The rich are getting richer

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Tango
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.

Or you could let the "wealthy" folks decide what to do with their money. Wealth redistribution hasn't worked and will never work. Plus, it goes against every ecnomic ideal that the US stands for. I don't need the government to tell me where to donate my money, nor does anyone else.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: daniel1113
This is the last time I am stating this.

Oh, c'mon. Just once more? Please?

Maybe for you, Gaard, since you asked nice and you have a Santa avatar 🙂

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

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.

OK, I get it. A transportation company running 1000 trucks on the highways is not getting a greater use of taxpayer supported infrastructure than a family driving their minivan to soccer practice. I guess common sense now requires proof.
So you are saying that working class people should bear the cost of government through high income and payroll taxes while the wealthy class should enjoy the benefit while paying a much lower cost in capital gains and dividend taxes?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So you are saying that working class people should bear the cost of government through high income and payroll taxes while the wealthy class should enjoy the benefit while paying a much lower cost in capital gains and dividend taxes?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I've spent all this time trying to explain my case, and yet you are able to sum it up so eloquently. Golly, from now on I think I'll just let you summarise everything I write. I mean, so far you've been right on the money: I hate working Americans the wealthy class should enjoy all the benefits. I mean, we all know that there is no way that wealthy Americans could also be working Americans. No, they are all a bunch of rich snobs that don't do sh*t, other than sitting on their asses all day and receiving their huge checks in the mail. Well, I'm glad we've spent all this time having this discussion. I was wrong about you, SuperTool.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So you are saying that working class people should bear the cost of government through high income and payroll taxes while the wealthy class should enjoy the benefit while paying a much lower cost in capital gains and dividend taxes?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I've spent all this time trying to explain my case, and yet you are able to sum it up so eloquently. Golly, from now on I think I'll just let you summarise everything I write. I mean, so far you've been right on the money: I hate working Americans the wealthy class should enjoy all the benefits. I mean, we all know that there is no way that wealthy Americans could also be working Americans. No, they are all a bunch of rich snobs that don't do sh*t, other than sitting on their asses all day and receiving their huge checks in the mail. Well, I'm glad we've spent all this time having this discussion. I was wrong about you, SuperTool.

Well, that's good to let it out of your system. There is a grain of truth to all sarcasm.
I think capital gains and dividends should be taxed higher, not lower than earned income. I think payroll taxes should not be capped. I am a strong believer in highly progressive income tax system that gives the larges advantages to those starting out at the bottom and adds tax burden as one's ability to pay it increases. The whole pay for service model is a ridiculous red herring. If it was the case, working families with children would pay the highest tax rates while single rich people would pay very low taxes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So you are saying that working class people should bear the cost of government through high income and payroll taxes while the wealthy class should enjoy the benefit while paying a much lower cost in capital gains and dividend taxes?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I've spent all this time trying to explain my case, and yet you are able to sum it up so eloquently. Golly, from now on I think I'll just let you summarise everything I write. I mean, so far you've been right on the money: I hate working Americans the wealthy class should enjoy all the benefits. I mean, we all know that there is no way that wealthy Americans could also be working Americans. No, they are all a bunch of rich snobs that don't do sh*t, other than sitting on their asses all day and receiving their huge checks in the mail. Well, I'm glad we've spent all this time having this discussion. I was wrong about you, SuperTool.

First to argue fairness if silly because fair is in the eye of the beholder. Supposedly Marie Antoinette had a similar attitude to you, and the French Revolution resulted. The French nobility certainly understood that they were in no way obligated to the peasants. Didn't work then either, not even for them.

What it comes down to is the wealthy can afford to pay more, and those who have not can't. Since we live in a country that has generally agreed on needs and those cost money the wealthy rightly bear a greater burden. They have benefited by our society. Did they work for it? Many yes. It does not argue against the need for progressive taxation. That money helps buy the society they live in. Of course they don't do that in Mexico and many South American countries. Note how well they aren't doing compared to us.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Tango
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.

Or you could let the "wealthy" folks decide what to do with their money. Wealth redistribution hasn't worked and will never work. Plus, it goes against every ecnomic ideal that the US stands for. I don't need the government to tell me where to donate my money, nor does anyone else.

Yes, of course. I wrote It was in fact a matter of culture and philosophical orientation. But just keep in mind that, aside from the fact that helping people hardly can be a bad thing, improving the life conditions of the poor makes them able to consume more and eventually widens the market. The people struggling to survive and pay rent and food can't really contribute a lot to the economical development of a nation. In the end it could be convenient even for the rich to improve the conditions of the poor.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
First to argue fairness if silly because fair is in the eye of the beholder. Supposedly Marie Antoinette had a similar attitude to you, and the French Revolution resulted. The French nobility certainly understood that they were in no way obligated to the peasants. Didn't work then either, not even for them.

What it comes down to is the wealthy can afford to pay more, and those who have not can't. Since we live in a country that has generally agreed on needs and those cost money the wealthy rightly bear a greater burden. They have benefited by our society. Did they work for it? Many yes. It does not argue against the need for progressive taxation. That money helps buy the society they live in. Of course they don't do that in Mexico and many South American countries. Note how well they aren't doing compared to us.

I never argued against a progressive tax. In fact, I support it. My point is simply that just because the wealthiest wage earners pay a lower percentage in federal income taxes does not mean that the system is unfair and that the wealthy need to be taxed more.

 

[Michael]

SuperTool,

The companies the "rich" have their investments in also pay taxes to use resources.

For the most part, the "loopholes" that are used to reduce corporate taxes are actually incentives to invest in capital expenditures (these typically create jobs). The incentive is accelerated depreciation.

The theory behind lowering the dividend tax rate is that the companies paying the dividend have already been taxed on that profit.

I never fully grasped the theory behind lower capital gains taxes other than to encourage longer term investing.

Both of these tax breaks are available to anyone who saves. Of course the "rich" tend to have more savings which means more investments. At least they're being encouraged to continue to invest. I know I started in Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRiPs) close to 10 years ago when I wasn't making anywhere near what I'm making now and really stepped up saving when my first daughter was born (someone has to pay for my kids' schooling). DRIPS allow you access to investment savings at little to no cost to "buy-in".

There will always be poor people. I tend to concentrate on barriers to them being rewarded by hard work (which is its own reward, but that is a different discussion).

The more of a tax burden you shift onto the "rich", the more you encourage them to leave the USA and to stop investing in the USA. Right now there is OK job growth and we need to encourage an increase in savings to help bolster the dollar, so I see little to gain by a new "progressive" tax that attacks the "rich".

Michael

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Tango
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.

Or you could let the "wealthy" folks decide what to do with their money. Wealth redistribution hasn't worked and will never work. Plus, it goes against every ecnomic ideal that the US stands for. I don't need the government to tell me where to donate my money, nor does anyone else.

you mean the economic ideal created be the wealthy elites to legitimize thier greed?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
you mean the economic ideal created be the wealthy elites to legitimize thier greed?

In a free economy, people can be as greedy as they please. If that is what they choose to do, that is their business. Not yours, not mine, not the government's.

I didn't realize the free economy was created by "greedy elites."

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Michael
SuperTool,

The companies the "rich" have their investments in also pay taxes to use resources.

For the most part, the "loopholes" that are used to reduce corporate taxes are actually incentives to invest in capital expenditures (these typically create jobs). The incentive is accelerated depreciation.

The theory behind lowering the dividend tax rate is that the companies paying the dividend have already been taxed on that profit.

I never fully grasped the theory behind lower capital gains taxes other than to encourage longer term investing.

Both of these tax breaks are available to anyone who saves. Of course the "rich" tend to have more savings which means more investments. At least they're being encouraged to continue to invest. I know I started in Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRiPs) close to 10 years ago when I wasn't making anywhere near what I'm making now and really stepped up saving when my first daughter was born (someone has to pay for my kids' schooling). DRIPS allow you access to investment savings at little to no cost to "buy-in".

There will always be poor people. I tend to concentrate on barriers to them being rewarded by hard work (which is its own reward, but that is a different discussion).

The more of a tax burden you shift onto the "rich", the more you encourage them to leave the USA and to stop investing in the USA. Right now there is OK job growth and we need to encourage an increase in savings to help bolster the dollar, so I see little to gain by a new "progressive" tax that attacks the "rich".

Michael

Oh really, so those rich making 90 times what someone in the bottom 10% makes are going to leave the country if they can only keep 60 times that? Where are they going to go? Rwanda? 😀
So your arguement is that it's OK to tax dividends and capital gains at less than half the rate earnings are taxed, because we want to encourage savings more than earnings?
Sounds to me like a scheme to protect the wealth of those who have it while taking the earnings of those starting from the bottom.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
you mean the economic ideal created be the wealthy elites to legitimize thier greed?

In a free economy, people can be as greedy as they please. If that is what they choose to do, that is their business. Not yours, not mine, not the government's.

I didn't realize the free economy was created by "greedy elites."

Free economy doesn't exist, nor should it.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh really, so those rich making 90 times what someone in the bottom 10% makes are going to leave the country if they can only keep 60 times that? Where are they going to go? Rwanda? 😀
So your arguement is that it's OK to tax dividends and capital gains at less than half the rate earnings are taxed, because we want to encourage savings more than earnings?
Sounds to me like a scheme to protect the wealth of those who have it while taking the earnings of those starting from the bottom.

Serisouly, where do you come up with this stuff? Why don't you just come out and say you hate wealthy people and get it over with.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
you mean the economic ideal created be the wealthy elites to legitimize thier greed?

In a free economy, people can be as greedy as they please. If that is what they choose to do, that is their business. Not yours, not mine, not the government's.

I didn't realize the free economy was created by "greedy elites."

Free economy doesn't exist, nor should it.

I said "in A free economy."

Try reading sometime.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh really, so those rich making 90 times what someone in the bottom 10% makes are going to leave the country if they can only keep 60 times that? Where are they going to go? Rwanda? 😀
So your arguement is that it's OK to tax dividends and capital gains at less than half the rate earnings are taxed, because we want to encourage savings more than earnings?
Sounds to me like a scheme to protect the wealth of those who have it while taking the earnings of those starting from the bottom.

Serisouly, where do you come up with this stuff? Why don't you just come out and say you hate wealthy people and get it over with.

It was in the OP. Did you forget what this thread is about? I don't hate wealthy people. I just think they should at least pay taxes at the same rates as working Americans.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
First to argue fairness if silly because fair is in the eye of the beholder. Supposedly Marie Antoinette had a similar attitude to you, and the French Revolution resulted. The French nobility certainly understood that they were in no way obligated to the peasants. Didn't work then either, not even for them.

What it comes down to is the wealthy can afford to pay more, and those who have not can't. Since we live in a country that has generally agreed on needs and those cost money the wealthy rightly bear a greater burden. They have benefited by our society. Did they work for it? Many yes. It does not argue against the need for progressive taxation. That money helps buy the society they live in. Of course they don't do that in Mexico and many South American countries. Note how well they aren't doing compared to us.

I never argued against a progressive tax. In fact, I support it. My point is simply that just because the wealthiest wage earners pay a lower percentage in federal income taxes does not mean that the system is unfair and that the wealthy need to be taxed more.

I don't think the wealthy should be taxed to death, but the tendency has been to shift the tax burden away from the upper to the lower income levels. I know a few folks with some bucks and the opinion I get from them is that they appreciate the money, but it doesn't affect the way they live. In fact some are amused with the situation in that some adversely affected are arguing against their own self interests.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
you mean the economic ideal created be the wealthy elites to legitimize thier greed?

In a free economy, people can be as greedy as they please. If that is what they choose to do, that is their business. Not yours, not mine, not the government's.

I didn't realize the free economy was created by "greedy elites."

no, i'm talking about the bullsht propaganda. Also the "free economy" never existed.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh really, so those rich making 90 times what someone in the bottom 10% makes are going to leave the country if they can only keep 60 times that? Where are they going to go? Rwanda? 😀
So your arguement is that it's OK to tax dividends and capital gains at less than half the rate earnings are taxed, because we want to encourage savings more than earnings?
Sounds to me like a scheme to protect the wealth of those who have it while taking the earnings of those starting from the bottom.

Serisouly, where do you come up with this stuff? Why don't you just come out and say you hate wealthy people and get it over with.

why don't you just come out and admit your a greedy bastard.

 

[SuperTool]

OK, I am off to study for my exam, so I can increase my earnings and be taxed at an even higher rate compared to those sitting and home doing nothing and getting a dividend check paying 15% tax on it.

I will leave you with a quote that is in my signature:

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little. -FDR

 

[Michael]

SuperTool,

There are plenty of places with tax rates lower than the USA.

As for the rest of your reply, did a "rich" person steal your barbie doll when you were a kid and you have hated them ever since? If not, please look at the logic and thought you're putting into your responses because they're tiny compared to the people responding to you.

Michael

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!

Link

From your own link, average tax rate for the rich is 27.45%
Excuse me while I go cry for them, and pray that they make ends meet. I pay a higher combined federal tax rate than these top 1% and I am not in the top 1%. Someone who has 10 Million in a dividend paying stock getting 500K per year doing nothing will only pay 15% tax on dividends, while someone working their tail off for 70K per year will pay 25% income tax and 8% payroll taxes. Yeah, the rich are "overtaxed" :roll:

It's painfully obvious you can't see the forest from the trees.

Carry on with your mindless hatred and envy.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

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

Obviously you're not rich because you don't have a CLUE about what you're talking about.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

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

Obviously you're not rich because you don't have a CLUE about what you're talking about.

I'm in college. its the time for binge drinking, drug use and sexual promiscuity 😉 Wealth will come when i get around to manipulating the markets like the rest of the rich people.

 

[smc13]

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.

You pay more then 27% on your federal income tax?