• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rich Paying less taxes, middle/lower class paying more.

I heard about an interesting book on the radio that talked about how the people that paid the highest tax rates were the upper middle class/mildly rich people like doctors and lawyers and such. People that are richer than that can avail themselves to all sorts of tax shelters and such that let them pay way lower % tax rates.
 
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I heard about an interesting book on the radio that talked about how the people that paid the highest tax rates were the upper middle class/mildly rich people like doctors and lawyers and such. People that are richer than that can avail themselves to all sorts of tax shelters and such that let them pay way lower % tax rates.
Click to expand...

That is quite interesting. But, I do wonder how many doctors actually fall into that category. It seems like the issues with managed care, HMOs, etc. have all done things to screw up the incomes of doctors - to the point that, in some cases, their incomes have been greatly reduced. For the most part, I believe doctors certainly deserve what they get paid. However, the issues introduced by many of the insurance companies have been just plain wrong.

Lawyers ... well, for those folks, we could go on and on.
 
From LMK-

"wow, just an out-right lie.

well, that'll work for a post to."

Care to offer any support, or should we simply take your auto-pilot opinion as gospel?
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From LMK-

"wow, just an out-right lie.

well, that'll work for a post to."

Care to offer any support, or should we simply take your auto-pilot opinion as gospel?
Click to expand...
How about the fact that I'm anything but rich and I've seen my taxes go down dramatically. That enough proof or would you prefer to continue reading theories about the tax situation?
 
How about the fact that I'm anything but rich and I've seen my taxes go down dramatically. That enough proof or would you prefer to continue reading theories about the tax situation?
Click to expand...
Give me a break. That's not enough proof whatsoever. It's just a single piece of anecdotal evidence. I was at a McDonalds once and overheard a guy complaining that his taxes had gone up but so what? That was just 1 guy.

How about some studies or something?
 
From Shinerburke-

"How about the fact that I'm anything but rich and I've seen my taxes go down dramatically. That enough proof or would you prefer to continue reading theories about the tax situation?"

Extrapolating one's personal situation to the general case, or thinking that it's statistically significant, is usually a mistake...

Bush's tax "cuts" are illusory, anyway, unless you're planning on being dead when the bill comes due, or so wealthy as to be able to manipulate tax policy in your favor as required... Narrow segments of the middle class (particularly the upper middle class) did, in truth, receive a greater dose of illusion than others. The wife and I made out like bandits, for example, but we're also right on the top 10% divide...

But I see the struggle of our friends and neighbors, most of whom work as hard as we do for half the money, and realize that I'm really more lucky than good... and I notice that they didn't get diddly for taxcuts, but those making tens or hundreds of times my income are the recipients of very large beneficience from the current situation... And the price of everything that matters keeps going up- any kind of local or state fees, energy, healthcare, housing- everything except imported goods... Getting a few hundred a year "taxcut" doesn't really make up for the fact that your gas/electric bill went up $74/ mo, health insurance up $100/ mo, Rent $50/mo, and you got laid off, took something for lower pay just to make ends meet...

Pointing to "averages" with the Bush taxloans is like refiguring the average net worth of the people in a room, after Bill Gates walks in... it's amazing what a single large number will do to an average...
 
Well guys guess what. The middle class have no ones to blame for the high taxes but themselves. How many people vote any more? Instead of taking matters into their own hands people would rather sit on their asses and bitch and moan.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From LMK-

"wow, just an out-right lie.

well, that'll work for a post to."

Care to offer any support, or should we simply take your auto-pilot opinion as gospel?
Click to expand...

sure:
Politicans and lobbyists screwing the country over.
Click to expand...
The tax burden is still laid squarely on the shoulders of those who are most valuable to society. Even with an equal percentage of income coming from the rich they would still pay much more in terms of dollars, and the rich aren?t the one's who cast the votes, so we've got only ourselves to blame for who we elect and how the government is run.
 
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The tax burden is still laid squarely on the shoulders of those who are most valuable to society.
Click to expand...

The most valuable to society would be --unquestionably-- the working class.

That is to say: neither the rich, nor the ultra-rich are as aforementioned, most valuable to society.

If this is what you meant, then you are absolutely right.

And of course, we do deserve the government we have. A true indictment of just how lame we Americans have become.
 
The most valuable to society would be --unquestionably-- the working class.
Click to expand...
you mean everyone but the un employed, yes I agree.
and within that the Brain surgeon is worth more than the seal-mill worker, thus he gets paid more to encourage others to move up from steal mill worker to brain surgeon.
 
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
The most valuable to society would be --unquestionably-- the working class.
Click to expand...
you mean everyone but the un employed, yes I agree.
and within that the Brain surgeon is worth more than the seal-mill worker, thus he gets paid more to encourage others to move up from steal mill worker to brain surgeon.
Click to expand...

Semantics may be throwing you a curve.

Net worth, or net income is not necessarily an indicator of VALUE to society.

For example, I can make a strong case that the people who pick-up my trash have a much more present and immeadiate (indispensable, really) effect and affect on my life than brain surgeons.

I suspect that, on average, this is true for most people = society (at least a great majority).

So, in a very real way, trash collectors are more valuable to society than brain surgeons. They certainly touch my existence moreso.
 
Between the changing of the tax brackets and the lowering of the tax rate for people that make 311K a year, these tax cuts are there, they just don?t mean that much. Do a search on Google and find the 1999 Fed tax table and then look at the 2003 tax table, the super rich (those making 311K or more) got a 5% tax cut, where as those making less then that only got a 3% tax cut. It is still a tax cut, but not much of one. Say you made 62K a year in 1999 and you still make the same amount today you would save around $140 a month under the current tax plan. But lets say you make 311,950 your federal tax would be for 2003 $12,304 LESS then it would have been in 1999.

So it is hard to say that there has not been a tax cut, because there has, BUT it is mostly for the super rich. I mean 5% is a whole lot more money when you are making 311K a year, but 3% when you are not making nearly that much, just doesn?t seem to be fair.
 
Of course it's not fair, it's based on the fraudulent theory of trickle down economics. Let the wealthy have more, so they'll invest more. Except that investment doesn't necessarily occur in the donor country, but more likely in places where ROI is higher. The current "recovery" is showing the effects of this phenomenon, with profits much higher, but wages and job availability lagging far behind... and it'll get worse as time goes on, provided that America is content to endure the same song and dance over and over again...
 
Originally posted by: fjord
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The tax burden is still laid squarely on the shoulders of those who are most valuable to society.
Click to expand...

The most valuable to society would be --unquestionably-- the working class.

That is to say: neither the rich, nor the ultra-rich are as aforementioned, most valuable to society.

If this is what you meant, then you are absolutely right.

And of course, we do deserve the government we have. A true indictment of just how lame we Americans have become.
Click to expand...

Why is the working class the most valuable? That's a pretty heavy statement to make, and it should require at least some logic to justify it.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Of course it's not fair, it's based on the fraudulent theory of trickle down economics. Let the wealthy have more, so they'll invest more. Except that investment doesn't necessarily occur in the donor country, but more likely in places where ROI is higher. The current "recovery" is showing the effects of this phenomenon, with profits much higher, but wages and job availability lagging far behind... and it'll get worse as time goes on, provided that America is content to endure the same song and dance over and over again...
Click to expand...

What is this talk about "letting them" have more? They are not endowed this wealth by their contemporaries, but by their own investment and their own sacrifice. It is their money, earned by them, and so why, simply because they have more of it, should they be viewed differently?
 
Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Glick sounds like the NeoLibs on this board.
Click to expand...

I've read lots of your posts Nightcrawler, and while I usually disagree, some of them are actually pretty good. That being said, this has been pointed out to several people on this board before:

The opposite of a neo-conservative is not a neo-liberal.

Look it up - neo-liberals and neo-conservatives are nearly identical politically and philosophically. If you want to throw around a catchy insult, please find one that is at least accurate.

Spitting out political jargon that you don't even understand is one of the fastest ways to make yourself look ignorant. I suggest you avoid it.
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Of course it's not fair, it's based on the fraudulent theory of trickle down economics. Let the wealthy have more, so they'll invest more. Except that investment doesn't necessarily occur in the donor country, but more likely in places where ROI is higher. The current "recovery" is showing the effects of this phenomenon, with profits much higher, but wages and job availability lagging far behind... and it'll get worse as time goes on, provided that America is content to endure the same song and dance over and over again...
Click to expand...

What is this talk about "letting them" have more? They are not endowed this wealth by their contemporaries, but by their own investment and their own sacrifice. It is their money, earned by them, and so why, simply because they have more of it, should they be viewed differently?
Click to expand...

some feel that nothing is anyones, that the government should dictate what everyone has and doesn't have...others feel that the rich are not entitled to their money but rather it should be divided and split....the robin hood mentality...jhhnn seems like someone that has no problems with the tax system of the past which punished the well to do whereas I am more of a proponenet of either a flat tax or a much higher sales tax on luxury goods and a reduction of the income tax and also privatization or elimination of SS....
 
Because this is a Democracy, Orsorum, not an economic oligarchy. Not yet, anyway. And because the acquisition of great wealth is as much (if not more) a function of good fortune as of work or alleged sacrifice.

The need for and desirability of wealth redistribution is obvious, and has been obvious for ~100 years. Capitalism, left to its own devices, will ultimately concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a very few, much to the detriment of Democracy.

So some additional mechanisms are required to achieved stability and maximum benefit for all. That is not to take a radically egalitarian POV, not at all, but simply to point out that limited resources dictate such action, and that the lifestyles of those at the extreme upper end of incomes simply will not be affected by considerably higher taxes. They'll still have the summer home in the Hamptons, winter home in Aspen, and the kids will still go to Harvard, and have very generous inheritances...

What happened to patriotism among the wealthy, anyway? Forty years ago, they were proud to pay big taxes on big money. Now, they just whine, as they actually pay lower taxes than the rest of the top 1%. I'd gladly pay 50% federal taxes on all income over $10M/yr... How about you? Or has overwhelming greed become the most important of modern so-called "values"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top