Is it bad to be "rich"?

[Rainsford]

Why is it that every time I hear someone talking about how evil the rich are, it's conservatives trying to put words into the mouths of liberals? I hear a lot of liberals support greater taxation on the wealthy, but I very rarely actually hear them say it's because they hate rich people.

It's a way for conservatives to re-frame the argument, which is pretty much what they have to do in order to gain any ground at all. From a practical point of view, taxes have to come from somewhere, and trying to get it from people who HAVE money is a lot easier than getting it from people who DON'T. This piece of common sense would be hard to argue against, so instead it's turned into a morality play about how taxing the rich is a punishment and evidence that people who support those taxes hate rich people, success, and the American dream.

 

[blackangst1]

Why is it that every time I hear someone talking about how evil the rich are, it's conservatives trying to put words into the mouths of liberals? I hear a lot of liberals support greater taxation on the wealthy, but I very rarely actually hear them say it's because they hate rich people.

It's a way for conservatives to re-frame the argument, which is pretty much what they have to do in order to gain any ground at all. From a practical point of view, taxes have to come from somewhere, and trying to get it from people who HAVE money is a lot easier than getting it from people who DON'T. This piece of common sense would be hard to argue against, so instead it's turned into a morality play about how taxing the rich is a punishment and evidence that people who support those taxes hate rich people, success, and the American dream.

And why is it liberals fail to see they do the same thing?

Just a thought.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Give it a rest. I'm not trying to make a definitive statement about poverty and taxes. I was offering a quick, general expansion on Red's response to Blackangst1 about the poor. Set your threshold sufficiently low and it's true that they pay no federal income taxes.

I can tell you my older son paid over $700 federal on an income of about $19K. (Laid off from EDS/HP when they discovered they could lower their wage scale $2 per hour thanks to the poor economy. He was already looking for a new job due to the slimy way they cheat customers, but it still took months.) Anyway, in my book that's poor. YMMV.

Ah, so it's not about something real, it's about what YOU FEEL... typical liberal tripe.
I'll just chalk it up to another instance where you can't and won't back up your BS.

 

[Bowfinger]

Ah, so it's not about something real, it's about what YOU FEEL... typical liberal tripe.
I'll just chalk it up to another instance where you can't and won't back up your BS.

Typical Cad troll and run, demonstrating you can't comprehend what you read and you still lack the intellectual horsepower to support your blind partisan yapping with substantive facts or reasoned arguments. Just your usual bleating fluff.

In particular I'll point out that for all your pugnacious bluster in these threads, you're still dodging my demonstration of how the wealthy tend to draw far, far greater benefit from taxes than average taxpayers. No attempt whatsoever to even address the points I raised, let alone any intelligent, on-topic counter arguments. No, you just drop your usual limp little turd and run away. No surprise, it's what you do.

Toodles. Get well soon.

 

[Jadow]

I hope to find out

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Typical Cad troll and run, demonstrating you can't comprehend what you read and you still lack the intellectual horsepower to support your blind partisan yapping with substantive facts or reasoned arguments. Just your usual bleating fluff.

In particular I'll point out that for all your pugnacious bluster in these threads, you're still dodging my demonstration of how the wealthy tend to draw far, far greater benefit from taxes than average taxpayers. No attempt whatsoever to even address the points I raised, let alone any intelligent, on-topic counter arguments. No, you just drop your usual limp little turd and run away. No surprise, it's what you do.

Toodles. Get well soon.

lol, typical bowfinger attacks. Nothing but the same old tripe and bluster that lacks anything resembling substance... not that I expected anything less...

But yeah, you still don't seem to be able to grasp the reality of who "benefits". You can cling to your misguided liberal garbage if you want or you can try to understand that your class envy has skewed your vision. Your choice.

 

[Bowfinger]

lol, typical bowfinger attacks. Nothing but the same old tripe and bluster that lacks anything resembling substance... not that I expected anything less...

But yeah, you still don't seem to be able to grasp the reality of who "benefits". You can cling to your misguided liberal garbage if you want or you can try to understand that your class envy has skewed your vision. Your choice.

He huffs, and he puffs, and ... he runs away yet again.

"In particular I'll point out that for all your pugnacious bluster in these threads, you're still dodging my demonstration of how the wealthy tend to draw far, far greater benefit from taxes than average taxpayers. No attempt whatsoever to even address the points I raised, let alone any intelligent, on-topic counter arguments. No, you just drop your usual limp little turd and run away. No surprise, it's what you do."
​

I've finally realized you're just another sock puppet, with no more intellectual depth than people like FNE and Spidey. You like arguing more than they do, but you're just as incapable of backing your positions with intelligent, well-reasoned arguments. Fail.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

He huffs, and he puffs, and ... he runs away yet again.

"In particular I'll point out that for all your pugnacious bluster in these threads, you're still dodging my demonstration of how the wealthy tend to draw far, far greater benefit from taxes than average taxpayers. No attempt whatsoever to even address the points I raised, let alone any intelligent, on-topic counter arguments. No, you just drop your usual limp little turd and run away. No surprise, it's what you do."
​

I've finally realized you're just another sock puppet, with no more intellectual depth than people like FNE and Spidey. You like arguing more than they do, but you're just as incapable of backing your positions with intelligent, well-reasoned arguments. Fail.

lol, the only huffing and puffing is coming from you and your types. You can't see past your ideological blinders to see reality. You've provided nothing that shows that they "benefit more" and refuse to see the truth of the "poor"(however you want to define it) don't pay - thus benefit without participation.
But keep running away from reality to live in your little class warfare bubble.

 

[blackangst1]

Ive decided (not that it matters) that both CAD and Bowfinger have valid points in this thread...quit the bickering you two

 

[Bowfinger]

lol, the only huffing and puffing is coming from you and your types. You can't see past your ideological blinders to see reality. You've provided nothing that shows that they "benefit more" and refuse to see the truth of the "poor"(however you want to define it) don't pay - thus benefit without participation.
But keep running away from reality to live in your little class warfare bubble.

Sorry sweetie, but you're the one running away ... again. You talk a lot, yet you still offer nothing whatsoever to refute what I said.

Here's a hint. Find the post I'm talking about, it's a response to CW a few messages back. Read the explanation I gave showing how the rich benefit more. Provide specific arguments countering those points. Be very sure your counter arguments are directed to specific points I actually made instead of your usual hand waving and jumbled nonsense of things you wish I'd said. Ta da! You just made a cogent argument.

That is how an intelligent person shows he understands the topic at hand and actually has a well-reasoned basis for disagreeing with his opponent. I know that's new territory for you, but it would be so much more productive than you sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la la" at the top of your lungs.

<3

 

[Bowfinger]

Ive decided (not that it matters) that both CAD and Bowfinger have valid points in this thread...quit the bickering you two

You're no fun.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Sorry sweetie, but you're the one running away ... again. You talk a lot, yet you still offer nothing whatsoever to refute what I said.

Here's a hint. Find the post I'm talking about, it's a response to CW a few messages back. Read the explanation I gave showing how the rich benefit more. Provide specific arguments countering those points. Be very sure your counter arguments are directed to specific points I actually made instead of your usual hand waving and jumbled nonsense of things you wish I'd said. Ta da! You just made a cogent argument.

That is how an intelligent person shows he understands the topic at hand and actually has a well-reasoned basis for disagreeing with his opponent. I know that's new territory for you, but it would be so much more productive than you sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la la" at the top of your lungs.

<3

I've already addressed your blather and you've done nothing to refute the reality of what I posted. So while you keep trying to claim that I'm running away - we both know it's nothing more than projection on your part. Come back when you can address the reality of "benefits".

 

[Rainsford]

And why is it liberals fail to see they do the same thing?

Just a thought.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "the same thing".

Liberals, for the most part, seem to treat taxes as a means to an end. Conservatives pretend that taxes themselves are the goal, so arguing for higher taxes on the rich could ONLY be because you hate rich people.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "the same thing".

Liberals, for the most part, seem to treat taxes as a means to an end. Conservatives pretend that taxes themselves are the goal, so arguing for higher taxes on the rich could ONLY be because you hate rich people.

I meant...putting words into people's mouths...pompously explaining what the other side REALLY means...re-framing arguments...stuff like that But it makes for spirited debates! But back to the subject...Im not sure Ive heard or read an argument that the "ONLY" reason libers want to tax the rich is because they hate the rich...or perhaps Im re-framing your point in which case, I apoligize.

 

[Bowfinger]

I've already addressed your blather and you've done nothing to refute the reality of what I posted. So while you keep trying to claim that I'm running away - we both know it's nothing more than projection on your part. Come back when you can address the reality of "benefits".

Lying is so unbecoming ... though so typical. If you can point me to the message where you directly and specifically addressed the points and examples I set out in my reply to CW above I will post my most humble apology for slurring your good character.

You, of course, will not show the integrity to do the converse when you fail to produce said message. You will instead wave your hands, throw out a couple of gratuitous insults, and spew your usual vague, non-responsive nonsense while pretending you were right. It is what you've always done. Never, ever, ever ... about anything.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Flat tax rate for everyone.

The rich pay more. The poor pay less. Simple bookkeeping too.

 

[blackangst1]

Flat tax rate for everyone.

The rich pay more. The poor pay less. Simple bookkeeping too.

Uh...a flat tax would have the opposite effect....

 

[SparkyJJO]

Uh...a flat tax would have the opposite effect....

Re-read my post. I said flat tax rate not flat tax.

 

[blackangst1]

Re-read my post. I said flat tax rate not flat tax.

Oops my bad.

But what does that mean exactly then if not a flat tax? A graduated tax but take away deductions? And are you propsing imposing a tax on the 48% of filers who currently pay no tax?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Lying is so unbecoming ... though so typical. If you can point me to the message where you directly and specifically addressed the points and examples I set out in my reply to CW above I will post my most humble apology for slurring your good character.

You, of course, will not show the integrity to do the converse when you fail to produce said message. You will instead wave your hands, throw out a couple of gratuitous insults, and spew your usual vague, non-responsive nonsense while pretending you were right. It is what you've always done. Never, ever, ever ... about anything.

I never said I addressed all your little points you twit. The subject however has been as the premise your post stemmed from is wrong. I addressed that and you refuse to accept the reality of it.

So again, if you can provide any refutation of my post which showed you the reality of the situation, I will continue. But so far all you've done is throw a little e-fit(as usual) while projecting. Open your eyes for once bowfinger - reality isn't a bad place.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Oops my bad.

But what does that mean exactly then if not a flat tax? A graduated tax but take away deductions? And are you propsing imposing a tax on the 48&#37; of filers who currently pay no tax?

Flat rate is a flat percentage. Say, 10% for example (simply because it is easy to work with, not saying that should be the percentage). Everyone pays that. So the person making 20K a year, pays $2000. The person making 100K a year pays $10,000. And the person making a 1M a year pays $100,000. And so on.

Those who make more, pay more. Those who make less, pay less. Simple math, easy to keep straight. Current system is as you make more, you get bumped into different tax brackets that also increase the percentage you pay. So you could be paying 2x the tax for increasing your income by 1.5x for example. Hardly a fair system.

With a flat tax rate, as your income goes up, you pay more in taxes, but your net income after taxes will always go up as well. None of this tax bracket nonsense where if you get a raise that just bumps you into the next bracket you end up paying more in taxes and actually having your net pay decrease.

 

[blackangst1]

Flat rate is a flat percentage. Say, 10&#37; for example (simply because it is easy to work with, not saying that should be the percentage). Everyone pays that. So the person making 20K a year, pays $2000. The person making 100K a year pays $10,000. And the person making a 1M a year pays $100,000. And so on.

Those who make more, pay more. Those who make less, pay less. Simple math, easy to keep straight. Current system is as you make more, you get bumped into different tax brackets that also increase the percentage you pay. So you could be paying 2x the tax for increasing your income by 1.5x for example. Hardly a fair system.

With a flat tax rate, as your income goes up, you pay more in taxes, but your net income after taxes will always go up as well. None of this tax bracket nonsense where if you get a raise that just bumps you into the next bracket you end up paying more in taxes and actually having your net pay decrease.

OK thats a flat tax. Same thing. Thus, what I said is true - the top earners will pay less, the bottom earners will pay more. Although I agree with it in theory, in practice 1. its never gonna happen, and 2. unless the tax rate was extraodinarily high, we would lose tax income. On top of that, I dont see the bottom earners (48% of which pay nothing) getting a 25+% tax increase. In other words, it aint gonna fly.

Its been discussed ad nauseum here...I suggest doing a search. Theres alot of bullshit theads on the subject, but a few gems in there as well.

 

[nonlnear]

None of this tax bracket nonsense where if you get a raise that just bumps you into the next bracket you end up paying more in taxes and actually having your net pay decrease.

Are there really this many people out there who are totally ignorant of how tax brackets work?

 

[Tom]

lol, the only huffing and puffing is coming from you and your types. You can't see past your ideological blinders to see reality. You've provided nothing that shows that they "benefit more" and refuse to see the truth of the "poor"(however you want to define it) don't pay - thus benefit without participation.
But keep running away from reality to live in your little class warfare bubble.

FDIC guarantees deposits up to $200k. Who benefits more from this. someone who has $200k in the bank or someone who doesn't ?

btw, the working poor participate, as producers,servers, and consumers. That's why the noted leftist liberal commie Ronald Reagan was in favor of the EIC.

 

[Special K]

None of this tax bracket nonsense where if you get a raise that just bumps you into the next bracket you end up paying more in taxes and actually having your net pay decrease.

I don't see how this is possible given that each new tax bracket only applies to the dollars earned above the previous tax bracket. There's no way for you earn less money by being in a higher tax bracket unless you consider the possibility of certain deductions being eliminated above a certain point.