Please define rich (with a poll)

[Engineer]

It's great that you want people to pick up your tab. Greed is why the system we have now is still in place. Politicians need the vote of the greedy voters such as yourself. The lazy and unwilling far outnumber the people that are willing to work hard and make something of themselves.

I'm sick of paying for you and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Wether I'm working 40 hours a week making minimum wage or busting my ass working 90+ hour weeks bringing in the $$$, I should pay the same percentage.

LOL, you paying for me? That's "rich" (pun intended). You don't know shit about me or my financial situation OR my work habits so you're barking up the wrong fucking tree.

You didn't answer my question. Are you willing to pay more so that the top brackets can come down (yes or no)?

 

[spidey07]

LOL, you paying for me? That's "rich" (pun intended). You don't know shit about me or my financial situation OR my work habits so you're barking up the wrong fucking tree.

You didn't answer my question. Are you willing to pay more so that the top brackets can come down (yes or no)?

I think we should tax people who have real estate as an asset at 39.5% of FMV every year. They aren't paying their fair share and it's just not fair. Those fat cats need to pay their fair share for being able to own property because that's the gift America has given them, the ability to own property. Make no mistake, I will not rest until they pay their fair share.

 

[boomerang]

What I make + $1.
What I have + $1.

Oh, and Spidey. Don't know what he has or makes but I want to tax the shit out of him just because.

Grab a kleenex.

 

[Engineer]

I think we should tax people who have real estate as an asset at 39.5% of FMV every year. They aren't paying their fair share and it's just not fair. Those fat cats need to pay their fair share for being able to own property because that's the gift America has given them, the ability to own property. They need to pay their fair share.

Explain what that stupid opinion has to do with my question?

And...are you willing to pay the 39.5% since you own property (maybe two of them).... (of course you aren't).

 

[spidey07]

Explain what that stupid opinion has to do with my question?

And...are you willing to pay the 39.5% since you own property (maybe two of them).... (of course you aren't).

LOL! Of course I'm not. What's mine is mine and nobody is entitled to any of it. Just like I think what's yours is yours and you should keep it. My post was tongue in cheek to turn the tables on you. You think it's fine to steal other people's money, as long as it isn't YOUR money.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Nor would I but if one makes a certain amount they can afford to pay a few percentage points higher in Federal Taxes without it being any kind of hardship on them.

We have to remember that tax brackets are kind of meaningless because it all depends on deductions and writeoffs on how much you make. A person making 50k a year with 2 kids is paying very little taxes even though they are in the 25% tax bracket. A person making 200k with 2 kids is not only in the 28% tax bracket, but they are likely paying MUCH more than 4x the taxes than a person making one quarter their income than the 3% higher bracket would indicate.

Poor people really don't pay income taxes, and some even get more back than they put in. To suggest the 'rich' should pay 'just a few percentages more' is misleading, they already pay massively more than 'poor' or 'poorer' people.

 

[Engineer]

LOL! Of course I'm not. What's mine is mine and nobody is entitled to any of it. Just like I think what's yours is yours and you should keep it. My post was tongue in cheek to turn the tables on you. You think it's fine to steal other people's money, as long as it isn't YOUR money.

As do you apparently....you won't answer the question either. I've always been honest...I don't give a shit who pays more (lower or upper brackets) as long as I get to pay the same or even less. No secret with me. Let's see how many of you other guys will give an honest answer.

I've been saying for years...I'm a CEO...of me. It's my job to make the most money for ME. Any GOOD CEO would.

 

[spidey07]

As do you apparently....you won't answer the question either. I've always been honest...I don't give a shit who pays more (lower or upper brackets) as long as I get to pay the same or even less. No secret with me. Let's see how many of you other guys will give an honest answer.

I've been saying for years...I'm a CEO...of me. It's my job to make the most money for ME. Any GOOD CEO would.

It's a loaded question. Only the most libtard of libtard would say they want to pay more taxes (but yet they never do on their tax return even if there is the option to pay more...mmmm?).

You don't have to raise rates on the lower or middle to cut the top. Tax cuts are not a cost. They don't cost anything and are simply letting people keep more of their earned income. But to a liberal the government "gives" you tax cuts and those cuts "cost" money because in their libtard world the money was the government's to begin with and benevolent government let's you keep some of it.

I don't know why you keep the self defeating attitude going on, I do know your financial situation and according to dear leader you are rich.

 

[Engineer]

It's a loaded question. Only the most libtard of libtard would say they want to pay more taxes (but yet they never do on their tax return even if there is the option to pay more...mmmm?).

You don't have to raise rates on the lower or middle to cut the top. Tax cuts are not a cost. They don't cost anything and are simply letting people keep more of their earned income. But to a liberal the government "gives" you tax cuts and those cuts "cost" money because in their libtard world the money was the government's to begin with and benevolent government let's you keep some of it.

I don't know why you keep the self defeating attitude going on, I do know your financial situation and according to dear leader you are rich.

I don't make anywhere near $250,000 (even household so I'm not rich by Obama's standard...maybe by assets but not by income).

As for everyone paying the same rate, there would be increases on SOMEONE, no matter how you much you cut (unless you cut ALL of it). To have everyone have the same exact rate, there would be an increase. It's not loaded. I see shit in this very forum that EVERYONE should pay the same rate, but of course they don't mean that they would take a rate hike to do so. I am starting to think that they (including you) mean cut ALL of it out (taxes) as there is ZERO chance of everyone paying the same rate unless somebody's rate goes up, period.

And I suspect that the person that I responded to originally who dodged the question will not answer truthfully (if at all).

 

[Red Dawn]

We have to remember that tax brackets are kind of meaningless because it all depends on deductions and writeoffs on how much you make. A person making 50k a year with 2 kids is paying very little taxes even though they are in the 25% tax bracket. A person making 200k with 2 kids is not only in the 28% tax bracket, but they are likely paying MUCH more than 4x the taxes than a person making one quarter their income than the 3% higher bracket would indicate.

Poor people really don't pay income taxes, and some even get more back than they put in. To suggest the 'rich' should pay 'just a few percentages more' is misleading, they already pay massively more than 'poor' or 'poorer' people.

Well first of all I don't agree that those who make 250K a year are rich, IMO that should be a Million a year and I believe they should be paying a higher rate as they can afford it without it being a burden of their life.

 

[Scotteq]

I agree. The tax bracket system is lame. Everyone should pay the same percentage. If you want more money, earn it. It's a shame that people have to pick up the slack for others just because they are successful.

< For the Record: I support that people who make more should pay more. The fight is over 'How Much More Shoudl They Pay'>


The problem with a Flat Tax begins with poor people getting disproportinately hurt.


To create a ficticious example: Let's say 20&#37; is the magic number for Federal Income Taxes (it's roughly approxmiate to most of the US populatly now, BTW). If you make 100K then you pay 20K in Federal Income Taxes. You may not like it. But it's doable without too much trouble.

OTOH, If you make $30K, then 20% of that is $6,000. Leaving $2K a month (less Social Security, State/Local Taxes) to pay rent/bills, and feed your family with. This hurts a LOT more than the first example. (You'd pay about $4K now)


..and if you're making $20K, then you'd have to pay the Federal Government $4,000 (instead of the current $2500~ish). Leaving just $16K to pay the State, Social Security, Rent, Food.... Here in the Northeast USA, where rents alone are $800~1200/month you would be Homeless if you had to support yourself on that salary. Hell, you probably are already.

Reference - 2009 US Tax Tables: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf





Now: When you look at the per capita and adjust for the number of people at a given salary level, you can absolutely get the Middle/Lower to less than 20% and make up the difference at the treasury level on volume. But there's a problem with that: The upper working classes, middle class, and "rich" already currently pay more than that. In other words, the tax tables already scale up as you move higher. So... Where does the balance come from...


Uh Oh.... Does this means that a "Flat Tax" essentially amounts to saddling the poor with more taxes while giving the rich a break???

Why - Yes. Yes, it does.


The IRS's forumlas for estimating:


The upper brackets:

At $82,250~171,550: 20%, plus 28% for any amount over $82,250

At $171,550~372,950: 24%, plus 33% of any amount over $171,550

Over $372,950: 29% of the first $372,950, and then 35% of any amount over.



The lowest bracket currently pays 10% of the first $8,250, and 15% of any amount up to $33K.



In implementing a Flat Tax, you're either keeping the upper brackets steady and f*cking the Mids and destroying the Lower. {30~35% on $20K!!!}

Or You're keeping the Middle steady while f*cking the Lower and giving the Upper a break. {25% on 20K (+10~15%), 25% on the mids (about the same), and 25% on the Upper (5~10% LESS!)}

Or you're giving the Highs a Huge break and giving the Mids a break while continuing to screw the lower.

 

[dpodblood]

I don't make anywhere near $250,000 (even household so I'm not rich by Obama's standard...maybe by assets but not by income).

As for everyone paying the same rate, there would be increases on SOMEONE, no matter how you much you cut (unless you cut ALL of it). To have everyone have the same exact rate, there would be an increase. It's not loaded. I see shit in this very forum that EVERYONE should pay the same rate, but of course they don't mean that they would take a rate hike to do so. I am starting to think that they (including you) mean cut ALL of it out (taxes) as there is ZERO chance of everyone paying the same rate unless somebody's rate goes up, period.

And I suspect that the person that I responded to originally who dodged the question will not answer truthfully (if at all).

Hey I agree with you. All I was saying is that the concepts of tax brackets is unfair. Unfortunately fair and practical are not the same thing. If there was one universal tax bracket, taxes would lower for the "rich" and raise for the "poor". This would make the poverty line unbelievably high.

In an ideal world we would have the same low tax rate for everyone, but the way the government burns money that's just never going to happen.

 

[darkewaffle]

I went with 500k, I'm assuming a single provider in a family of four I guess. 250k would definitely be comfortable still, imo, but I feel like 500k is more of a 'rich' because you'd still have a great deal of liquid cash.

 

[Infohawk]

This is a compounded poll.

I think a reasonable linguistic cut-off for rich in America is top 20% of earners. But I agree with Bober, even America's poor people are actually rich, which is evidenced by their obesity. Unlike some on this board I don't think you're poor just because you don't have enough money to buy air conditioning or a even a car.

 

[madeuce]

LOL, you paying for me? That's "rich" (pun intended). You don't know shit about me or my financial situation OR my work habits so you're barking up the wrong fucking tree.

You didn't answer my question. Are you willing to pay more so that the top brackets can come down (yes or no)?

Unless you are lying, I know that you are too greedy to take tax hike if it means everyone is paying their fair share. You can claim whatever you want about yourself or your financial situation, unless your taxes would go down with a fair all inclusive tax rate someone is paying for your slack.

I'd be more than happy to take a rate increase if it meant everyone pays their fair share. Not just the top come down, the bottom come up. The problem is that most people are too greedy to do the same.

If you get rid of all the BS brackets, loopholes, tax returns and what not and have everyone pay X% I don't even think it would be that high.

I started out as poor as anyone, and through hard work I now make what I consider a very good amount. I have my own business and expect to bring in $135,000-150,000 before taxes this year and it should climb steadily once the economy starts picking up.

There is no reason I should be paying more than someone who wasn't willing to go the distance and is only making $15,000. There's no reason I should be paying less than the guy who makes $1,000,000.

Another great side effect of everyone paying the same rate it's easy to see when your government is spending too much. If everyone's taxes are hitting %35 you know people are going to be hollering.

 

[soulcougher73]

This is a compounded poll.

I think a reasonable linguistic cut-off for rich in America is top 20% of earners. But I agree with Bober, even America's poor people are actually rich, which is evidenced by their obesity. Unlike some on this board I don't think you're poor just because you don't have enough money to buy air conditioning or a even a car.

I think the poor are obese because that is the way the rich want them. If the poor were starving they would be coming after the rich peoples food to feed their children etc. Keeping them obese with cheap unhealthy food keeps them in check.

Sad but true.

 

[Engineer]

Unless you are lying, I know that you are too greedy to take tax hike if it means everyone is paying their fair share. You can claim whatever you want about yourself or your financial situation, unless your taxes would go down with a fair all inclusive tax rate someone is paying for your slack.

I never claimed anything about being willing to pay more for someone else. I have already admitted that I don't give a shit if rates go up all around me as long as mine stay the same or go down. No secret there. As for slack, someone is paying for yours and mine just as you and I are paying for the people in the lower brackets.

I also never claimed anything about my financial situation other than you don't know shit about it. You were claiming that I was lazy and not paying my fair share when you don't know jack shit about what I earn, pay in taxes or have in assets.

Oh, and I don't believe you for a second when you state that you would be willing to take a tax hike to make it FAIR for everyone, but that's just me and my opinion on the subject. At least spidey is truthful on that one.

By the say, when you say "fair", would that include ALL income (dividends, earned income, capital gains, etc)? I curious also as to how people feel about taxing labor vs taxing capital.

Finally, congratulations on your successful business and best of luck in the future.

 

[Acanthus]

I believe we need a new tax bracket for the ultra wealthy. Which i draw the line at $5,000,000+

However, there are ways to dodge that too, as most of these things are derived from capital gains and you can shift assets around to make one giant year into 10x$4.9m years. So there would have to be significant regulatory changes to what "income" is.

 

[Slew Foot]

Rich is when you dont have to work and your investments can provide you with the lifestyle you desire.

 

[classy]

When you hit above 400K you are able to live a lifestyle many can only dream of. But I voted for 1 million. When you have or are able to generate 1 million, you are living large.

 

[soulcougher73]

I never claimed anything about being willing to pay more for someone else. I have already admitted that I don't give a shit if rates go up all around me as long as mine stay the same or go down. No secret there. As for slack, someone is paying for yours and mine just as you and I are paying for the people in the lower brackets.

I also never claimed anything about my financial situation other than you don't know shit about it. You were claiming that I was lazy and not paying my fair share when you don't know jack shit about what I earn, pay in taxes or have in assets.

Oh, and I don't believe you for a second when you state that you would be willing to take a tax hike to make it FAIR for everyone, but that's just me and my opinion on the subject. At least spidey is truthful on that one.

I would take a tax hike if it would fix our situation and benefit me. Taxes are a neccessary evil in a civilized society. I have no problem paying them. Hell i would even pay more if college education was included in it for all US Citizens if they so choose to attend.

 

[Acanthus]

This is a compounded poll.

I think a reasonable linguistic cut-off for rich in America is top 20% of earners. But I agree with Bober, even America's poor people are actually rich, which is evidenced by their obesity. Unlike some on this board I don't think you're poor just because you don't have enough money to buy air conditioning or a even a car.

You are talking about the concept of relative poverty.

The argument at hand is basically if the nation is better off with a more even level of wealth distribution (not equal before spidey flips out about communism) just not a gini index of 60.

Do the walton kids really work 5,000,000 hours a week at a reasonable wage? Do they "work" at all?

There are a lot of intricate arguments and defenses to the concept. But the fact is you usually have a healthier economy in a large empire when the wealth isn't pushed to the top 1%.

 

[Martin]

2 standard deviations away from the median.

 

[madeuce]

I never claimed anything about being willing to pay more for someone else.

Never said you were willing, said that you weren't willing because of your greed.

I have already admitted that I don't give a shit if rates go up all around me as long as mine stay the same or go down. No secret there. As for slack, someone is paying for yours and mine just as you and I are paying for the people in the lower brackets.

It's greedy people like yourself that are the reason the tax brackets are still in place. No one wants to sacrifice anything even in the short term to make things better as a whole.

I also never claimed anything about my financial situation other than you don't know shit about it. You were claiming that I was lazy and not paying my fair share when you don't know jack shit about what I earn, pay in taxes or have in assets.

You claimed that you wouldn't pay more so someone who makes more than you could pay less. So by your claim you aren't in the top tax bracket. You also seem to think there is no way that I could be paying for you, so you must not be in the lowest bracket either.

Oh, and I don't believe you for a second when you state that you would be willing to take a tax hike to make it FAIR for everyone, but that's just me and my opinion on the subject. At least spidey is truthful on that one.

OH NOES! SOMEONE ON THE INTERWEBS DOESN"T BELEIVE ME!!! lol Not everyone is as greedy as yourself.

By the say, when you say "fair", would that include ALL income (dividends, earned income, capital gains, etc)? I curious also as to how people feel about taxing labor vs taxing capital.

When I talk about everyone getting taxed fairly I mean on ALL income. No workarounds or loopholes. If you make $100,000 a year from anything reportable that it get's taxed at X%. That's what I would consider fair. What I don't consider fair is someone that is working their life away to provide for their own family, but in doing so has to provide for someone who decides they don't want to work.

 

[Engineer]

Never said you were willing, said that you weren't willing because of your greed.



It's greedy people like yourself that are the reason the tax brackets are still in place. No one wants to sacrifice anything even in the short term to make things better as a whole.



You claimed that you wouldn't pay more so someone who makes more than you could pay less. So by your claim you aren't in the top tax bracket. You also seem to think there is no way that I could be paying for you, so you must not be in the lowest bracket either.

Engineer: You called me lazy BEFORE I made some of those comments, lol



OH NOES! SOMEONE ON THE INTERWEBS DOESN"T BELEIVE ME!!! lol Not everyone is as greedy as yourself.



When I talk about everyone getting taxed fairly I mean on ALL income. No workarounds or loopholes. If you make $100,000 a year from anything reportable that it get's taxed at X&#37;. That's what I would consider fair. What I don't consider fair is someone that is working their life away to provide for their own family, but in doing so has to provide for someone who decides they don't want to work.

I guess I have to go get another job as apparently, I'm lazy AND greedy now, lol. Oh well, my views are as they are. I've worked as hard as anyone on this forum. If that makes me lazy and greedy because I want to keep my money, than so be it.


But, I do agree that capital earnings should be taxed at the same rate as labor.