Why is it ok to unjustly target the rich?

[Mill]

Originally posted by: TheEvil1[/i]
because teh rich people are in teh same tax bracket as we are. my dad makes like 150K a year and he pays teh same taxes as Bill Gates!

Percentage or Bracket=! Amount.

Something is definitly wrong about that. Mr Gates shoudl pay about 1000x more in taxes them my dad cause he makes that much more. and teh worst thing is that he can affords to hire some crazy tax lawyer to get him ouit of paying all his taxes.

I fail to see how your point is logical because you yourself say your dad is in a high tax bracket. Is this one of those do as I say and not as I do kind of deals? Why should your Dad pay less than Bill Gates? You think your dad cannot afford an accountant or Tax Lawyer based on 150k a year? Public school product are you? You would think with your Dad's money he would have sent you to a private school or restricted your access to dope.

its total sh!t and the whold tax system should be redone. teh rich should pay more cause they can!

So you are advocating wealth sharing? Well, I make less year than your Dad. He should then share his wealth with me! I guess I could borrow about 50k from him. He wouldn't miss it! He is rich!

There shoudl be NO fukin loopholes and people under the poverty line shouldent pay any taxes at all!!!

Exactly! Let all those that hardly pay any taxes at all; pay none! Brilliant plan. Can I get your thoughts on NAFTA and foreign dumping of steel and textiles as well?

and the poverty line should be raised to 30K a year cause you really cant live on anything less then that

Bullsh!t. I know plenty of people that make that much and are quite happy. They aren't in poverty nor do they beg for food. If you manage your money and save you can live WAY above any state of poverty on 20-30k a year. If you think 30k should be the poverty line or think it is not enough to live on then you should be reading a textbook right now instead of posting in this thread.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
teachers are poor because they made bad choices in life(choosing to become a teacher). they are lazy, don't work hard, and deserve nothing. same goes for all hard working.. *ahem* oops, i mean lazy people who make bad choices.

You are joking right?

KK

 

[wyvrn]

There's only one problem with that argument. Most people on welfare are not lucky enough to own real estate. Can't really make an omlette if you don't have any eggs.

I didn't have any real estate until I went to college, got a job, and then bought some. I know own a single residence, when I got out of high school I had less than $1000 my name and no chance at inherited wealth. You are making the assumption that the condition of poverty cannot be overcome. It can, and I and others are prime examples of how it's done. We work hard and learn the principles of finance, which are available to anyone who wants to learn them.

As for percent makeup of welfare, I am damn sure that out of what is left, there is not 100% effecient use of that money. In fact, I am willing to bet that more is wasted by our government officials.

I hear this argument all the time, but never hear it proved. It is precarious to lash out at the administrators of our law when you don't understand the law yourself. Your arguments are based on speculation and blind accusation more than on fact. Please go educate yourself and come back when you have any idea what the hell you are talking about.

 

[wyvrn]

Teachers are far from being poor. An average teacher makes more per year than I have ever made in my life. I have never made more than $33,500 salary and only made that once. But, I have more than a lot of teachers precisely because I use what I have better than they do. The teacher argument is old and inneffective. If they want wealth and to teach at the same time, they can have it if they make the proper choices. If you don't learn financial principles, it doesn't matter what you do for a living, you will never accumulate any wealth.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
teachers are poor because they made bad choices in life(choosing to become a teacher). they are lazy, don't work hard, and deserve nothing. same goes for all hard working.. *ahem* oops, i mean lazy people who make bad choices.

 

[wyvrn]

This is another flawed argument. Entertainers make money because we pay them for their talents. If you have bought a sports ticket or watched entertainment on TV, you are contributing to the money flow to these people. As for any executive, they have to be well educated which means an advanced degree and many many years working their way up the corporate ladder. They don't get put there as part of some elaborate scheme to keep the poor in poverty. Many successful people started out being poor and worked their ways out of it.

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: LH

It would be interesting to find out how much the average US millionaire really pays in relation to their earnings for that year

The avg US millionaire got to be a millionaire, because they worked their ass off for it, and made good choices in life. It is not their fault some one else, is lazy and doesnt work their ass of and doesnt make good choices in life. If the tax rates werent so insane, people would be less likely to try and find loopholes. There is no just reason to take close to half of someones money, that they busted their ass off make, and give it to others.

I'd like you to reiterate that to all the executives at RIAA and MPAA. Tell that to all the hard working people in the entertainment and sports industry.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: TheEvil1[/i]
because teh rich people are in teh same tax bracket as we are. my dad makes like 150K a year and he pays teh same taxes as Bill Gates!

Percentage or Bracket=! Amount.

Something is definitly wrong about that. Mr Gates shoudl pay about 1000x more in taxes them my dad cause he makes that much more. and teh worst thing is that he can affords to hire some crazy tax lawyer to get him ouit of paying all his taxes.

I fail to see how your point is logical because you yourself say your dad is in a high tax bracket. Is this one of those do as I say and not as I do kind of deals? Why should your Dad pay less than Bill Gates? You think your dad cannot afford an accountant or Tax Lawyer based on 150k a year? Public school product are you? You would think with your Dad's money he would have sent you to a private school or restricted your access to dope.

its total sh!t and the whold tax system should be redone. teh rich should pay more cause they can!

So you are advocating wealth sharing? Well, I make less year than your Dad. He should then share his wealth with me! I guess I could borrow about 50k from him. He wouldn't miss it! He is rich!

There shoudl be NO fukin loopholes and people under the poverty line shouldent pay any taxes at all!!!

Exactly! Let all those that hardly pay any taxes at all; pay none! Brilliant plan. Can I get your thoughts on NAFTA and foreign dumping of steel and textiles as well?

and the poverty line should be raised to 30K a year cause you really cant live on anything less then that

Bullsh!t. I know plenty of people that make that much and are quite happy. They aren't in poverty nor do they beg for food. If you manage your money and save you can live WAY above any state of poverty on 20-30k a year. If you think 30k should be the poverty line or think it is not enough to live on then you should be reading a textbook right now instead of posting in this thread.

ok ill respond to this. i was quite wasted when i posted it and ill see if i can clear some thing up

1) my dad makes 100-150K a year we are in teh highest tax bracket. something like 37%. so is bill gates. what i am saying is that there should be a few brackets between people that make 150K and year andf thoes that makes 1billion a year.

Granted Mr gates has to pay more cause 37% of a billion is a lot more. but he CAN afford to pay someone to get him around paying all of it. my dad cant. im in college that costs 34K a year bros school is 10K a year. we have house payments and 2 cars with payments like 500 a month and we have to pay off my sisters college lones. so out of like 120K a year there goes liek half. then you gotta pa for everythin else. not soo cool anymore. food is expensive thats like 400 every 2 weeks

Yes wealth shareing is a good idea but no you cant have 50K if we redid the tax system so this would work . all thoes with billions would share. the poorest getting helped first. really once you have like 10 billion dolleres you dont need anymore

and there shoudent be any loopholes. this makes scense
this way uber rich peopel wouldent be able to get around paying their taxes. liek thoes morons that get 50% back on buying a 6000lb vehicial. thats just stupid.
i fail to see why my point confused you here

and teh people under the poverty line shoudent pay taxes. whats wrong with that?? we have "Upward mobility" in this country this would help this out alot and get peopel out of poverty.
i dont understand why you dont like this or why you through NAFTA in here

ok mabye 30K is a bit high but too low where it is now. my opinion

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: McPhreak

Originally posted by: Damage

Originally posted by: McPhreak

Originally posted by: Damage
Quite frankly, it is ok to target the rich because they have more.. therefore it's up to them to pay for welfare, medical care fo illegal ailiens and so forth because they "can afford it".

If the basic principle it right or wrong has no bearing.. The have more so we'l take more from these people who work for success and give it to useless slobs..

True. I believe it's the responsibility of those with power to help those in need.

"responsibility"? You may as well call it "the peoples" money if government is removing it from you forcibly. Charitable organizations do great work, and provide tax benefit to those who accept your social responsibility.. The govenrment can entice contribution to effective organizations that deliver as much as 90 cents of every dollar to those in real need. Instead, liberals prefer government sponsered programs to make the poor dependant and helpless.. How is that "responsibility"?

I consider it a moral obligation is all. I don't think it should be enforced, but shame on anyone who doesn't. I do believe the rich should be taxed more than the poor though.

So, you think the rich should help those in need. And you believe this is a moral obligation, but it shouldn't be enforced. But, the rich should be taxed more (so as to help those in need). Do you believe that tax laws shouldnt be enforced then?

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: her209
Because the corporation finds loopholes to not be taxed in the first place. Then with the new no-tax on dividends, they pocket all the money. Meanwhile, the poor cannot afford to own dividend stocks.

This has got to be the most uninformed thing I have EVER read. First off... corporations shouldn't have a tax. They are nothing but a piece of paper. Every tax they pay gets passed on to you... the consumer. Corporations have to pay an income tax on their earnings. They then distribute dividends to the stockholder. The stockholder has to then pay tax on that dividend. It gets taxed twice. That shouldn't happen. Ideally, Bush should eliminate the Coporate Income Tax but he didn't. He is putting you and me ahead of Corporation. IMO, he eliminated the wrong tax, idealogically, but... I respect him for putting the people first.

 

[SuperTool]

I have no problem with the rich paying more. I really don't see what the big deal is. Progressive taxation is a good thing.
At the same time, I think the poor should pay some taxes so that they are not completely isolated from tax increases that their elected politicians vote for.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If they don't like it they can get the hell out and go live in Cuba. You can target anybody you want. Pull the triger and you'll find you're shooting blanks. Target the rich all you want. Then buy the laws that protect them. They can't be touched. Only revolution will target the rich.

OMG... you get more ignorant everyday. Go look at your paycheck and see how much taxes you pay. Then go look at the tax table and see how much a 500k a year salary pays. The rich are targeted.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have no problem with the rich paying more. I really don't see what the big deal is. Progressive taxation is a good thing. At the same time, I think the poor should pay some taxes so that they are not completely isolated from tax increases that their elected politicians vote for.

Socialism is a good thing...what??? hmmmmmm.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: her209
Because the corporation finds loopholes to not be taxed in the first place. Then with the new no-tax on dividends, they pocket all the money. Meanwhile, the poor cannot afford to own dividend stocks.

This has got to be the most uninformed thing I have EVER read. First off... corporations shouldn't have a tax. They are nothing but a piece of paper. Every tax they pay gets passed on to you... the consumer. Corporations have to pay an income tax on their earnings. They then distribute dividends to the stockholder. The stockholder has to then pay tax on that dividend. It gets taxed twice. That shouldn't happen. Ideally, Bush should eliminate the Coporate Income Tax but he didn't. He is putting you and me ahead of Corporation. IMO, he eliminated the wrong tax, idealogically, but... I respect him for putting the people first.

Basically an incentive for executives to drain company profits to pay themselves a nice fat divident tax free.
Corporation is a legal entity separate from the investor. When I get paid salary, I pay taxes, then I go buy something with that money, that person pays taxes. Is that now double taxation?

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have no problem with the rich paying more. I really don't see what the big deal is. Progressive taxation is a good thing. At the same time, I think the poor should pay some taxes so that they are not completely isolated from tax increases that their elected politicians vote for.

Socialism is a good thing...what??? hmmmmmm.

socialism isnt teh answer but the tax system needs to be fixed.

a flat tax is a good idea. i think it would work great. but the "Rich" would sh!t bricks about this cause they would have to actuallt pay money

 

[rchiu]

May be looking at the dividend tax this way makes more sense.

The tax cut is not about who will be taxed MORE after Bush's economy package, it is about to who will be getting the money.

Does the rich (ok, it's probably not 100% correct to say only rich owns stock with dividend, but based on the statistics, a much higher percent of wealthy people own stock with dividend) really need more money? Don't you think they already have army of Lawyers, tax consultants helping them minimizing their tax?

And that argument about rich works hard and they get to keep their money is totally absurd. You think those Enron exec works hard? Bill Gate spends billions more hours than average Joe on work?? People in the steel mill and farm works 100% harder than those exec sitting in their office all day.

IMHO, the tax cut should be given to those who really need it in this tough economy time.

The tax package is not unjustly targeting the rich, it is unjustly rewarding the rich.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: her209 Because the corporation finds loopholes to not be taxed in the first place. Then with the new no-tax on dividends, they pocket all the money. Meanwhile, the poor cannot afford to own dividend stocks.

This has got to be the most uninformed thing I have EVER read. First off... corporations shouldn't have a tax. They are nothing but a piece of paper. Every tax they pay gets passed on to you... the consumer. Corporations have to pay an income tax on their earnings. They then distribute dividends to the stockholder. The stockholder has to then pay tax on that dividend. It gets taxed twice. That shouldn't happen. Ideally, Bush should eliminate the Coporate Income Tax but he didn't. He is putting you and me ahead of Corporation. IMO, he eliminated the wrong tax, idealogically, but... I respect him for putting the people first.

Basically an incentive for executives to drain company profits to pay themselves a nice fat divident tax free. Corporation is a legal entity separate from the investor. When I get paid salary, I pay taxes, then I go buy something with that money, that person pays taxes. Is that now double taxation?

I got to be honest with you. That makes no sense. I have no clue what you are saying. Dividends do NOT drain company profits. You can't "write off" dividends.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have no problem with the rich paying more. I really don't see what the big deal is. Progressive taxation is a good thing. At the same time, I think the poor should pay some taxes so that they are not completely isolated from tax increases that their elected politicians vote for.

Socialism is a good thing...what??? hmmmmmm.

I haven't seen anyone say "I don't want to be rich because the taxes are too high", have you?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have no problem with the rich paying more. I really don't see what the big deal is. Progressive taxation is a good thing. At the same time, I think the poor should pay some taxes so that they are not completely isolated from tax increases that their elected politicians vote for.

Socialism is a good thing...what??? hmmmmmm.

I haven't seen anyone say "I don't want to be rich because the taxes are too high", have you?

Yeah I'd take being rich even if it meant that I'd have to pay higher taxes.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: TheEvil1

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: SuperTool I have no problem with the rich paying more. I really don't see what the big deal is. Progressive taxation is a good thing. At the same time, I think the poor should pay some taxes so that they are not completely isolated from tax increases that their elected politicians vote for.

Socialism is a good thing...what??? hmmmmmm.

socialism isnt teh answer but the tax system needs to be fixed. a flat tax is a good idea. i think it would work great. but the "Rich" would sh!t bricks about this cause they would have to actuallt pay money

Do you really think the rich don't pay taxes?? EDIT: I don't know the statistic so I won't guess.... (I don't remember the exact statistic, but it's right at that)

 

[BatmanNate]

It's certainly not unjust. However, the question you have to ask is whether or not it is worth it to give these tax cuts which will drive us further into debt and for most of us will be relatively insignificant, in hopes that all the money given back to the rich will 'trickle down' to the rest of us. Historically this doesn't work, and this money does not need to be spent here with all of the other debt that we're already swimming in.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: her209
Because the corporation finds loopholes to not be taxed in the first place. Then with the new no-tax on dividends, they pocket all the money. Meanwhile, the poor cannot afford to own dividend stocks.

What stops the poor from going online to buyandhold.com or walking into a brokerage to purchase stocks?

Stop babying them and they may grow up.

 

[Nitemare]

Neil Bortz did a show recently in which he commented on a USA Today poll.

50% of the respondents to the polls said they did not believe that we pay too much federal taxes. Coincidentally 50% of Americans pay 96% of the federal taxes, while the other 50% contribute 3-4%...




Wonder which 50% said that they did not pay too much? 😉

 

[Damage]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have no problem with the rich paying more. I really don't see what the big deal is. Progressive taxation is a good thing. At the same time, I think the poor should pay some taxes so that they are not completely isolated from tax increases that their elected politicians vote for.

Socialism is a good thing...what??? hmmmmmm.

I haven't seen anyone say "I don't want to be rich because the taxes are too high", have you?

No, but when you get the money, you write off as MUCH as you can to get into a lower bracket. Because you have had some success, you people seem to think it's ok to take it away.

What if it wasn't cash, and you worked all year to earn a medal.. do you want %37 of that medal? Sheez..

 

[Jmman]

Progressive tax brackets are simply a form of legalized wealth re-distribution. Flat tax is the way to go imho..... think how many trees we would save by doing away with all of the tax codes(I am trying to placate the liberal environmental wackos 😀). Give everyone a standard deduction and a flat tax rate of 20% or something.

 

[wyvrn]

Yes and contrary to what a lot of people think, wealth is not given it is earned in almost all cases. Those that don't earn it sure want it though, don't they!

Originally posted by: Jmman
Progressive tax brackets are simply a form of legalized wealth re-distribution. Flat tax is the way to go imho.....

 

[Damage]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have no problem with the rich paying more. I really don't see what the big deal is. Progressive taxation is a good thing.
At the same time, I think the poor should pay some taxes so that they are not completely isolated from tax increases that their elected politicians vote for.

Oriley had a great behind the numbers piece on something like this..

There was a report on taxes..

%55 thought taxes were "just right"
%44 thought taxes were "too high"
%1 thought taxes were "too low" (they were promptly whisked away in white jackets...)

Of the %55 that thought taxes were just right.. %66 didn't pay any taxes therefore had no responsibility or care.. If I didn't pay any taxes I probably wouldn't care either.. but I pay, so I care.

edit (sp.)