We need some type of excessive compensation tax.

[Londo_Jowo]

You're going to have some seriously pissed high paid sports figures, actors, and film producers which I think may actually out number the mean evil bankers.

 

[Cstefan]

 

[PsiStar]

Cannot tax the exceptionally successful just because they are successful.

Because you cannot comprehend making $10 Million/year does not mean that those people should be taxed. If so, then any entrepreneur that might make it would at least go to Canada and get a Haitian citizenship.

A Haitian citizenship can be purchased for $15K and thus ending the connection to the IRS.

This thread is for the uneducated.

 

[Patranus]

As taxes go up, the rich look for more and more ways to get out of paying it.

 

[Craig234]

Cannot tax the exceptionally successful just because they are successful.

Because you cannot comprehend making $10 Million/year does not mean that those people should be taxed. If so, then any entrepreneur that might make it would at least go to Canada and get a Haitian citizenship.

A Haitian citizenship can be purchased for $15K and thus ending the connection to the IRS.

This thread is for the uneducated.

No, it's not, but your post is for the under- and mis-educated idiotlogues. You are demanding the end to power for the people in the US and the move to economic slavery.

 

[spidey07]

As taxes go up, the rich look for more and more ways to get out of paying it.

That's what communism/socialism cannot overcome. Human will and desire.

 

[IBMer]

Capital gains tax is lower because we recognize a value to society in promoting investment, not merely because capital is risked. Otherwise lottery and gambling winnings would be taxed as capital gains.

Capital Gains tax is lower because the rich run congress, pure and simple. IMO if capital gains is anymore than 30 percent of your earnings for year, IT IS INCOME, not capital gains and should be taxed as income.

 

[Craig234]

As taxes go up, the rich look for more and more ways to get out of paying it.

Wrong. The rich don't sit around saying "I won't minimize my taxes if they're 35%, but I'll find ways to avoid paying if they're 39%!"

Your argument is pure idiotlogue nonsense, arguing that there's no point in raising taxes on the rich because they'll not pay any more.

As if the rich not WANTING to pay more just means they will find all kinds of ways not to.

Wrong.

They always generally minimize their taxes, and where possible, finance firms look for ways - some legal, some gray, some illegal - to sell them 'tax reduction' schemes.

That does not mean, as you wrongly imply, that it's not worth raising taxes.

You don't have any rational facts about the tax laws being written well, instead of with loopholes - just nonsense as usual suggesting bad policy as usual.

I guess there's no reason to hire more police; criminals will just find more ways to avoid getting arrested!

 

[Icepick]

CEOs in the US make about 350 times more than your average employee.

The rich proposed they should NOT get heavily taxed, because they will create new jobs with the money Uncle Sam leaves alone.

That was 30 years ago. And, salaries of the rich have gone way up, while the middle class has remained the same. They have no intention of redistributing the wealth.

For anyone who tries to distribute the wealth; they are a muslim communist terrorist out to rape your white virgin daughters.

It's all a show. The rich have no intention of sharing any of their wealth. Not even under the intentions of growing their business. They would rather ship the work overseas for a fraction of the cost.

And, they then have the nerve of calling American Labor too expensive. Right, because $8 a day to some 12 year old is better for appropriate.

You're right. What you described is all a show. That's why "the Rich" hired Ronald Reagan (former movie actor) to sell it to us. He creatively called this plan "Trickle Down Economics." Guess what? It didn't work. In fact, many would argue that the excessive deregulation and "welfare for the rich" mentality that was so fervently put forth by Reagan and the GOP who followed helped sow the seeds of the near collapse of Capitalism we recently witnessed.

 

[Patranus]

You're right. What you described is all a show. That's why "the Rich" hired Ronald Reagan (former movie actor) to sell it to us. He creatively called this plan "Trickle Down Economics." Guess what? It didn't work. In fact, many would argue that the excessive deregulation and "welfare for the rich" mentality that was so fervently put forth by Reagan and the GOP who followed helped sow the seeds of the near collapse of Capitalism we recently witnessed.

I love how letting the "rich" keep their own money is somehow "welfare for the rich".

 

[Icepick]

Wrong. The rich don't sit around saying "I won't minimize my taxes if they're 35%, but I'll find ways to avoid paying if they're 39%!"

Your argument is pure idiotlogue nonsense, arguing that there's no point in raising taxes on the rich because they'll not pay any more.

As if the rich not WANTING to pay more just means they will find all kinds of ways not to.

Wrong.

They always generally minimize their taxes, and where possible, finance firms look for ways - some legal, some gray, some illegal - to sell them 'tax reduction' schemes.

That does not mean, as you wrongly imply, that it's not worth raising taxes.

You don't have any rational facts about the tax laws being written well, instead of with loopholes - just nonsense as usual suggesting bad policy as usual.

I guess there's no reason to hire more police; criminals will just find more ways to avoid getting arrested!

Yes. The wealthy always whine and complain when we talk of raising taxes on them. We always hear the sob stories about how they will throw a tantrum and leave the U.S. to go live elsewhere. You know what? Their bluffs never come to fruition.

 

[spidey07]

Capital Gains tax is lower because the rich run congress, pure and simple. IMO if capital gains is anymore than 30 percent of your earnings for year, IT IS INCOME, not capital gains and should be taxed as income.

If you lived off capital gains and as such your "income" from these gains was your sole income of 40k a year would you still believe this? What I'm talking about is say you had investments that grossed 40-50k on dividends alone and that was what you lived on as your sole source of income, you still ok with it comrade? You DO know the difference between long term and short term? Try to push your jealousy out of the way and think about what you're saying if the shoe were on the other foot.

 

[PsiStar]

No, it's not, but your post is for the under- and mis-educated idiotlogues. You are demanding the end to power for the people in the US and the move to economic slavery.

I have learned how to use the system as it is and as it can be. The successful are the people. You are just a mouse and a very whiney one at that. Do something useful with the remainder of your life.

And your made up words are ... just made up and not inventive at all. Say what you mean versus weak allegory.

 

[Craig234]

I love how letting the "rich" keep their own money is somehow "welfare for the rich".

I went out to lunch with some friends. They spent from $5 to $15. I ordered a $100 Kobe steak, and a $1000 bottle of wine.

It came time to divide up the bill, and I said, 'let's split anything after the first $100 evenly. Sure, this reduces my share of the bill and puts it on you, but it lets me keep MY MONEY'.

Of course, when you start out with the idiotic premise that every dollar the government taxes and spends in democracy is not appropriate but THEFT, you don't get the analogy.

 

[DCal430]

The rich trample over everyone for their money. They tend to have no moral and ethics. You know what makes Madoff different than 99% of the other rich fucks? He got caught.

 

[jackace]

I love how letting the "rich" keep their own money is somehow "welfare for the rich".

Most of the debt this country has taken on over the last 30+ years has been a direct stimulus for the rich, even most of the recent stimulus ended up right in the hands of bankers and Wall St. This is why the rich keep getting richer and the poor and middle class stagnate or decline. So we as a whole take on debt but only the rich can get richer. Sounds like a fair system to me.

 

[Turin39789]

If you lived off capital gains and as such your "income" from these gains was your sole income of 40k a year would you still believe this? What I'm talking about is say you had investments that grossed 40-50k on dividends alone and that was what you lived on as your sole source of income, you still ok with it comrade? You DO know the difference between long term and short term? Try to push your jealousy out of the way and think about what you're saying if the shoe were on the other foot.

If my income came from dividends instead of digging ditches, sure I'd expect to pay income taxes on it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I love how letting the "rich" keep their own money is somehow "welfare for the rich".

<snip>

Of course, when you start out with the idiotic premise that every dollar the government taxes and spends in democracy is not appropriate but THEFT, you don't get the analogy.

What is needed for the government to operate vs what is need for the government to generate a social safety net vs generate a social engineering/conscience are different things.

The government needs taxes to operate to perform its primary mission.
The social missions are secondary and need to be looked at closely to see if they are for the good of the country or the good of the social engineers.

The social engineers do not know when to quit and can always find an excuse to justify their pet projects

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I went out to lunch with some friends. They spent from $5 to $15. I ordered a $100 Kobe steak, and a $1000 bottle of wine.

It came time to divide up the bill, and I said, 'let's split anything after the first $100 evenly. Sure, this reduces my share of the bill and puts it on you, but it lets me keep MY MONEY'.

Of course, when you start out with the idiotic premise that every dollar the government taxes and spends in democracy is not appropriate but THEFT, you don't get the analogy.

I won't use the word theft because implies illegitimacy, but every dollar the government gets is taken involuntarily from someone. Its certainly a good idea to keep that in mind when discussing spending.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe you make too much and you need to start paying more tax!

I barely make enough money to pay tax.

 

[piasabird]

You would have to have like a 300k investment or more to get to $50k in dividends. This is a just a guess-timate.

With a prime lending rate of Zero, it is hard to make any money with the money you have. Although some companies like Intel and Apple are showing a healthy profit.

 

[werepossum]

I went out to lunch with some friends. They spent from $5 to $15. I ordered a $100 Kobe steak, and a $1000 bottle of wine.

It came time to divide up the bill, and I said, 'let's split anything after the first $100 evenly. Sure, this reduces my share of the bill and puts it on you, but it lets me keep MY MONEY'.

Of course, when you start out with the idiotic premise that every dollar the government taxes and spends in democracy is not appropriate but THEFT, you don't get the analogy.

Your analogy is exactly backward to your views on society. Everyone agrees that the person consuming the Kobe steak and $1,000 wine should pay for it; the only question is whether nor not that person should also have to pay for you to have a nicer steak than you could afford from the rewards of your own efforts.

Spending your money on your wants is fine; my taking your money to spend on my wants, not so much.

 

[CycloWizard]

Your analogy is exactly backward to your views on society. Everyone agrees that the person consuming the Kobe steak and $1,000 wine should pay for it; the only question is whether nor not that person should also have to pay for you to have a nicer steak than you could afford from the rewards of your own efforts.

Spending your money on your wants is fine; my taking your money to spend on my wants, not so much.

You start with the opposite premise as Craig, so you'll never make any headway. You assume that you earn what you're paid for working. He assumes that the government lets you keep some of what your labor is worth simply because congress lacks the will to pass a law claiming all of it.

 

[werepossum]

You start with the opposite premise as Craig, so you'll never make any headway. You assume that you earn what you're paid for working. He assumes that the government lets you keep some of what your labor is worth simply because congress lacks the will to pass a law claiming all of it.

Quite true. Once I realized that Craig is a true, hardcore Marxist then his posts became - well, not sensible, but at least readable. And occasionally he makes good points even if I seldom agree with them.

 

[piasabird]

The more you give the feds the more money they waste. It is time to take away the checkbook. Every time I Blink some democrats have written 5,000 new lines of redtape that fix nothing.