The rich are getting richer

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, we need a very progressive tax system with top marginal rate well north of 50%. We had it in the 50s and we had a huge economic boom.

Yes, let's tax those who are successful. After all, that's the American dream.

Yes, let's tax those who are struggling. After all, thats the American dream

That's why we have a graduated income tax. Nice try.

That's why we have a regressive payroll tax. Nice try.

Don't even try to say the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes in the country. Quit your bitching and thank them for paying your taxes.

The rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. If the top 1% makes 90 times as much as those in the bottom 20%, that 40% number is not very impressive. I pay a higher combined tax rate than those making over $1M.

No, you don't. Do you pay over 50% of your income in taxes?
Yes, I do.
Look at Rip's link. The top 1% pay 27% income tax rate. I pay a higher percent of my income in taxes.

That's impossible, 35% is the BASE income tax. Let alone sales tax, state income tax, capital gains, property tax, etc...

You are clueless. If someone has 10M in a dividend paying stock, and gets a 500K/year dividend doing nothing, what percent tax rate do they pay?

I'm referring to people that actually work/earn their money, not people that have money in the stock market, etc. Actual earned income.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, we need a very progressive tax system with top marginal rate well north of 50%. We had it in the 50s and we had a huge economic boom.

Yes, let's tax those who are successful. After all, that's the American dream.

Yes, let's tax those who are struggling. After all, thats the American dream

That's why we have a graduated income tax. Nice try.

That's why we have a regressive payroll tax. Nice try.

Don't even try to say the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes in the country. Quit your bitching and thank them for paying your taxes.

The rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. If the top 1% makes 90 times as much as those in the bottom 20%, that 40% number is not very impressive. I pay a higher combined tax rate than those making over $1M.

No, you don't. Do you pay over 50% of your income in taxes?
Yes, I do.
Look at Rip's link. The top 1% pay 27% income tax rate. I pay a higher percent of my income in taxes.

That's impossible, 35% is the BASE income tax. Let alone sales tax, state income tax, capital gains, property tax, etc...

You are clueless. If someone has 10M in a dividend paying stock, and gets a 500K/year dividend doing nothing, what percent tax rate do they pay?

I'm referring to people that actually work/earn their money, not people that have money in the stock market, etc. Actual earned income.

Even actual earned income. If you include payroll taxes, the top 1% don't pay the highest rates. But you are the one who brought up capital gains. The rich get a larger chunk of their income in capital gains and dividends than working class. So their effective tax rate is even lower. Someone enjoying the easy life living off dividends and capital gains is paying 15% tax, while someone working 60 hrs a week making 70K and actually creating wealth to pay for the 15% dividend to the rich guy is paying 40% in federal taxes. You don't see anything wrong with it?
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Even actual earned income. If you include payroll taxes, the top 1% don't pay the highest rates. But you are the one who brought up capital gains. The rich get a larger chunk of their income in capital gains and dividends than working class. So their effective tax rate is even lower. Someone enjoying the easy life living off dividends and capital gains is paying 15% tax, while someone working 60 hrs a week making 70K and actually creating wealth to pay for the 15% dividend to the rich guy is paying 40% in federal taxes. You don't see anything wrong with it?

Not until I see some proof that "the rich," as you call the top wage earners, use more public resources than the average person.

EDIT: And whatever proof is presented much clearly show that the top wage earners need to pay a higher percentage (and not just a higher amount) than the average person to offset these costs, if they exist.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Even actual earned income. If you include payroll taxes, the top 1% don't pay the highest rates. But you are the one who brought up capital gains. The rich get a larger chunk of their income in capital gains and dividends than working class. So their effective tax rate is even lower. Someone enjoying the easy life living off dividends and capital gains is paying 15% tax, while someone working 60 hrs a week making 70K and actually creating wealth to pay for the 15% dividend to the rich guy is paying 40% in federal taxes. You don't see anything wrong with it?

Not until I see some proof that "the rich," as you call the top wage earners, use more public resources than the average person.

Where do profits from trucks using the roadways go?
Who do public school educated people work for?
Whose interests are we defending in the middle east?
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Where do profits from trucks using the roadways go?
Who do public school educated people work for?
Whose interests are we defending in the middle east?

Is that your proof?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
But hey, if you are fine with someone living off dividends paying 15% tax rate, while someone working 60 hrs a week paying 40% tax, then I guess your vision of American dream is different from mine. My American dream is hard working people making a life for themselves, not trust fund babies coasting through life. I don't think the government should put a 40% barrier in front of those working their way up from nothing, while only putting a 15% barrier on those accumulating wealth by doing nothing. But your mileage may vary.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Where do profits from trucks using the roadways go?
Who do public school educated people work for?
Whose interests are we defending in the middle east?

Is that your proof?

Yes. it is. If a company didn't have well educated employees, and good infrastructure, there would be no profits to pay dividends or high executive salaries.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
40% of $30,000 is the same as 10% of $120,000. If both wage earners are using the same amount of public resources, I see no problem with it.

Of course, this is not realistic, but you should see the point.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
40% of $30,000 is the same as 10% of $120,000. If both wage earners are using the same amount of public resources, I see no problem with it.

That's because you hate working Americans.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, we need a very progressive tax system with top marginal rate well north of 50%. We had it in the 50s and we had a huge economic boom.

Yes, let's tax those who are successful. After all, that's the American dream.

Yes, let's tax those who are struggling. After all, thats the American dream

That's why we have a graduated income tax. Nice try.

what the hell do you think a graduated income tax is?
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, we need a very progressive tax system with top marginal rate well north of 50%. We had it in the 50s and we had a huge economic boom.

Yes, let's tax those who are successful. After all, that's the American dream.

Yes, let's tax those who are struggling. After all, thats the American dream

That's why we have a graduated income tax. Nice try.

That's why we have a regressive payroll tax. Nice try.

Don't even try to say the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes in the country. Quit your bitching and thank them for paying your taxes.

they also get about that much of the income. They can aford to pay 50% of their income much more easily than i can 50% of my income.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: daniel1113
40% of $30,000 is the same as 10% of $120,000. If both wage earners are using the same amount of public resources, I see no problem with it.

That's because you hate working Americans.

Really? Since I think everyone should pay for what they use, I hate working Americans?

That's interesting, since I already proved that the top 20% of wage earners pay 80% of all federal income taxes, so the lowest wage earners are actually paying less than what they use.

Yet you cannot prove a thing, expcept that somehow I hate working Americans? Good job.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yes, we need a very progressive tax system with top marginal rate well north of 50%. We had it in the 50s and we had a huge economic boom.

Yes, let's tax those who are successful. After all, that's the American dream.

Yes, let's tax those who are struggling. After all, thats the American dream

That's why we have a graduated income tax. Nice try.

That's why we have a regressive payroll tax. Nice try.

Don't even try to say the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes in the country. Quit your bitching and thank them for paying your taxes.

The rich don't pay their fair share of taxes. If the top 1% makes 90 times as much as those in the bottom 20%, that 40% number is not very impressive. I pay a higher combined tax rate than those making over $1M.

No, you don't. Do you pay over 50% of your income in taxes?
Yes, I do.
Look at Rip's link. The top 1% pay 27% income tax rate. I pay a higher percent of my income in taxes.

That's impossible, 35% is the BASE income tax. Let alone sales tax, state income tax, capital gains, property tax, etc...

You are clueless. If someone has 10M in a dividend paying stock, and gets a 500K/year dividend doing nothing, what percent tax rate do they pay?

I'm referring to people that actually work/earn their money, not people that have money in the stock market, etc. Actual earned income.

no one gets rich "earning" their income
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: daniel1113
40% of $30,000 is the same as 10% of $120,000. If both wage earners are using the same amount of public resources, I see no problem with it.

That's because you hate working Americans.

Really? Since I think everyone should pay for what they use, I hate working Americans?

That's interesting, since I already proved that the top 20% of wage earners pay 80% of all federal income taxes, so the lowest wage earners are actually paying less than what they use. And I hate working Americans?

Excuse me, but anyone who would tax someone working long hours making 30K 40%, while taxing someone sitting at home getting a 120K per year dividend check 10% hates working Americans, if not consciously, then through your behavior.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Excuse me, but anyone who would tax someone working long hours making 30K 40%, while taxing someone sitting at home getting a 120K per year dividend check 10% hates working Americans, if not consciously, then through your behavior.

I never said it was right, I said it was fair. Why should anyone have to pay for someone else's expenses?

As for you, my friend, you have a very skewed view of wealthy Americans if you think they sit around and magically earn a nice income.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Excuse me, but anyone who would tax someone working long hours making 30K 40%, while taxing someone sitting at home getting a 120K per year dividend check 10% hates working Americans, if not consciously, then through your behavior.

I never said it was right, I said it was fair.

As for you, my friend, you have a very skewed view of wealthy Americans if you think they sit around and magically earn a nice income.

You said you had no problem with it. As for me, I know my share of trustfund babies who don't work much if at all. And I also know the tax rates for earned incomes and tax rates for just sitting around and getting dividends and capital gains. So don't go pulling wool over my eyes.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
You said you had no problem with it. As for me, I know my share of trustfund babies who don't work much if at all. And I also know the tax rates for earned incomes and tax rates for just sitting around and getting dividends and capital gains. So don't go pulling wool over my eyes.

I don't have a problem with it, because it's fair.

As I've stated multiple times, unless you can prove that the average wealthy American consumes more public resources than the average American, there is no need for them to pay more in taxes (dollars, not percentage) than anyone else. That they already do is merely frosting on the cake.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
You said you had no problem with it. As for me, I know my share of trustfund babies who don't work much if at all. And I also know the tax rates for earned incomes and tax rates for just sitting around and getting dividends and capital gains. So don't go pulling wool over my eyes.

I don't have a problem with it, because it's fair.

As I've stated multiple times, unless you can prove that the average wealthy American consumes more public resources than the average American, there is no need for them to pay more in taxes (dollars, not percentage) than anyone else. That they already do is merely frosting on the cake.

You also "never said it was right." So you have no problem with something that isn't right?
I have already proven to you that they do benefit more from public resources like infrastructure and education systems. The fact that you don't get it does not make it not true.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
You also "never said it was right." So you have no problem with something that isn't right?
I have already proven to you that they do benefit more from public resources like infrastructure and education systems. The fact that you don't get it does not make it not true.

You haven't proven sh*t. A greater benefit from a resource does not equate to an increase in usage. Just because someone may have had a greater benefit from public education doesn't mean they incurred a higher cost, as you seem to believe. All you've stated thus far is that you know a few wealthy people that don't have to work as much... hardly a valid statement muchless a valid proof.

Care to try again? I'm waiting.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
You also "never said it was right." So you have no problem with something that isn't right?
I have already proven to you that they do benefit more from public resources like infrastructure and education systems. The fact that you don't get it does not make it not true.

You haven't proven sh*t. A greater benefit from a resource does not equate to an increase in usage. Just because someone may have had a greater benefit from public education doesn't mean they incurred a higher cost, as you seem to believe. All you've stated thus far is that you know a few wealthy people that don't have to work as much... hardly a valid statement muchless a valid proof.

Care to try again? I'm waiting.

Huh? You are saying owners of tech companies haven't used the public education resources of UC Berkeley for example? I am awaiting your proof of that.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
You also "never said it was right." So you have no problem with something that isn't right?
I have already proven to you that they do benefit more from public resources like infrastructure and education systems. The fact that you don't get it does not make it not true.

You haven't proven sh*t. A greater benefit from a resource does not equate to an increase in usage. Just because someone may have had a greater benefit from public education doesn't mean they incurred a higher cost, as you seem to believe. All you've stated thus far is that you know a few wealthy people that don't have to work as much... hardly a valid statement muchless a valid proof.

Care to try again? I'm waiting.

Huh? You are saying owners of tech companies haven't used the public education resources of UC Berkeley for example? I am awaiting your proof of that.

No, you're an idiot that has no proof of anything, and thus you bring up invalid "points" in order to dodge my original question and hence stall the inevitable.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: SuperTool
You also "never said it was right." So you have no problem with something that isn't right?
I have already proven to you that they do benefit more from public resources like infrastructure and education systems. The fact that you don't get it does not make it not true.

You haven't proven sh*t. A greater benefit from a resource does not equate to an increase in usage. Just because someone may have had a greater benefit from public education doesn't mean they incurred a higher cost, as you seem to believe. All you've stated thus far is that you know a few wealthy people that don't have to work as much... hardly a valid statement muchless a valid proof.

Care to try again? I'm waiting.

Huh? You are saying owners of tech companies haven't used the public education resources of UC Berkeley for example? I am awaiting your proof of that.

No, you're an idiot that has no proof of anything, and thus you bring up invalid "points" in order to dodge my original question and hence stall the inevitable.

Is that your proof? It seems to me like you were the one to go with that proof nonsense to dodge the reality that the rich do get a higher benefit and use out of government spending.
I have provided my examples:
Transportation companies get direct benefit AND use from taxpayer expenditures on infrastructure.
Satellite TV companies get direct benefit AND use from taxpayer expenditures on space research.
All US companies get benefit AND use out of a labor force educated in large part at taxpayer expense.
Shareholders of such companies get capital gains AND dividends in large part due to taxpayer funded programs listed above.
Now, that is my proof. Unless you can disprove it, it stands.
 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
The point is... none of the richest 1% earns his income actually working. I guess very few of the richest 10% consider their work income critical to their wealth. So the way income is taxed is not really a key point in a redistribution of resources. Let's talk about financial markets capital gains taxation. Or real estate.

It is a philosophical choice. There are poor people. Do you think something must be done about it? I'm not asking if the percentual brackets are correct, or if the richest 1% gives more to the country than the poorer 20%. I'm just asking if you feel it would be good to aid people facing major problems in their life.

I think everything that could help reduce the huge differences between the rich and the poor should be tried. And, by the way, this goes against my own interests, as I am in the top tax bracket. It's a matter of culture: a increase in the taxes for the richests won't change their life, but it could change the life of a lot of poor people. I think it would be worth even if against my own interest.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is that your proof? It seems to me like you were the one to go with that proof nonsense to dodge the reality that the rich do get a higher benefit and use out of government spending.
I have provided my examples:
Transportation companies get direct benefit AND use from taxpayer expenditures on infrastructure.
Satellite TV companies get direct benefit AND use from taxpayer expenditures on space research.
All US companies get benefit AND use out of a labor force educated in large part at taxpayer expense.
Shareholders of such companies get capital gains AND dividends in large part due to taxpayer funded programs listed above.
Now, that is my proof. Unless you can disprove it, it stands.

This is the last time I am stating this.

FIRST: A greater benefit does not equate to a greater cost. You may very well be right that the average wealthy person receieves a greater benefit from government services (i.e., public goods). However, just because you say it's true doesn't make it true, and you haven't provided a single source that backs up your statement. Also, just because the average wealthy person may receive a greater benefit doesn't mean the same benefit isn't offered to everyone else.

SECOND: List as many examples as you want, but just because you list them doesn't make them true (once again). Feel free to backup your statements with some facts at any time, and this discussion will move much faster and smoother.