Top 1% pays 50% of the taxes.

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 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.

You have apparently never heard of Bill Gates or Warren Bugget, who are not typically described the way you say people who hold their views as naive and lacking money.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yeah cause it's so much easier to live on 100 million than it is on 50 million:roll:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
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.

I make a pittance compared to the wealthy in this country, and I never, ever bitch about having to pay my income tax now. Hell, when I get my tax rebate, it's a nice bonus rather than an "Oh, thank God, I needed that to live this month." I live modestly, not beyond my means, and I value the services this country provides and am willing to pay for them as I feel any true American should. If I were a rich man, I don't see my attitude suddenly completely flipping around; "Well, I was willing to pay that when I was poor, but now that I have money, the government can go to hell!" No. Wouldn't happen. In fact, it's one of the more asinine claims I've heard on this forum. But you don't know me personally nor my feelings on taxation at all levels (not just the wealthy), so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Oh, and as for the claim that there aren't wealthy people saying this... Yes there are. I've heard wealthy comedians like Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld make jokes about their income and taxes on talk shows. The wealthiest men in the country, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, have routinely talked about the need for an income tax that is more favorable towards lower income individuals and families (ever as they donate huge sums to charity). In fact, the only rich people I ever hear bitching about income tax are blowhard pundits like Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly. If taxes are so hard on them, maybe they should take a voluntary pay cut so they don't have to pay so much...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 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.

You have apparently never heard of Bill Gates or Warren Bugget, who are not typically described the way you say people who hold their views as naive and lacking money.

Ever heard the phrase exceptions make the rule? Please. 2 in over 3 million millionaires+ and all of a sudden Im wrong? Now, if even one half of one percent of all wealthy felt this way you might have a (weak) point.

 

[Genx87]

Perhaps Buffet and Gates can give more to the federal govt? Nothing is stopping them from paying "more" in taxes if they feel their rate is too small.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, actually a lot of really wealthy people DO want to help others. Some via charity and others who do support high taxes.

But how people *feel* is not the way society should make plans. At least, it is only a small factor in a much bigger equation. I don't give a shit how Warren Buffet or any other super wealthy person feels. I just care about what is best for this country and this world. How they feel is part of it, I suppose, but a small part.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 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.

You have apparently never heard of Bill Gates or Warren Bugget, who are not typically described the way you say people who hold their views as naive and lacking money.

Ever heard the phrase exceptions make the rule? Please. 2 in over 3 million millionaires+ and all of a sudden Im wrong? Now, if even one half of one percent of all wealthy felt this way you might have a (weak) point.

Now you have just proven yourself to be an idiot. Read the news. LOTS of rich people think we should have high or even higher taxes for the rich.

 

[spacejamz]

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.

so are you saying a flat tax rate where the rich people pay the same rate as the poor people? isn't this the same tax the poor people don't want because they won't be able to afford paying these taxes??

someone needs to make up their mind here...

 

[theeedude]

Here's an idea, how about Republicans not contribute any more ideas for fixing the economy. I think there is only so much damage the country can take.
Bush tax cuts are still in place, if they were supposed to be stimulative, it sure as hell didn't help. Cutting government spending to coincide with simultaneous cutting of private sector spending that is going on now is economic suicide.
The time to keep spending low and run surpluses was before we were in the mess, you know, when GOP couldn't care less about the deficits. Saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day is giving too much credit to the Republicans, they make an effort to be wrong all the time.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Here's an idea, how about Republicans not contribute any more ideas for fixing the economy. I think there is only so much damage the country can take.
Bush tax cuts are still in place, if they were supposed to be stimulative, it sure as hell didn't help. Cutting government spending to coincide with simultaneous cutting of private sector spending that is going on now is economic suicide.
The time to keep spending low and run surpluses was before we were in the mess, you know, when GOP couldn't care less about the deficits. Saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day is giving too much credit to the Republicans, they make an effort to be wrong all the time.

You taking your toys home with you?

I dont know why it is hard for you to grasp the idea that one action to stimulate an economy from 5+ years ago doesnt apply much today. Using your rational what the hell are we doing Keynesian economics again? FDR stimulated the economy 70 years ago and it didnt help much obviously because we have a recession in 2008.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Here's an idea, how about Republicans not contribute any more ideas for fixing the economy. I think there is only so much damage the country can take.
Bush tax cuts are still in place, if they were supposed to be stimulative, it sure as hell didn't help. Cutting government spending to coincide with simultaneous cutting of private sector spending that is going on now is economic suicide.
The time to keep spending low and run surpluses was before we were in the mess, you know, when GOP couldn't care less about the deficits. Saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day is giving too much credit to the Republicans, they make an effort to be wrong all the time.

You taking your toys home with you?

I dont know why it is hard for you to grasp the idea that one action to stimulate an economy from 5+ years ago doesnt apply much today. Using your rational what the hell are we doing Keynesian economics again? FDR stimulated the economy 70 years ago and it didnt help much obviously because we have a recession in 2008.

Bush tax cuts are still in place. Which part of those tax rates does not apply today?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
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.

so are you saying a flat tax rate where the rich people pay the same rate as the poor people? isn't this the same tax the poor people don't want because they won't be able to afford paying these taxes??

someone needs to make up their mind here...

I'm absolutely not advocating a flat tax, which is why I mentioned the Chris Rock bit to begin with. If you make 30 million and the government takes half, you ain't starving. But if you make 20,000 and the government wants 10... you get the idea. I like the idea of a progressive tax system wherein the rich pay a greater percentage on their income than the poor. There's no logical reason that someone should pay a lower percentage as they earn more money, which seems to the case in examining Buffet and his secretary.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JD50


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??

Wow, someone's a little touchy. If you can't take it, don't dish it out, you're the one that started in with the silver spoon bullshit. I was just looking for an answer to my question, which you're still avoiding. I knew you wouldn't answer it, because you're not actually interested in the facts. Come back when you can answer my question and you grow a little thicker skin. When you tell people to "get out in the world and meet a few people" then proceed to talk about the people that live next door to you, you're going to get called on it.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JD50


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??

Wow, someone's a little touchy. If you can't take it, don't dish it out, you're the one that started in with the silver spoon bullshit. I was just looking for an answer to my question, which you're still avoiding. I knew you wouldn't answer it, because you're not actually interested in the facts. Come back when you can answer my question and you grow a little thicker skin. When you tell people to "get out in the world and meet a few people" then proceed to talk about the people that live next door to you, you're going to get called on it.

It's obvious to me (despite both your and Blackangst claims to the contrar) that your both trust fund babies.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Here's an idea, how about Republicans not contribute any more ideas for fixing the economy. I think there is only so much damage the country can take.
Bush tax cuts are still in place, if they were supposed to be stimulative, it sure as hell didn't help. Cutting government spending to coincide with simultaneous cutting of private sector spending that is going on now is economic suicide.
The time to keep spending low and run surpluses was before we were in the mess, you know, when GOP couldn't care less about the deficits. Saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day is giving too much credit to the Republicans, they make an effort to be wrong all the time.

You taking your toys home with you?

I dont know why it is hard for you to grasp the idea that one action to stimulate an economy from 5+ years ago doesnt apply much today. Using your rational what the hell are we doing Keynesian economics again? FDR stimulated the economy 70 years ago and it didnt help much obviously because we have a recession in 2008.

Bush tax cuts are still in place. Which part of those tax rates does not apply today?

And so are FDR entitlement programs oh no! Point being the tax cuts provided a boost in 01-03. That boost is now the norm, thus the stimulation is gone.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
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.

so are you saying a flat tax rate where the rich people pay the same rate as the poor people? isn't this the same tax the poor people don't want because they won't be able to afford paying these taxes??

someone needs to make up their mind here...

I'm absolutely not advocating a flat tax, which is why I mentioned the Chris Rock bit to begin with. If you make 30 million and the government takes half, you ain't starving. But if you make 20,000 and the government wants 10... you get the idea. I like the idea of a progressive tax system wherein the rich pay a greater percentage on their income than the poor. There's no logical reason that someone should pay a lower percentage as they earn more money, which seems to the case in examining Buffet and his secretary.

I do agree with your post...I would assume that the logical explanation for the difference would be the tax breaks...

using the secretary making $60K a year probably isn't the best example to be using for the disparity in the tax system though since that there is no way that could be considered poor.

my only problem is that poor people who are complaining they pay more in property taxes is asinine....I already mentioned how one could turn around the percentages and state how much of the total income tax (in dollars) was paid poor people versus ultra rich people...

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: 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.

You have apparently never heard of Bill Gates or Warren Bugget, who are not typically described the way you say people who hold their views as naive and lacking money.

Ever heard the phrase exceptions make the rule? Please. 2 in over 3 million millionaires+ and all of a sudden Im wrong? Now, if even one half of one percent of all wealthy felt this way you might have a (weak) point.

They're both billonaires, not millionaries and according to Forbes there were 469 known billionaires in the US in March, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...number_of_billionaires

I have no idea what percentage of them would favor increased taxes but it would be more then those two I'm sure. Plenty of billionaires do good things with their money. Millionaires, not so much. I think most of them are too busy trying to be billionaires.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644


Now you have just proven yourself to be an idiot. Read the news. LOTS of rich people think we should have high or even higher taxes for the rich.

Riiiight. Buffett and the lot of them feel so strongly about the need to pay higher taxes, they actually avoid loopholes to shelter their money, right? Shit man get real. I respect Buffett tremendously but frankly his speeches of how he think she should be taxed more is lip service in its purest form. He believes it so much he continues to take advantage of tax shelters. Are you able to put 2 and 2 together?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JD50


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??

Wow, someone's a little touchy. If you can't take it, don't dish it out, you're the one that started in with the silver spoon bullshit. I was just looking for an answer to my question, which you're still avoiding. I knew you wouldn't answer it, because you're not actually interested in the facts. Come back when you can answer my question and you grow a little thicker skin. When you tell people to "get out in the world and meet a few people" then proceed to talk about the people that live next door to you, you're going to get called on it.

It's obvious to me (despite both your and Blackangst claims to the contrar) that your both trust fund babies.

You know what? I am. Ive admitted it several times on this board. But let me tell you something else...I havent received ONE CENT from my trust. EVER. Trust is from daddy who grew his wealth the old fashioned way-earned it. He and my mom were divorced when I was 6, and mom got custody. Mom during my school days was a nursing student who worked part time tossing pizzas. Sure, dad payed child support, but at the time it was ordered he was just an ordinary engineer and P&G so it was nothing even remotely exorbitant. I grew up POOR. Despite the millions in my trust, I havent received a penny. Go read up on A/B trusts and you'll know why.

So cut your silver spoon bullshit and quit being a douche. My POV on things comes from a guy who came from a poor upbringing, and fought tooth and nail to get to upper middle class living well now. So fuck off with your accusations and contribute something for a change.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I grew up POOR. Despite the millions in my trust,

You know, i don't care if someone is intelligent and is able to make a lot of money in this country. I don't care that they want to give some of that money to their kids, they deserve to see their kids prosper with their fortunes. Just remember that if your dad grew up in Somalia there would be no money for you. This environment that we all live in has a cost attached to it. You might not agree with where that tax money is spent but you do agree that its good to be here. So for those who have attained "the dream" they need to pony up and give back to the society that allowed them to make it in the first place.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
You know what? I am. Ive admitted it several times on this board. But let me tell you something else...I havent received ONE CENT from my trust. EVER. Trust is from daddy who grew his wealth the old fashioned way-earned it. He and my mom were divorced when I was 6, and mom got custody. Mom during my school days was a nursing student who worked part time tossing pizzas. Sure, dad payed child support, but at the time it was ordered he was just an ordinary engineer and P&G so it was nothing even remotely exorbitant. I grew up POOR. Despite the millions in my trust, I havent received a penny. Go read up on A/B trusts and you'll know why.

So cut your silver spoon bullshit and quit being a douche. My POV on things comes from a guy who came from a poor upbringing, and fought tooth and nail to get to upper middle class living well now. So fuck off with your accusations and contribute something for a change.

So when do you get your money?

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So when do you get your money?

Red dawn we need you to lead by example and stop with the nested quotes

 

[sandorski]

It doesn't matter if they are paying 50% or 99%, if it just because of how much Wealth is concentrated in their hands. This is the same BS statistic that's been used for years to prove some kind of "unfair" burden. Once you breakdown to Income% though, you begin to see they should be Paying more, not less.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I grew up POOR. Despite the millions in my trust,

You know, i don't care if someone is intelligent and is able to make a lot of money in this country. I don't care that they want to give some of that money to their kids, they deserve to see their kids prosper with their fortunes. Just remember that if your dad grew up in Somalia there would be no money for you. This environment that we all live in has a cost attached to it. You might not agree with where that tax money is spent but you do agree that its good to be here. So for those who have attained "the dream" they need to pony up and give back to the society that allowed them to make it in the first place.

I understand what youre saying, and the corner youre trying to pigeonhole me into, and I dont entirely disagree; however, Im what I would call a federal minimalist. In other words, I think our federal government needs to shrink by like 40% to even begin to be effective. I dont understand this rally cry to balance the budget with the rich's money when the fucking government wont even meet its own citizens halfway! Fuck that! Did you know the federal budget, adjusted for inflation, has grown every year since 1932? Why the fuck is that? Sure Clinton in partnership with the GOP balanced the budget. Great. But on whose tax dollars? Fuck that. Its high time our government gave a little too. And I dont mean more entitlement programs either.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: blackangst1
You know what? I am. Ive admitted it several times on this board. But let me tell you something else...I havent received ONE CENT from my trust. EVER. Trust is from daddy who grew his wealth the old fashioned way-earned it. He and my mom were divorced when I was 6, and mom got custody. Mom during my school days was a nursing student who worked part time tossing pizzas. Sure, dad payed child support, but at the time it was ordered he was just an ordinary engineer and P&G so it was nothing even remotely exorbitant. I grew up POOR. Despite the millions in my trust, I havent received a penny. Go read up on A/B trusts and you'll know why.

So cut your silver spoon bullshit and quit being a douche. My POV on things comes from a guy who came from a poor upbringing, and fought tooth and nail to get to upper middle class living well now. So fuck off with your accusations and contribute something for a change.

So when do you get your money?

When step monster dies. Dad already did. The reason for the stipulation is for tax shelter reasons.