Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically

[Infohawk]

You're not making any sense.
If we had no SS than why would we have to pay into it?

I'm fine with ending SS and not accepting any benefits, but part of SS is the payments that I pay into it. If SS ends, so does that.

Let's break it down for you:

Because he is advocating for higher taxes on the rich, you want the guy in the article to voluntarily pay taxes that other people in his bracket don't pay when nobody else is forced to.

Using your logic: Because you are arguing against social security, you should voluntarily give up your benefits even if nobody else does.

Your come back appears to be that you only want to give up your benefits if social security is ended. In that case his come back would be that he only wants to pay more taxes if everyone has to pay more taxes.

It's the exact same situation! You are being hypocritical and it's not that hard to understand.

Hopefully you can recognize now that telling him to voluntarily pay taxes that nobody else does is just as stupid as telling someone like you to voluntarily give up their social security benefits that nobody else gives up.

 

[theeedude]

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Maybe I should embrace conservative ideology so that I can comfort myself by knowing there are those worse off than me making, $18,500 a month and paying a whopping $1000 in taxes.

BTW I expect his family income to be in the rage of 100K, AND we have a high income tax AND a high sales tax AND there is talk in the state capitol of turning the entire costs of medicaid over to individual counties and them dropping it, and no relief in what we pay Albany. Of course they would still make sure their standards (read expensive policies without possibility of reform) would be met.

You recently complained about HI taxes. I didn't opine in that tread because I understand full well what the feels like. If you ever relocate, don't come here because it will cost even more.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He gave more breaks than may have been prudent, but Dems have been in power too. When they had control of the government during the Clinton days, why weren't the loopholes plugged? Because they are just the same. It would cut into their war chests too.

Pot meet kettle. Neither party is worthy of being in office.

 

[matt0611]

Let's break it down for you:

Because he is advocating for higher taxes on the rich, you want the guy in the article to voluntarily pay taxes that other people in his bracket don't pay when nobody else is forced to.

Using your logic: Because you are arguing against social security, you should voluntarily give up your benefits even if nobody else does.

Your come back appears to be that you only want to give up your benefits if social security is ended. In that case his come back would be that he only wants to pay more taxes if everyone has to pay more taxes.

It's the exact same situation! You are being hypocritical and it's not that hard to understand.

Hopefully you can recognize now that telling him to voluntarily pay taxes that nobody else does is just as stupid as telling someone like you to voluntarily give up their social security benefits that nobody else gives up.

No, you are still not making sense.

If I kept paying for SS benefits and didn't accept any benefits, this would hurt me. But I'm not asking anyone else to do this!

He IS advocating that other people including himself pay higher taxes to lower our debt. Therefore, he should be doing this already.

He is advocating that others do something that he himself is not doing voluntarily. I am doing no such thing.

 

[theeedude]

He gave more breaks than may have been prudent, but Dems have been in power too. When they had control of the government during the Clinton days, why weren't the loopholes plugged? Because they are just the same. It would cut into their war chests too.

Pot meet kettle. Neither party is worthy of being in office.

Wow, you are going back to 1993 when they last had control under Clinton to bash Dems? Digging pretty deep. But it was those Dems that passed the tax hikes which eventually balanced the budget, even if it was politically unpopular and cost them in 94. Now that is courage worthy of being in office.

 

[Infohawk]

What you say is in fact, a lie.

But we're talking about federal income tax here so he did not lie. 50% don't pay any. I don't think they should have to pay as much as the rich but they should have to pay something if they're making a salary. Everyone should have to make sacrifices to make the government work.

And having the poor pay no taxes sets up a situation where they are motivated to increase spending. Why wouldn't they? They don't have to pay for it. If everyone has to pay for more services they'll think twice about voting for people who increase spending.

 

[Infohawk]

No, you are still not making sense.

If I kept paying for SS benefits and didn't accept any benefits, this would hurt me. But I'm not asking anyone else to do this!

He IS advocating that other people including himself pay higher taxes to lower our debt. Therefore, he should be doing this already.

He is advocating that others do something that he himself is not doing voluntarily. I am doing no such thing.

Ugh... comon dude... you're not asking that everyone else give up social security? You obviously are or else you aren't against social security.

 

[Woofmeister]

The whole premise of the article is misleading. See my prior edited post.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31574197&postcount=45

 

[matt0611]

Ugh... comon dude... you're not asking that everyone else give up social security? You obviously are or else you aren't against social security.

I advocate for a phase out of SS.
I don't advocate that we all pay our SS tax and then we get no benefits from it. That makes no sense.

SS is linked to the taxes we pay into it, what don't you understand about that?
Without the tax, there is no benefits, and without the benefits theres no need for the taxes.

A better analogy is for me to make a law that all people must donate to a certain charity, but I don't donate any money myself voluntarily at the time.
If its so good then why don't I do it myself before making a law that requires others to do so?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wow, you are going back to 1993 when they last had control under Clinton to bash Dems? Digging pretty deep. But it was those Dems that passed the tax hikes which eventually balanced the budget, even if it was politically unpopular and cost them in 94. Now that is courage worthy of being in office.

You go back to Reagan. All of you allowed it. You picked Bush. What about Obama and both houses of congress? "But but" my butt. Stop apologizing and kick your own parties ass when they have a chance. A lot of expectations were on your party when Obama came to office. Gitmo? Open. Warrantless wiretapps? Let's go further than Bush. Your Emperor has no clothes. Bush and the pubs did what they did and never got praise from me to allow this to go on. I never made excuses for them. I never pointed at them Dems when the Reps were at the helm. I'm not going to let your favored off the hook either.

Again, neither party belongs in power.

 

[Paul98]

Raising taxes on the poor, middle, lower middle class would hurt the economy far more than raising taxes on the rich.

Also if we have the middle, and upper middle class paying a decently high percentage in taxes why is it so bad that the rich pay something close to that percentage?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The whole premise of the article is misleading. See my prior edited post.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31574197&postcount=45

The person in question isn't super rich, but he had enough disposable income to invest at what should be his own risk. I'll return to a prior point. Many I know have had to take from their retirement because of the current financial climate. They weren't given a break nor was it considered income. It was taxed and penalized and taxed again. I'm having trouble being sympathetic with someone who could afford to take on what is an inherently risky venture then be allowed to gain in other ways.

 

[theeedude]

You go back to Reagan. All of you allowed it. You picked Bush. What about Obama and both houses of congress? "But but" my butt. Stop apologizing and kick your own parties ass when they have a chance. A lot of expectations were on your party when Obama came to office. Gitmo? Open. Warrantless wiretapps? Let's go further than Bush. Your Emperor has no clothes. Bush and the pubs did what they did and never got praise from me to allow this to go on. I never made excuses for them. I never pointed at them Dems when the Reps were at the helm. I'm not going to let your favored off the hook either.

Again, neither party belongs in power.

OK, feel free to remain ignorant. Or stop voting, if you really believe neither of them deserves to be in office.

 

[soulcougher73]

I agree that a wealthy person should be paying more than I am paying, all these deductions are bullshit.
Thats why I advocate for a much simpler tax code with far less deductions but a smaller rate.

But that guy should put his money where his mouth is and pay up that money to the IRS to pay down our debt. Nothing is stopping him.

These are weak ass arguements. He is not advocating people should give to the IRS as a charity. He is advocating they tax rich people appropriatly in the first place. Then if they still want to give more they can cut a check.

I have no problem being taxes 25% of my income as im not naive enough to think you can have a working modern society without taxing. The problem is spending more then you bring in. If you bring in 25% revenue from income you spend 25%. That is how it should be. Nice and simple.

 

[matt0611]

These are weak ass arguements. He is not advocating people should give to the IRS as a charity. He is advocating they tax rich people appropriatly in the first place. Then if they still want to give more they can cut a check.

I have no problem being taxes 25% of my income as im not naive enough to think you can have a working modern society without taxing. The problem is spending more then you bring in. If you bring in 25% revenue from income you spend 25%. That is how it should be. Nice and simple.

He's advocating forcing people to do something that he's not doing voluntarily. (unless he is, I honestly don't know but I'm guessing he's not or it would say so)
Thats weak.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Raising taxes on the poor, middle, lower middle class would hurt the economy far more than raising taxes on the rich.

Also if we have the middle, and upper middle class paying a decently high percentage in taxes why is it so bad that the rich pay something close to that percentage?

You realize that revoking the tax breaks does little to change the situation? Those who have the means will simply shelter their income but those who cannot will come to bear the brunt of the costs. Remember this, when a pol says "tax the rich" he'll always count on you to think that's anyone who makes more than you. It's like the old Colt 45 ads. "It works every time."

If there is to be a repeal or increase of taxes then the loopholes need to be addressed and not in such a way that it harms whose who cannot afford to duck their money elsewhere.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Without the actual details it's useless arguing why some guy only paid 2K in taxes out of 200K of earnings. Clearly there is information not being disclosed here.

btw, this guy is not "super rich." He's not even rich. While he's certainly well-to-do he's nowhere near the level of that top 1% that the usual suspects in here seem to harp about on nearly a daily basis.

 

[Infohawk]

I advocate for a phase out of SS.
I don't advocate that we all pay our SS tax and then we get no benefits from it. That makes no sense.

SS is linked to the taxes we pay into it, what don't you understand about that?
Without the tax, there is no benefits, and without the benefits theres no need for the taxes.

A better analogy is for me to make a law that all people must donate to a certain charity, but I don't donate any money myself voluntarily at the time.
If its so good then why don't I do it myself before making a law that requires others to do so?

You're really bordering on intellectual dishonesty here. You eventually want SS to end. RIGHT? Therefore you are advocating that other Americans give up SS. Now, according to your logic, you should give it up first even though it's not the law. Voluntarily.

Of course I know SS taxes pay for SS. That's not relevant here. The only thing that's relevant is the childish idea that you can only advocate for taxes if you voluntarily pay them without other people paying them. You could extend it to military spending. How about those who think taxes should pay more for common defense buy the US army a humvee first to put their money where their mouth is? It's a stupid idea.

Your charity analogy is horrible because taxation is nothing like charity. The entire point is that it works if everyone does it. Here is another bad analogy for you. Maybe we could make driving on the right side of the road voluntary. People who think it's a good idea should lead the way and put their money where their mouth is.

 

[BoberFett]

OK, feel free to remain ignorant. Or stop voting, if you really believe neither of them deserves to be in office.

You are the very definition of partisan hack.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

OK, feel free to remain ignorant. Or stop voting, if you really believe neither of them deserves to be in office.

Why didn't Obama and Congress make this a TOP priority? You have two choices. Either they didn't want to (the most likely since the Dem leaders also benefit) or they are moral cowards (also true but less likely because they pushed other considerations down people's throats without much regret).

Stick to your people and explain yourselves, if you can. BTW. I have decided that voting is a waste of gas for federal elections. You have presented me a Hobson's choice and I will not play your fool. That does not mean I won't vote if there is a reason.

Now, show us ignorant how you apologize for your side not fixing this when they could have. You rammed insurance legislation through so you could have done something about this, but you are in the pockets of those who want this. Pets who protest too much, that's partisans.

 

[soundforbjt]

Without the actual details it's useless arguing why some guy only paid 2K in taxes out of 200K of earnings. Clearly there is information not being disclosed here.

btw, this guy is not "super rich." He's not even rich. While he's certainly well-to-do he's nowhere near the level of that top 1% that the usual suspects in here seem to harp about on nearly a daily basis.

He normally makes 500+K per year. Only one year he made 200K.

 

[spidey07]

You're really bordering on intellectual dishonesty here. You eventually want SS to end. RIGHT? Therefore you are advocating that other Americans give up SS. Now, according to your logic, you should give it up first even though it's not the law. Voluntarily.

Of course I know SS taxes pay for SS. That's not relevant here. The only thing that's relevant is the childish idea that you can only advocate for taxes if you voluntarily pay them without other people paying them. You could extend it to military spending. How about those who think taxes should pay more for common defense buy the US army a humvee first to put their money where their mouth is? It's a stupid idea.

Your charity analogy is horrible because taxation is nothing like charity. The entire point is that it works if everyone does it. Here is another bad analogy for you. Maybe we could make driving on the right side of the road voluntary. People who think it's a good idea should lead the way and put their money where their mouth is.

Holy 8 strawmen in a single post!

You're still not getting the very basic point that if he wants others to pay more then he should write a check. Otherwise he's a hypocrite.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Without the actual details it's useless arguing why some guy only paid 2K in taxes out of 200K of earnings. Clearly there is information not being disclosed here.

btw, this guy is not "super rich." He's not even rich. While he's certainly well-to-do he's nowhere near the level of that top 1% that the usual suspects in here seem to harp about on nearly a daily basis.

The definition of "super rich" is no longer the top 1%...it's a moving target. It became the top 2% and has now become those with incomes over $200k single/$300k family.

Along those lines...I'm still trying to figure out details of what percentage of income constitutes their "fair share"? I keep asking but nobody answers....must be another one of those 'moving targets'. 😉

 

[BoberFett]

Without the actual details it's useless arguing why some guy only paid 2K in taxes out of 200K of earnings. Clearly there is information not being disclosed here.

btw, this guy is not "super rich." He's not even rich. While he's certainly well-to-do he's nowhere near the level of that top 1% that the usual suspects in here seem to harp about on nearly a daily basis.

If 200K is a bad year for him, he probably is in the top 1%. However there's still a world of difference between the top 1% and top .01%. This guy doesn't even register on the wealth scale compared to people who pull down eight figures and up.