will have them in jail in a hot minute.
Or I guess they can go to the those Reagan economic republics of Ireland and Iceland. Where the economic collapse could bankrupt them.

Or better yet, just take back from them the money they made because they lived in the US.
Bill Gates would still be a pauper and never had created Microsoft if he lived in any other country on earth.
So let Bill go anywhere he wants. He can take 50 grand with him.
If he is such a great entrepenuer and job creator lets see how he does in Botwsana.

Actually it would be the US that would be dirt poor if people like Gates and Sam Walton and all these other rich people had lived in other countries.

The US is a very rich country today because of the work of people like them.

 

[ProfJohn]

You guys and your 90% tax rate BS.

From the Wall Street Journal link

In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. With lower rates and fewer tax loopholes after the 1986 reform, there is less incentive to shelter income to avoid tax.

So the tax rate is half of what it was in 1980 and yet the same group of people pay twice as much in taxes?? Wow!!!

 

[ProfJohn]

Oh... and to answer the question posed by the OP.

Higher taxes means less money in the business owners pocket which means less money for them to expand their business.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The point is that none of these meg-rich people started out billionaires. They started out just trying to make a decent living, then get rich, then get mega rich. But there was a point in their lives when they were working 80+ hours a week to get these companies going, and I doubt they would have done that if they knew 75% of their work was going to support a bunch of freeloaders. I mean, I work 60 hours a week right now to make good money, I sure as fuck would NOT work this much is the tax bracket were 50% for example because its simply not worth it. IF the tax bracket were 10% I'd probably be working 70 horus a week (if my company let me). Its simple economics here, people will work harder for a larger reward. IF you have a guy making 100k before taxes and there is a 10% rte he gets 90k, if there is 30% he gets 70k, if there is 70% he gets 30k. Are you really gonna tell me that a guy working 60 hours a week to make 100k would still do it if he were only making 30k? No, he sure as hell wouldn't because the government would probably be paying 20k in welfare, as essentialyl what he is working 3000 hours a year for is 10k, that's 3.33$/hr. Same for right now where we have 30%, if you make 100k and only get 70k and that is 55 more than welfare then you really only end up with 20$/hr instead of 50$/hr, any higher taxes (or larger welfare checks) and you only incentive people to work less.

I mean, its not like I work because i love doing it, or because I have some moral fiber that tells me I should, i do it for the mother fucking MONEY. If I don't make enough money I'm not gonna fucking work, its that simple. OR at the very least I'm not going to work 60 hours a week paid, plus 10 more hours a week unpaid trying to get ahead in the company. IMO if youwant to crate jobs you stop giving welfare out to so many people, and you stop taxing hard working people . I mean our country takes money from hard working people and gives it to lazy people, how the fuck is that fair or moral?

Not to throw a "36" out there, But click on that link in your Sig and read up on 37,38,28, and a couple others. Especially a 22


And now for a 33... Keep on working hard there, One Day you may actually get to be on film. All that Fluffin will pay off

 

[Matthiasa]

Higher taxes almost only result to people that have the means to move to place of lower taxes to do so as long as there standard of living and the surrounding areas remains similar to what they're use to.
As it stands they are already taxed at a higher rate then any other group as is on there personal income. If you wanted to invest more you to could lower your total tax rate through proper investment since capital gains can be used by more then just the extremely wealthy. Anyone nowadays can invest in the markets.
So in other words come up with you're original and marketable idea, or even just improved idea and you wouldn't have to deal with what you seem to think is to high of taxes for yourself but at the same time your more then willing to tax others.

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: techsWell, Microsoft could have ONLY been founded in America and only succeeded in America. We funded the space program which enable the advancement of the microprocessor, etc.

Yeah, because only Americans are smart enough to develop software and only Americans purchase software.

Here's a list of the top 100 software companies.........lots of 'em were founded outside of the USA.

Silly liberals.

Might want to take a closer look at the list. Of the top 10, 8 are from the US, and simple
math shows that they make the majority of the income from that list by more then a little bit.
But hey maybe math wasn't ever your thing.

 

[JKing106]

Well if you used your head for anything except repeating propaganda, you'd be able to figure out that figure. It probably has something to do with one group having much less money than they did in 1980, don't you think?

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The point is that none of these meg-rich people started out billionaires. They started out just trying to make a decent living, then get rich, then get mega rich. But there was a point in their lives when they were working 80+ hours a week to get these companies going, and I doubt they would have done that if they knew 75% of their work was going to support a bunch of freeloaders. I mean, I work 60 hours a week right now to make good money, I sure as fuck would NOT work this much is the tax bracket were 50% for example because its simply not worth it. IF the tax bracket were 10% I'd probably be working 70 horus a week (if my company let me). Its simple economics here, people will work harder for a larger reward. IF you have a guy making 100k before taxes and there is a 10% rte he gets 90k, if there is 30% he gets 70k, if there is 70% he gets 30k. Are you really gonna tell me that a guy working 60 hours a week to make 100k would still do it if he were only making 30k? No, he sure as hell wouldn't because the government would probably be paying 20k in welfare, as essentialyl what he is working 3000 hours a year for is 10k, that's 3.33$/hr. Same for right now where we have 30%, if you make 100k and only get 70k and that is 55 more than welfare then you really only end up with 20$/hr instead of 50$/hr, any higher taxes (or larger welfare checks) and you only incentive people to work less.

I mean, its not like I work because i love doing it, or because I have some moral fiber that tells me I should, i do it for the mother fucking MONEY. If I don't make enough money I'm not gonna fucking work, its that simple. OR at the very least I'm not going to work 60 hours a week paid, plus 10 more hours a week unpaid trying to get ahead in the company. IMO if youwant to crate jobs you stop giving welfare out to so many people, and you stop taxing hard working people . I mean our country takes money from hard working people and gives it to lazy people, how the fuck is that fair or moral?

2009 Income Tax Rates

0 - 8350 = 0%
8350 - 33950 - 15%
33950 - 82250 - 25%
82250 - 171550 - 28%
171550 - 373950 - 33%
373950 - cap - 35%

Nobody making $100k is taxed 70%, and never will be. If the pre 1980 income tax bracket was reinvoked, you would have to make $3 million a year to be taxed 70%. Are you seriously going to tell me you can't make it on $1.2 million a year? $100k a year is fucking fortune, and will be a little more than $70k after taxes. Boo fucking hoo. Don't buy shit you don't need, and you can live like a king on that kind of money.

Where's all the outrage over corporate welfare? The subsidies cheaters? It's always about the negros and wetbacks, isn't it? Probably because you don't want to piss off the people you're hoping to get some crumbs from.

"Can I get some crumbs offa yo table, massa? My wife needs a new BMDubya!"

 

[Matthiasa]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: BrownTown
snip

2009 Income Tax Rates

0 - 8350 = 0%
8350 - 33950 - 15%
33950 - 82250 - 25%
82250 - 171550 - 28%
171550 - 373950 - 33%
373950 - cap - 35%

Nobody making $100k is taxed 70%, and never will be. If the pre 1980 income tax bracket was reinvoked, you would have to make $3 million a year to be taxed 70%. Are you seriously going to tell me you can't make it on $1.2 million a year? $100k a year is fucking fortune, and will be a little more than $70k after taxes. Boo fucking hoo. Don't buy shit you don't need, and you can live like a king on that kind of money.

Where's all the outrage over corporate welfare? The subsidies cheaters? It's always about the negros and wetbacks, isn't it? Probably because you don't want to piss off the people you're hoping to get some crumbs from.

"Can I get some crumbs offa yo table, massa? My wife needs a new BMDubya!"

Where you you that 100k a year is a "fucking fortune" thats comfortable sure but fortune not even close even twice that isn't even cloes to a fortune thats still very much someone that has to work for a living every single day untill standard retirement age.

As for the rest of the post, all I got ot say is think for yourself for once put down the drugs, put down the propaganda papers you been reading and think about it for even a monement. Think about how you would feel or respond if you were somehow making that much and someone decided to take that percentage of it, and yet leave nearly everyone else with far more left of what htey initially had. How would you feel if that happened your family, loved ones, relatives, and so on?
It's easy to say somethign when it wouldn;t effect you but I can almost garrenty that if you were the one that was being effected you wouldn't see it even close to the same way.

 

[JKing106]

I have thought about it, and I don't have a problem with it, because I'm not fucking greedy. I don't sit up a night thinking about someone getting food, going to school, driving on a usable road, or being able to call the cops/fire department with my tax money. And yes, $100k a year is a fucking fortune. I grew up in a house that had $30k maximum income. I always had clothes, food, cable television, air conditioning, and even a computer (fucking Vic 20 > Commodore 64 > PC,) and went on vacations every year. I never wanted for anything. You know why? Because my parents never blew their money on bullshit. Don't tell me that's not a lot of money, I fucking lived it. And I'm living it now, and I'm not complaining one iota about paying my taxes. I'm complaining about greedy sociopathic fucks who have more money than they can ever spend trying to fuck blue collar Americans into having to pay more, while they pay less. You want to be rich in America? Pay the fucking piper, or leave.

 

[Matthiasa]

So then it seems more that you are resentful of those that are rich then? But is that a reason to tax them at the proposed rate. The difference in the US between 30k and 100k a year varies greatly from area to area. It is very possible you lived in a area where money went farther. However where I am, the Midwest, the difference between how far 30k and 100k goes is minimal at best. It means a larger yard and a slightly bigger house. Other then that it just means one might be able to retire if their lucky while the other will work until they die, or are forced out of the workplace.
But maybe its just perspectives, and I've seen both.