Why does it shock you that the Rich pay a majority of the taxes?

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
I just noticed somebody was SHOCKED to here that the Top %50 pay %96 of Federal taxes It seemed that people are outraged by this or thought that it was a Myth.

Did anyone see where this top %50 starts? Did anyone look? @ $27,682 that is beans people in the bottom %50 get no tax relief on State, city, county, sales, ECT. ECT. After that these people don't have anything to spend. Maybe those at 27K are not too bad off but what about those who make say 20K give or take 2k allot of these people live paycheck to paycheck just to pay for housing, utilities, gas, transportation, MEDICAL ECT. ECT. Where in this person?s paycheck does a federal tax come from?

If you do tax them it will just go back to them in social programs. It is that simple.

Don't think that top %96 of all taxes are paid by %50 of Americans is shocking or unjust cause if you have not noticed there are allot of poor people still. I guess there are no poor people here except for the guy in the FS/FT.

Think about the amount of a disposable income someone in the top %10 has $>92K. Think they blink when gas prices go up 40 cents. Or those taxes will keep them from taking 5 weeks of vacation instead of just 4 weeks. Yes I am embellishing a bit but I have seen both sides I know some of the greatest people who are filthy rich and some that are ultra poor. Most people who are the filthy rich types understand the next man just getting by cannot remotely pay anything what he is paying and happily pays his tax knowing he still makes a good living and that you can always make more money.

Some of you all in the middle tax brackets need to wake up and be thankful of what you have the alternative isn't pretty. The days where white collar jobs are cut a reversal of fortune for you is always a possibility.

The only thing shocking here is that this is a historically democratic argument from an admitted republican.

edit: for crappy spelling and internet grammar
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Somebody the other day said "gasp" the top 20% of earners have have the bulk of the wages increase over the last XX years. You mean those people who earned $60K plus? Is that our new definition of uber-rich? I guess I qualify then.

I wish I could find somewhere the wealth distribution, and calculate if we took all the "super-rich" folks money and spread it around the world, what the net effect would be. Google hasn't been my friend :(

I have a feeling it would mean that instead of earning $100 per capita a month, the world would earn $107 a month...(or whatever that number is).

There just ain't enough cash to go around to 6 billion.
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: EXman
I just noticed somebody was SHOCKED to here that the Top %50 pay %96 of Federal taxes It seemed that people are outraged by this or thought that it was a Myth.

Did anyone see where this top %50 starts? Did anyone look? @ $27,682 that is beans people in the bottom %50 get no tax relief on State, city, county, sales, ect. ect. after that these people don't have anything to spend. Maybe those at 27K are not too bad off but what about those who make say 20K give or take 2k alot of these people live paycheck to paycheck just to pay for housing, utilities, gas, transportation, MEDICAL ect. ect. where in this persons paycheck does a federal tax come from?

If you do tax them it will just go back to them in social programs. It is that simple. :(

Don't think that top %96 of all taxes are paid by %50 of Americans is shocking or unjust cause if you have not noticed there are alot of poor people still. I guess there are no poor people here except for the guy in the FS/FT.

Think about the amout of a disposable income someone in the top %10 has $>92K. Think they blink when gas prices go up 40 cents. or that taxes will keep them from taking 5 weeks of vacation instead of just 4 weeks. Yes I am embellishing a bit but I have seen both sides I know some of the greatest people who are filthy rich and some that are ultra poor. Most people who are the flithy rich types understand the next man just getting by cannot remotely pay anything what he is paying and happily pays his tax knowing he still makes a good living and that you can always make more money.

Some of you all in the middle tax brackets need to wake up and be thankful of what you have the alternative isn't pretty. These days where White collar Jobs are also cut a reversal of your fortune is always a possiblity. :(


Are you drunk?
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
The rich don't pay too much in taxes. However, seeing as to how they pay the majority of taxes, it only makes sense that they would be the ones who receive a tax break.

People are complaining that the rich are the only one's profiting from the recent tax breaks, and yet what they don't realize is that the rich are tax payers just like any other person in the country. You don't give tax breaks to people who don't pay taxes, and you don't withhold tax breaks from those that pay A LOT in taxes.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
I do not say that they need some tax relief even at $26k a year a family of four isn't gonna pay any taxes so there is nothing to give a tax break on.

Are you drunk?

you sir support Dean so you should be agreeing with me he is as far left as you can get.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Exman, I think I agree with you, but I've read your post twice and can't really get what you are saying. I know my spelling and grammar isn't stellar, but dude, try a re-read and maybe restate your idea is a more clear and concise manner...
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Rich are hurting

not to be funny but seriously to make a $4000 mortage payment? a $500 a month SUV payment that <cough> is a Lease <cough>

I'll go take a look :)
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
To those who think it's OK to tax the "rich" more. If you worked hard your life and made your way up the ladder and were finally making $200,000 a year (that's gross of about $16,500 a month), how would you like to be taxed at over 50%? That would mean your take home would be around $95,000 a year. Think about that. I know for some of you kiddies, $95,000 a year is a lot after taxes, but at some point you have to put yourself if those shoes.

To make it more down to earth for you, image your got your first job at $30,000 a year (gross of $2,500 a month), and you only got to keep $1,400 a month.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: miguel
To those who think it's OK to tax the "rich" more. If you worked hard your life and made your way up the ladder and were finally making $200,000 a year (that's gross of about $16,500 a month), how would you like to be taxed at over 50%? That would mean your take home would be around $95,000 a year. Think about that. I know for some of you kiddies, $95,000 a year is a lot after taxes, but at some point you have to put yourself if those shoes.

To make it more down to earth for you, image your got your first job at $30,000 a year (gross of $2,500 a month), and you only got to keep $1,400 a month.

OK, time for clarification. Remember I said the old saying "If you have to ask how much, you are not rich"?
That's totally different from someone making $200,000 living a high life style but still has to watch outflow. That used to be called part of the upper middle class. You are making a good on my point that the middle class is being purposely driven from existence. If you are hurting at $200,000 imagine those working on minimum wage at less than $20,000 a year. So bottom line, anyone calling themself or thinking they are rich at $200,000, no, think again, you are not rich.

 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: miguel
To those who think it's OK to tax the "rich" more. If you worked hard your life and made your way up the ladder and were finally making $200,000 a year (that's gross of about $16,500 a month), how would you like to be taxed at over 50%? That would mean your take home would be around $95,000 a year. Think about that. I know for some of you kiddies, $95,000 a year is a lot after taxes, but at some point you have to put yourself if those shoes.

To make it more down to earth for you, image your got your first job at $30,000 a year (gross of $2,500 a month), and you only got to keep $1,400 a month.

OK, time for clarification. Remember I said the old saying "If you have to ask how much, you are not rich"?
That's totally different from someone making $200,000 living a high life style but still has to watch outflow. That used to be called part of the upper middle class. You are making a good on my point that the middle class is being purposely driven from existence. If you are hurting at $200,000 imagine those working on minimum wage at less than $20,000 a year. So bottom line, anyone calling themself or thinking they are rich at $200,000, no, think again, you are not rich.

Good, we finally agree on something. I'll look for the link, but I distinctly remember Al Gore calling people who make over $50,000 a year rich. At what point do people become "rich"?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: miguel
To those who think it's OK to tax the "rich" more. If you worked hard your life and made your way up the ladder and were finally making $200,000 a year (that's gross of about $16,500 a month), how would you like to be taxed at over 50%? That would mean your take home would be around $95,000 a year. Think about that. I know for some of you kiddies, $95,000 a year is a lot after taxes, but at some point you have to put yourself if those shoes.

To make it more down to earth for you, image your got your first job at $30,000 a year (gross of $2,500 a month), and you only got to keep $1,400 a month.

OK, time for clarification. Remember I said the old saying "If you have to ask how much, you are not rich"?
That's totally different from someone making $200,000 living a high life style but still has to watch outflow. That used to be called part of the upper middle class. You are making a good on my point that the middle class is being purposely driven from existence. If you are hurting at $200,000 imagine those working on minimum wage at less than $20,000 a year. So bottom line, anyone calling themself or thinking they are rich at $200,000, no, think again, you are not rich.

Good, we finally agree on something. I'll look for the link, but I distinctly remember Al Gore calling people who make over $50,000 a year rich. At what point do people become "rich"?

Gore said that? Everytime I turn around I see more idiotic quotes from the guy, probably a good thing he got shafted by Florida's Dubya brother and Co although don't think he would've tore into the Constitution and repuattion of the Country like Bush lite though.

It would probably be closer to $500,000 year to be considered truly "Rich" now in the U.S. There are many millionaires able to blow their money quite easily these days by thinking they are so rich they don't have to watch outflow at all.



 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
I never read all of the above - but are people saying that earning $200,000 per year does not make you "rich" (I know the word is very vague).

Can't *quite* get my head around that. What percentage of the country earn over $200,000 or over?

Cheers,

Andy
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Fencer128
I never read all of the above - but are people saying that earning $200,000 per year does not make you "rich" (I know the word is very vague).

Can't *quite* get my head around that. What percentage of the country earn over $200,000 or over?

Cheers,

Andy

Apparently not enough of the Country if they say they are making $200,000 a year that they are rich and hurting.

 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: Fencer128
I never read all of the above - but are people saying that earning $200,000 per year does not make you "rich" (I know the word is very vague).

Can't *quite* get my head around that. What percentage of the country earn over $200,000 or over?

Cheers,

Andy


That's fine, you are entitled to your own opinion of course. But consider a firefighter and a nurse married to each other. Base salary is somewhere around $130,000 ($80k for the nurse, $50k for the firefighter). Add in overtime, special duties, bonus, etc, and you can easily pass $200,000k. Not to mention if they are smart and they had investments, etc.
 

djNickb

Senior member
Oct 16, 2003
529
0
0
The true definition of rich is how much of your income is unearned vs earned. Simply put executives that earn a $200,000 salary but have no income from investments are not rich. They are just highly paid. I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head but basically regardless of salary if you have less than $20K a year in unearned income you are still classified as poor.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: Fencer128
I never read all of the above - but are people saying that earning $200,000 per year does not make you "rich" (I know the word is very vague).

Can't *quite* get my head around that. What percentage of the country earn over $200,000 or over?

Cheers,

Andy


That's fine, you are entitled to your own opinion of course. But consider a firefighter and a nurse married to each other. Base salary is somewhere around $130,000 ($80k for the nurse, $50k for the firefighter). Add in overtime, special duties, bonus, etc, and you can easily pass $200,000k. Not to mention if they are smart and they had investments, etc.

So - nurses and firefighters aren't allowed to be called rich?

Cheers,

Andy
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Fencer128
I never read all of the above - but are people saying that earning $200,000 per year does not make you "rich" (I know the word is very vague).

Can't *quite* get my head around that. What percentage of the country earn over $200,000 or over?

Cheers,

Andy

Apparently not enough of the Country if they say they are making $200,000 a year that they are rich and hurting.

Here you go again with that BS comment and extrapolation. ONE person made that comment and you use it as your chant. It's BS and you know it. Please make sure you clarify that ONE person said that, the next time you use your little chant.

CkG

PS - for those that don't know what Dave is trying to refer to - it wasn't me who what he is chanting against.;)
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
It's me he's chanting against.

Andy, you can call them cherryblossom wisps if you want. But to consider them "rich" in the sense that their income should be taxed at over 50% is just crazy. Income redistribution, those who believe in it, want to visualize the Tyco CEOs of the world as having less 100 dollar bills to throw into their fireplace. They don't realize that the hardworking folks are often caught in the nets they tend to throw around the "evil rich."
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

That's totally different from someone making $200,000 living a high life style but still has to watch outflow. That used to be called part of the upper middle class.

When has $200,000 a year ever been considered upper middle class? Used to be, huh, maybe in your little made up dream world.
rolleye.gif
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
Originally posted by: miguel
It's me he's chanting against.

Andy, you can call them cherryblossom wisps if you want. But to consider them "rich" in the sense that their income should be taxed at over 50% is just crazy. Income redistribution, those who believe in it, want to visualize the Tyco CEOs of the world as having less 100 dollar bills to throw into their fireplace. They don't realize that the hardworking folks are often caught in the nets they tend to throw around the "evil rich."

I don't think rich people are evil - nor necessarily that 50% should be the level. But if people/governments vote for more spending then I agree that those with more should pay more (because they can afford to whilst still maintaining a good lifestyle). Now - it's always down to the adeptness of the government and the will of the people as to what the levels actually are.

I think I'll always think of $200,000 a year as rich - even if you only take home $95,000 (because that's rich to me too!). Can't define it exactly - but I know that one day I might if lucky take home that amount of money and I'll know I'm well off as compared to my parents (not to mention a lot of the world).

Cheers,

Andy
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Well the only thing I could find for Gore's "50k = rich" thing was an analysis of his tax plan during his campain from the CTJ. Basically, tax breaks for for "middle-class" and "poor." Individuals making over $50,000/year are not included. So, I guess logically, those who make over 50k a year are not middle-class or poor, hence they are rich.

I wish I could find his quotes though. Does anyone know where?