Top 1% pays 50% of the taxes.

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
So give us your top 5 picks as to companies you would shut down...of those controlled or owned by the top 1%. And what exactly would is solve? Would it create more wealth in the lower or middle incomes? Would it create more jobs? Would it create more stability? Eh, no. The opposite on all 3 counts.

I'll give you more than the top 5 picks. I say shut down all of the banks. It would create more wealth in the lower and middle incomes because people wouldn't have to worry about inflation eating away their savings. It certainly would create more jobs as well since inflation would not be eating away at business owner's capital. More stability? Yep. Waaaaaay more stability. Without a central bank pumping false credit into the system and creating bubbles that eventually pop, causing massive panic and distortions in the market, the economy would become far more stable.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: brandonbull
If you are in a position to receive large bequests, I would guess that wouldn't be your first encounter with large sums of money. I doubt the person would be let to wallow in poverty until it was time for the money train to pull in. In most cases, they are going to able to build off of the financial gains of the previous generation and would have benefited from better education and social/professional networks.

Or. like my parents (new money, millionaire next door types), they wanted to make sure I knew how to earn a buck before I could get my trust. To this day I behave as if it isn't even there, I'm 37 and it's never touched my hands, or my accounts.

Face it, work hard, be motivated towards success and you to can be "rich". The bullshit about no opportunity to become rich is complete nonsense - get to work, better yourself, strive to be something better and it will come to you. As long as you work for it.

Hard work in and of itself just isn't enough to guarantee success anymore.

Hard work NEVER guaranteed success. Ever. But one thing IS true-the lack of hard work guarantees the lack of success. Perhaps you need to be reminded of the quote from Anton Chekhov: Only entropy comes easy.

As far as your slavery remark...the poor have a chance to be free. Slaves never did. The poor (or the middle class to move to rich for that matter) have opportunity to change. Slaves didnt. Youre WAY off base here.

If you'll notice in his reply, he completely ignores every valid point, especially your last one. I actually do agree with a bunch of the liberals on this one. It's obvious why the top 1 percent pay so much in taxes, and I really don't have a problem with a progressive income tax, to a certain degree. What I don't understand, is why so many people that hold this point of view seem to have so much anger towards people that have either made a lot of money or inherited a lot of money.

This whole "ZOMG you inherited money your like a slave owner" thing is a little silly, but at least nobodyknows is upfront about it.

You only see what you want to see. Your attempt to put words in my mouth falls pathetically short.

Are you going to actually answer any question posed to you? Ive answered and provided input even. If not, how about stay out the thread?

The guy who uses "generalites" is now demanding specific answers? To what? I see no question in this post, only statements. Perhaps you should stick to replies that were meant for you imstead of someone else. I'd think a rich guy like you would be smart enough to figure that out??

So please be specific with your questions.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows


The guy who uses "generalites" is now demanding specific answers? To what? I see no question in this post, only statements. Perhaps you should stick to replies that were meant for you imstead of someone else. I'd think a rich guy like you would be smart enough to figure that out??

So please be specific with your questions.

When general questions are asked, I answer in generalities. Occasionally I give an example to back it up.

Second, Im not sure what you think "rich" is, but it must not be what I consider rich, because Im not. I may be upper middle class for the city I live in, but not rich by any means. However, I *do* manage to live well on 75% of my income and have no debt, thus I save 25% of what I make. So yeah. Compared to most who make twice what I do who live paycheck to paycheck, maybe I am rich

And finally, the questions you have failed to answer are:

1. In your perfect society everyone would be middle class or what?
2.Could you tell us roughly what percentage of the "rich and ultra rich" are living off of inherited money?

Ive answered every question asked, and if you'd like I will post an easy to read, point by point post illustrating the question, and my answer. So lets hear it. What say you?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: blackangst1
So give us your top 5 picks as to companies you would shut down...of those controlled or owned by the top 1%. And what exactly would is solve? Would it create more wealth in the lower or middle incomes? Would it create more jobs? Would it create more stability? Eh, no. The opposite on all 3 counts.

I'll give you more than the top 5 picks. I say shut down all of the banks. It would create more wealth in the lower and middle incomes because people wouldn't have to worry about inflation eating away their savings. It certainly would create more jobs as well since inflation would not be eating away at business owner's capital. More stability? Yep. Waaaaaay more stability. Without a central bank pumping false credit into the system and creating bubbles that eventually pop, causing massive panic and distortions in the market, the economy would become far more stable.

That's really naive.

Like inflation wouldn't eat away at the value of your money sitting under the mattress :roll:. Closing down the banks won't make inflation go away.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: brandonbull
If you are in a position to receive large bequests, I would guess that wouldn't be your first encounter with large sums of money. I doubt the person would be let to wallow in poverty until it was time for the money train to pull in. In most cases, they are going to able to build off of the financial gains of the previous generation and would have benefited from better education and social/professional networks.

Or. like my parents (new money, millionaire next door types), they wanted to make sure I knew how to earn a buck before I could get my trust. To this day I behave as if it isn't even there, I'm 37 and it's never touched my hands, or my accounts.

Face it, work hard, be motivated towards success and you to can be "rich". The bullshit about no opportunity to become rich is complete nonsense - get to work, better yourself, strive to be something better and it will come to you. As long as you work for it.

Hard work in and of itself just isn't enough to guarantee success anymore.

Hard work NEVER guaranteed success. Ever. But one thing IS true-the lack of hard work guarantees the lack of success. Perhaps you need to be reminded of the quote from Anton Chekhov: Only entropy comes easy.

As far as your slavery remark...the poor have a chance to be free. Slaves never did. The poor (or the middle class to move to rich for that matter) have opportunity to change. Slaves didnt. Youre WAY off base here.

Maybe you should get out in the world and meet a few people. I just came back from kenneling up my neighbor's dogs. The neighbor to the north is 48 years old and is having a knee replacement, yes replacement. He was a farmer for years but then his wife got MS and they lost the farm after their insurance dropped them. He's now punching the clock as a maintenance man at an ethanol plant. I don't think he wore his knee out by the age of 48 by being lazy. I know from talking to his wife they are having money problems because they owned a house someplace and recently lost it. The phone rang when I was over their the other day and I answered it. It was bill collectors.

I'm also taking care of my neighbor to the west's dog. He and his girlfriend went south about 3 weeks ago. He's just over 50 and hasn't had a job in 20 years I've know him. He inherited a bunch of land from his Dad and his 3 bachelor uncles, so he has no worries.

I like and get along well with both of them, but it's hard not to see the disparity.

Yes, if only we could all be so fortunate to have an after school job as a dog walker like you, then we'd get some REAL perspective...:roll:

You know nothing about me, do you? You obviously think you do, but for all you know I may be richer then you.

If you have a point to make instead of slinging insults then have at it. Otherwise kindly STFU before I shove your silverspoon down your throat.

Wow, you are batting a thousand today. The first thing you did was assume that I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth, then complain when I make an assumption based on your actual words. You also accused Blackangst of avoiding questions and not giving straight answers, when you've done the exact same thing several times. Now you've turned into an E-tough guy threatening me, awesome. For all I know you could be richer than I am, and probably are, because I'm not anywhere close to being rich. If so, that's great, congratulations on your success or your families success, I don't hold anything against rich people like some of you do. I was born into a middle class family, and after making some silly decisions when I was younger, I've worked my way back up to the middle class, no silver spoon here.

Now why don't you answer the questions? No one cares about your dog walking clients, everyone has anecdotal stories they can share, they don't mean anything. Since you're obviously having problems scrolling up and reading the questions, I'll repeat them.

In your perfect society everyone would be middle class or what?

Could you tell us roughly what percentage of the "rich and ultra rich" are living off of inherited money?

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: borosp1

Here is a good article for everyone... Warren Buffet a Billionaire pays less taxes than his secretary:

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...tax/article1996735.ece

So dollar wise, how much did Warren payout versus his secretary?

If we want to play this percentage numbers game, out of the total amount income tax revenue that was received by all of the tax payers, what percentage did Warren pay versus his secretary?

Thats a good question, and his statement of 30% taxes on $60k is bullshit. I already posted tax table info for 2008 and she paid 19% based on $60k filing single.

so what is 17.7% of $46M??? and what is 30% of $60K??? since I am not super rich, I am not sure if my math is right, but does this mean that Warren paid $8M in taxes while is secretary paid $18K (assuming that number is even right)???

I guess the poor, poor secretary paid more in taxes since 30% > 17.7% then...

Am I missing something here?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows


The guy who uses "generalites" is now demanding specific answers? To what? I see no question in this post, only statements. Perhaps you should stick to replies that were meant for you imstead of someone else. I'd think a rich guy like you would be smart enough to figure that out??

So please be specific with your questions.

When general questions are asked, I answer in generalities. Occasionally I give an example to back it up.

Second, Im not sure what you think "rich" is, but it must not be what I consider rich, because Im not. I may be upper middle class for the city I live in, but not rich by any means. However, I *do* manage to live well on 75% of my income and have no debt, thus I save 25% of what I make. So yeah. Compared to most who make twice what I do who live paycheck to paycheck, maybe I am rich

And finally, the questions you have failed to answer are:

1. In your perfect society everyone would be middle class or what?
2.Could you tell us roughly what percentage of the "rich and ultra rich" are living off of inherited money?

Ive answered every question asked, and if you'd like I will post an easy to read, point by point post illustrating the question, and my answer. So lets hear it. What say you?

I never claimed I had a vision for a "perfect" society. That was you putting words in my mouth. I'm more about righting the wrongs I see in the society we have. If that means the rich will have to pay more taxes, then so be it.

As far as the percentage of people living off inherited money goes I have no idea? My thought there is that the inheritance tax shouldn't be revoked causing the tax burden to be spread out on all the people. The loopholes are big enough already.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: brandonbull
If you are in a position to receive large bequests, I would guess that wouldn't be your first encounter with large sums of money. I doubt the person would be let to wallow in poverty until it was time for the money train to pull in. In most cases, they are going to able to build off of the financial gains of the previous generation and would have benefited from better education and social/professional networks.

Or. like my parents (new money, millionaire next door types), they wanted to make sure I knew how to earn a buck before I could get my trust. To this day I behave as if it isn't even there, I'm 37 and it's never touched my hands, or my accounts.

Face it, work hard, be motivated towards success and you to can be "rich". The bullshit about no opportunity to become rich is complete nonsense - get to work, better yourself, strive to be something better and it will come to you. As long as you work for it.

Hard work in and of itself just isn't enough to guarantee success anymore.

Hard work NEVER guaranteed success. Ever. But one thing IS true-the lack of hard work guarantees the lack of success. Perhaps you need to be reminded of the quote from Anton Chekhov: Only entropy comes easy.

As far as your slavery remark...the poor have a chance to be free. Slaves never did. The poor (or the middle class to move to rich for that matter) have opportunity to change. Slaves didnt. Youre WAY off base here.

Maybe you should get out in the world and meet a few people. I just came back from kenneling up my neighbor's dogs. The neighbor to the north is 48 years old and is having a knee replacement, yes replacement. He was a farmer for years but then his wife got MS and they lost the farm after their insurance dropped them. He's now punching the clock as a maintenance man at an ethanol plant. I don't think he wore his knee out by the age of 48 by being lazy. I know from talking to his wife they are having money problems because they owned a house someplace and recently lost it. The phone rang when I was over their the other day and I answered it. It was bill collectors.

I'm also taking care of my neighbor to the west's dog. He and his girlfriend went south about 3 weeks ago. He's just over 50 and hasn't had a job in 20 years I've know him. He inherited a bunch of land from his Dad and his 3 bachelor uncles, so he has no worries.

I like and get along well with both of them, but it's hard not to see the disparity.

Yes, if only we could all be so fortunate to have an after school job as a dog walker like you, then we'd get some REAL perspective...:roll:

You know nothing about me, do you? You obviously think you do, but for all you know I may be richer then you.

If you have a point to make instead of slinging insults then have at it. Otherwise kindly STFU before I shove your silverspoon down your throat.

Wow, you are batting a thousand today. The first thing you did was assume that I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth, then complain when I make an assumption based on your actual words. You also accused Blackangst of avoiding questions and not giving straight answers, when you've done the exact same thing several times. Now you've turned into an E-tough guy threatening me, awesome. For all I know you could be richer than I am, and probably are, because I'm not anywhere close to being rich. If so, that's great, congratulations on your success or your families success, I don't hold anything against rich people like some of you do. I was born into a middle class family, and after making some silly decisions when I was younger, I've worked my way back up to the middle class, no silver spoon here.

Now why don't you answer the questions? No one cares about your dog walking clients, everyone has anecdotal stories they can share, they don't mean anything. Since you're obviously having problems scrolling up and reading the questions, I'll repeat them.

In your perfect society everyone would be middle class or what?

Could you tell us roughly what percentage of the "rich and ultra rich" are living off of inherited money?

Why don't you fuck off asshole. I don't walk dogs for a living, I'm doing it as a favor for friends. You do know what "friends' are??

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: borosp1

Here is a good article for everyone... Warren Buffet a Billionaire pays less taxes than his secretary:

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...tax/article1996735.ece

So dollar wise, how much did Warren payout versus his secretary?

If we want to play this percentage numbers game, out of the total amount income tax revenue that was received by all of the tax payers, what percentage did Warren pay versus his secretary?

Thats a good question, and his statement of 30% taxes on $60k is bullshit. I already posted tax table info for 2008 and she paid 19% based on $60k filing single.

so what is 17.7% of $46M??? and what is 30% of $60K??? since I am not super rich, I am not sure if my math is right, but does this mean that Warren paid $8M in taxes while is secretary paid $18K (assuming that number is even right)???

I guess the poor, poor secretary paid more in taxes since 30% > 17.7% then...

Am I missing something here?

Yes you are. The net tax rate on $60k is not 30%. It's 19%. Again, thats assuming filing single taking the standard deduction. She didnt pay 30%. As a percentage, based on limited information, she paid more as a percentage and less in dollars (duh) so that part is right.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows


The guy who uses "generalites" is now demanding specific answers? To what? I see no question in this post, only statements. Perhaps you should stick to replies that were meant for you imstead of someone else. I'd think a rich guy like you would be smart enough to figure that out??

So please be specific with your questions.

When general questions are asked, I answer in generalities. Occasionally I give an example to back it up.

Second, Im not sure what you think "rich" is, but it must not be what I consider rich, because Im not. I may be upper middle class for the city I live in, but not rich by any means. However, I *do* manage to live well on 75% of my income and have no debt, thus I save 25% of what I make. So yeah. Compared to most who make twice what I do who live paycheck to paycheck, maybe I am rich

And finally, the questions you have failed to answer are:

1. In your perfect society everyone would be middle class or what?
2.Could you tell us roughly what percentage of the "rich and ultra rich" are living off of inherited money?

Ive answered every question asked, and if you'd like I will post an easy to read, point by point post illustrating the question, and my answer. So lets hear it. What say you?

I never claimed I had a vision for a "perfect" society. That was you putting words in my mouth. I'm more about righting the wrongs I see in the society we have. If that means the rich will have to pay more taxes, then so be it.

As far as the percentage of people living off inherited money goes I have no idea? My thought there is that the inheritance tax shouldn't be revoked causing the tax burden to be spread out on all the people. The loopholes are big enough already.

Im not putting words into you mouth at all. I never said, nor implied you said, anything of the sort. I simply asked a question, and thanks for the response of you dont know (nobody knows, right?) The least you could do is give a general answer of what you think is fair. What do you mean you dont know? You dont know if you would eliminate the rich? Or want everyone to be about the same?

If you are actually interested in the percentage of people living off inherited money, go back in posts. I posted it. Its far less than people think. Most of the very rich got there the hard way-they earned it.

Which brings a new question and getting back on topic. Since the rich in some cases less of a percentage of their money in taxes, and knowing what percentage of money they pay overall, what, in your opinion, is a fair amount? My answer unfortunately will never be seen in our lifetime-a flat tax for everyone regardless of income. And to do away with most of the write offs that now exist. Back to reality, I dont have a problem with the current tax rates we have, although I would do away with a bunch of write offs we have now, which would effectively raise taxes for everyone, including the rich.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
But one thing IS true-the lack of hard work guarantees the lack of success.

As I pointed out, my neighbor hasn't had a job the whole time I've known him yet he's quite well off, so I dispute your statement.

The only thing he works at is evading taxes. He's so cheap he buys his diesel on the farm and hauls it in to fill his diesel car and pickup so he doesn't have to pay the fuel taxes.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows


The guy who uses "generalites" is now demanding specific answers? To what? I see no question in this post, only statements. Perhaps you should stick to replies that were meant for you imstead of someone else. I'd think a rich guy like you would be smart enough to figure that out??

So please be specific with your questions.

When general questions are asked, I answer in generalities. Occasionally I give an example to back it up.

Second, Im not sure what you think "rich" is, but it must not be what I consider rich, because Im not. I may be upper middle class for the city I live in, but not rich by any means. However, I *do* manage to live well on 75% of my income and have no debt, thus I save 25% of what I make. So yeah. Compared to most who make twice what I do who live paycheck to paycheck, maybe I am rich

And finally, the questions you have failed to answer are:

1. In your perfect society everyone would be middle class or what?
2.Could you tell us roughly what percentage of the "rich and ultra rich" are living off of inherited money?

Ive answered every question asked, and if you'd like I will post an easy to read, point by point post illustrating the question, and my answer. So lets hear it. What say you?

I never claimed I had a vision for a "perfect" society. That was you putting words in my mouth. I'm more about righting the wrongs I see in the society we have. If that means the rich will have to pay more taxes, then so be it.

As far as the percentage of people living off inherited money goes I have no idea? My thought there is that the inheritance tax shouldn't be revoked causing the tax burden to be spread out on all the people. The loopholes are big enough already.

Im not putting words into you mouth at all. I never said, nor implied you said, anything of the sort. I simply asked a question, and thanks for the response of you dont know (nobody knows, right?)

not even the shadow

If you are actually interested in the percentage of people living off inherited money, go back in posts. I posted it. Its far less than people think. Most of the very rich got there the hard way-they earned it.

Which brings a new question and getting back on topic. Since the rich in some cases less of a percentage of their money in taxes, and knowing what percentage of money they pay overall, what, in your opinion, is a fair amount? My answer unfortunately will never be seen in our lifetime-a flat tax for everyone regardless of income. And to do away with most of the write offs that now exist. Back to reality, I dont have a problem with the current tax rates we have, although I would do away with a bunch of write offs we have now, which would effectively raise taxes for everyone, including the rich.

Your not going to like my answer about fair taxes, but I think taxes should be increased until the budget is balanced, except for a world war or something like that.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: borosp1

Here is a good article for everyone... Warren Buffet a Billionaire pays less taxes than his secretary:

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...tax/article1996735.ece

So dollar wise, how much did Warren payout versus his secretary?

If we want to play this percentage numbers game, out of the total amount income tax revenue that was received by all of the tax payers, what percentage did Warren pay versus his secretary?

Thats a good question, and his statement of 30% taxes on $60k is bullshit. I already posted tax table info for 2008 and she paid 19% based on $60k filing single.

so what is 17.7% of $46M??? and what is 30% of $60K??? since I am not super rich, I am not sure if my math is right, but does this mean that Warren paid $8M in taxes while is secretary paid $18K (assuming that number is even right)???

I guess the poor, poor secretary paid more in taxes since 30% > 17.7% then...

Am I missing something here?

Yes you are. The net tax rate on $60k is not 30%. It's 19%. Again, thats assuming filing single taking the standard deduction. She didnt pay 30%. As a percentage, based on limited information, she paid more as a percentage and less in dollars (duh) so that part is right.

The point was I was making (whether she paid $18K at 30% or $11.4K at 19% - both of these number pale in comparision to what Warren paid) is that Warren paid $8M(assuming that number is correct)...

$8M > whatever the Secretary's income tax was

for someone to say that secretary paid more income tax (which is techincally correct from a percentage standpoint) is ludicrous when you compare the dollar amounts each one paid out (again, assuming my math is right)...

so basically the poor think they pay more based on a percentage, but do not consider the total dollars that are actually paid by them versus the super rich??? is that what I am missing?

 

[Genx87]

I prefer they cut spending until the budget is balanced.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1
But one thing IS true-the lack of hard work guarantees the lack of success.

As I pointed out, my neighbor hasn't had a job the whole time I've known him yet he's quite well off, so I dispute your statement.

The only thing he works at is evading taxes. He's so cheap he buys his diesel on the farm and hauls it in to fill his diesel car and pickup so he doesn't have to pay the fuel taxes.

Your point is irrelevant to my post. Maybe you didnt understand? What I DIDNT say was, lazy people never succeed. With a few exceptions (lottery, massive inheritance, both are rare).

You call him cheap, I call it frugal. You should read the book Millionaire Next Door sometime if you are interested to see how average millionaires actually live.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows


The guy who uses "generalites" is now demanding specific answers? To what? I see no question in this post, only statements. Perhaps you should stick to replies that were meant for you imstead of someone else. I'd think a rich guy like you would be smart enough to figure that out??

So please be specific with your questions.

When general questions are asked, I answer in generalities. Occasionally I give an example to back it up.

Second, Im not sure what you think "rich" is, but it must not be what I consider rich, because Im not. I may be upper middle class for the city I live in, but not rich by any means. However, I *do* manage to live well on 75% of my income and have no debt, thus I save 25% of what I make. So yeah. Compared to most who make twice what I do who live paycheck to paycheck, maybe I am rich

And finally, the questions you have failed to answer are:

1. In your perfect society everyone would be middle class or what?
2.Could you tell us roughly what percentage of the "rich and ultra rich" are living off of inherited money?

Ive answered every question asked, and if you'd like I will post an easy to read, point by point post illustrating the question, and my answer. So lets hear it. What say you?

I never claimed I had a vision for a "perfect" society. That was you putting words in my mouth. I'm more about righting the wrongs I see in the society we have. If that means the rich will have to pay more taxes, then so be it.

As far as the percentage of people living off inherited money goes I have no idea? My thought there is that the inheritance tax shouldn't be revoked causing the tax burden to be spread out on all the people. The loopholes are big enough already.

Im not putting words into you mouth at all. I never said, nor implied you said, anything of the sort. I simply asked a question, and thanks for the response of you dont know (nobody knows, right?)

not even the shadow

If you are actually interested in the percentage of people living off inherited money, go back in posts. I posted it. Its far less than people think. Most of the very rich got there the hard way-they earned it.

Which brings a new question and getting back on topic. Since the rich in some cases less of a percentage of their money in taxes, and knowing what percentage of money they pay overall, what, in your opinion, is a fair amount? My answer unfortunately will never be seen in our lifetime-a flat tax for everyone regardless of income. And to do away with most of the write offs that now exist. Back to reality, I dont have a problem with the current tax rates we have, although I would do away with a bunch of write offs we have now, which would effectively raise taxes for everyone, including the rich.

Your not going to like my answer about fair taxes, but I think taxes should be increased until the budget is balanced, except for a world war or something like that.

Increased by how much? And what are your income thresholds? Ballpark? And do you think its reasonable to expect the government to meet halfway to a balanced budget and require spending cuts? Or do you feel the rich should shoulder the whole responsibility?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: borosp1

Here is a good article for everyone... Warren Buffet a Billionaire pays less taxes than his secretary:

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...tax/article1996735.ece

So dollar wise, how much did Warren payout versus his secretary?

If we want to play this percentage numbers game, out of the total amount income tax revenue that was received by all of the tax payers, what percentage did Warren pay versus his secretary?

Thats a good question, and his statement of 30% taxes on $60k is bullshit. I already posted tax table info for 2008 and she paid 19% based on $60k filing single.

so what is 17.7% of $46M??? and what is 30% of $60K??? since I am not super rich, I am not sure if my math is right, but does this mean that Warren paid $8M in taxes while is secretary paid $18K (assuming that number is even right)???

I guess the poor, poor secretary paid more in taxes since 30% > 17.7% then...

Am I missing something here?

Yes you are. The net tax rate on $60k is not 30%. It's 19%. Again, thats assuming filing single taking the standard deduction. She didnt pay 30%. As a percentage, based on limited information, she paid more as a percentage and less in dollars (duh) so that part is right.

The point was I was making (whether she paid $18K at 30% or $11.4K at 19% - both of these number pale in comparision to what Warren paid) is that Warren paid $8M(assuming that number is correct)...

$8M > whatever the Secretary's income tax was

for someone to say that secretary paid more income tax (which is techincally correct from a percentage standpoint) is ludicrous when you compare the dollar amounts each one paid out (again, assuming my math is right)...

so basically the poor think they pay more based on a percentage, but do not consider the total dollars that are actually paid by them versus the super rich??? is that what I am missing?

Got it I misunderstood your post. You are dead on. See what I bolded.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I prefer they cut spending until the budget is balanced.

And I agree 100%. A nation cannot tax itself into prosperity. Theres not one example of it ever working so not sure what the taxation crowd thinks is different now.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1
But one thing IS true-the lack of hard work guarantees the lack of success.

As I pointed out, my neighbor hasn't had a job the whole time I've known him yet he's quite well off, so I dispute your statement.

The only thing he works at is evading taxes. He's so cheap he buys his diesel on the farm and hauls it in to fill his diesel car and pickup so he doesn't have to pay the fuel taxes.

Your point is irrelevant to my post. Maybe you didnt understand? What I DIDNT say was, lazy people never succeed. With a few exceptions (lottery, massive inheritance, both are rare).

You call him cheap, I call it frugal. You should read the book Millionaire Next Door sometime if you are interested to see how average millionaires actually live.

It's not frugal, it's illegal. That fuel is for ag use, not highway use.

If he was frugal he wouldn't have a 1976 Cessna 182 (he bought it new) with less then 500 hours on it sitting in a heated hangar at the airport.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Genx87
I prefer they cut spending until the budget is balanced.

And I agree 100%. A nation cannot tax itself into prosperity. Theres not one example of it ever working so not sure what the taxation crowd thinks is different now.

Yeah, Bush tax cuts really helped avoid current crisis. :roll:

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows


The guy who uses "generalites" is now demanding specific answers? To what? I see no question in this post, only statements. Perhaps you should stick to replies that were meant for you imstead of someone else. I'd think a rich guy like you would be smart enough to figure that out??

So please be specific with your questions.

When general questions are asked, I answer in generalities. Occasionally I give an example to back it up.

Second, Im not sure what you think "rich" is, but it must not be what I consider rich, because Im not. I may be upper middle class for the city I live in, but not rich by any means. However, I *do* manage to live well on 75% of my income and have no debt, thus I save 25% of what I make. So yeah. Compared to most who make twice what I do who live paycheck to paycheck, maybe I am rich

And finally, the questions you have failed to answer are:

1. In your perfect society everyone would be middle class or what?
2.Could you tell us roughly what percentage of the "rich and ultra rich" are living off of inherited money?

Ive answered every question asked, and if you'd like I will post an easy to read, point by point post illustrating the question, and my answer. So lets hear it. What say you?

I never claimed I had a vision for a "perfect" society. That was you putting words in my mouth. I'm more about righting the wrongs I see in the society we have. If that means the rich will have to pay more taxes, then so be it.

As far as the percentage of people living off inherited money goes I have no idea? My thought there is that the inheritance tax shouldn't be revoked causing the tax burden to be spread out on all the people. The loopholes are big enough already.

Im not putting words into you mouth at all. I never said, nor implied you said, anything of the sort. I simply asked a question, and thanks for the response of you dont know (nobody knows, right?)

not even the shadow

If you are actually interested in the percentage of people living off inherited money, go back in posts. I posted it. Its far less than people think. Most of the very rich got there the hard way-they earned it.

Which brings a new question and getting back on topic. Since the rich in some cases less of a percentage of their money in taxes, and knowing what percentage of money they pay overall, what, in your opinion, is a fair amount? My answer unfortunately will never be seen in our lifetime-a flat tax for everyone regardless of income. And to do away with most of the write offs that now exist. Back to reality, I dont have a problem with the current tax rates we have, although I would do away with a bunch of write offs we have now, which would effectively raise taxes for everyone, including the rich.

Your not going to like my answer about fair taxes, but I think taxes should be increased until the budget is balanced, except for a world war or something like that.

Increased by how much? And what are your income thresholds? Ballpark? And do you think its reasonable to expect the government to meet halfway to a balanced budget and require spending cuts? Or do you feel the rich should shoulder the whole responsibility?

Increased by enough to balance the budget. It was balanced when Bush took over.

I favor the rich shouldering the lion's share. Don't think that won't affect me either because it will. My money for the most part is in property so a 35% capital gains tax will hurt me hard.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Genx87
I prefer they cut spending until the budget is balanced.

And I agree 100%. A nation cannot tax itself into prosperity. Theres not one example of it ever working so not sure what the taxation crowd thinks is different now.

Yeah, Bush tax cuts really helped avoid current crisis. :roll:

Bush's tax cuts werent for this recession. What gave you that idea? The cuts were to poke the economy back to life in 01 and continue it in 03. The economy got the poke it needed and we enjoyed strong growth until the end of 07 early 08.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Genx87
I prefer they cut spending until the budget is balanced.

And I agree 100%. A nation cannot tax itself into prosperity. Theres not one example of it ever working so not sure what the taxation crowd thinks is different now.

Yeah, Bush tax cuts really helped avoid current crisis. :roll:

edit: Gen answered it. Increasing government spending didnt help either. But you tax the rich crowd dont seem to care about that.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: spacejamz
The point was I was making (whether she paid $18K at 30% or $11.4K at 19% - both of these number pale in comparision to what Warren paid) is that Warren paid $8M(assuming that number is correct)...

$8M > whatever the Secretary's income tax was

for someone to say that secretary paid more income tax (which is techincally correct from a percentage standpoint) is ludicrous when you compare the dollar amounts each one paid out (again, assuming my math is right)...

so basically the poor think they pay more based on a percentage, but do not consider the total dollars that are actually paid by them versus the super rich??? is that what I am missing?

I think the answer can be found in a Chris Rock bit:

You make 20 million, and your wife wants 10, big deal, you ain?t starving... Now you make 30 thousand, and your wife says she wants 15, you might have to kill her!

You can easily swap this bit so that the ex-wife is the IRS. This is the fundamental reason we have a progressive income tax in this country. If you tax everyone at the same rate, people at the bottom end of the scale would not be able to afford the basic necessities like housing or food. Meanwhile, the wealthy, who would not be starving if they had to pay a higher amount, could squeak by paying a lower percentage simply because it was the minimum percentage we could tax the poor folks at before they are dying in the street.

But the real question is how can you justify someone paying a LOWER percentage on their income as they earn more money? I don't see your logic there. They control a higher percentage of the wealth, why should they not have to pay at the very least an equal percentage on what they made? Sure, Warren Buffet paid 8 million in income taxes. But given just how wealthy he is, he can afford much, much more. Even if you're just talking about his $46,000,000.00 in income, are you honestly telling me that if the government took half, Warren would be starving with only $23,000,000.00 a year to spend? Fuck, make me a multimillionaire, I'll gladly pay 75% tax and STILL take home more than Warren's secretary will make in 20 years. Any way you think about it, it's complete ridiculous that Warren's secretary pay 19 percent and Warren pay 17.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: spacejamz
The point was I was making (whether she paid $18K at 30% or $11.4K at 19% - both of these number pale in comparision to what Warren paid) is that Warren paid $8M(assuming that number is correct)...

$8M > whatever the Secretary's income tax was

for someone to say that secretary paid more income tax (which is techincally correct from a percentage standpoint) is ludicrous when you compare the dollar amounts each one paid out (again, assuming my math is right)...

so basically the poor think they pay more based on a percentage, but do not consider the total dollars that are actually paid by them versus the super rich??? is that what I am missing?

I think the answer can be found in a Chris Rock bit:

You make 20 million, and your wife wants 10, big deal, you ain?t starving... Now you make 30 thousand, and your wife says she wants 15, you might have to kill her!

You can easily swap this bit so that the ex-wife is the IRS. This is the fundamental reason we have a progressive income tax in this country. If you tax everyone at the same rate, people at the bottom end of the scale would not be able to afford the basic necessities like housing or food. Meanwhile, the wealthy, who would not be starving if they had to pay a higher amount, could squeak by paying a lower percentage simply because it was the minimum percentage we could tax the poor folks at before they are dying in the street.

But the real question is how can you justify someone paying a LOWER percentage on their income as they earn more money? I don't see your logic there. They control a higher percentage of the wealth, why should they not have to pay at the very least an equal percentage on what they made? Sure, Warren Buffet paid 8 million in income taxes. But given just how wealthy he is, he can afford much, much more. Even if you're just talking about his $46,000,000.00 in income, are you honestly telling me that if the government took half, Warren would be starving with only $23,000,000.00 a year to spend? Fuck, make me a multimillionaire, I'll gladly pay 75% tax and STILL take home more than Warren's secretary will make in 20 years. Any way you think about it, it's complete ridiculous that Warren's secretary pay 19 percent and Warren pay 17.

Typical naive response. Most people who dont have money feel this way; however, once you actually HAVE that moeny, you wont feel the same. The fact that there arent wealthy people saying this is evidence.