Why is it ok to unjustly target the rich?

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

So I miss-typed a word, BFD , realize that I made an observation on TheEvil1's typing ability; anyone who knew TheEvil1 would notice that it's out of his character to make so many mistakes and that's why I made my post Mr. Dictionary 😉 😀

You should know better than to do such a thing in the presence of the word usage Nazi. 😀

 

[wyvrn]

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.

I am not trying to pick on you, but this is a very ignorant statement. First of all, they are not loopholes, they are designed incentives. For instance, being able to avoid tax on the sale of real estate by rolling over (via a 1031 exchange) that gain into another equal or larger property. This was done on purpose to encourage investment, not spending. There is a difference. Secondly, these "loopholes" as you call them are available to everyone. Nobody is stopping the "poor" from starting a business to take advantage of these options. The fact is, the US is a capitalistic nation built on businesses providing jobs and opportunity. Take that away, and where the hell are you going to work now? Oops! Now you have to start a business because there aren't any jobs. See the relationship here?

Class envy. The rich are a convienent external target to blame and project frustration for one's personal failings and poor choices in life. They always will be because the world is replete with people who make extremely poor choices in life but don't want to accept full culpability for those choices.

I agree 100%. Since I have taken responsibility for my own finances, I have done much better without earning any additional income. It was just a matter of investing, not spending as the perpetually poor insist on doing. For instance, I don't buy name brand clothes and jewelry very often, though I could tell you stories of poorer people buying brand names for the prestige. Well, it's their choice isn't it?

This is why I vote Republican. I make $51K/yr, so I'm nowhere near wealthy. But it's the principle behind taxing the wealthy more because they make more. So in the American system, there is incentive to stay poor. Why would you want to realize your potential wealth, if the government was going to take it from you? "Let's punish those who succeed." It's ludicrous. It sounds nice from an individual point of view - make someone else pay. But it's just not right. We need a flat tax rate. If you make $2mil/yr, you're just gonna pay more because 17% of $2mil is more than 17% of $51K.

Agree. I will quote Abraham Lincoln (thanks Vic ):

...You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich... You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln, 1861

 

[0roo0roo]

i just find it unfair that the mentally ill, children, and homeless don't pay taxes. hows that fair😛 u live, u breath, u pay!

 

[wyvrn]

If it's a low percentage, does this mean we should ignore inefficiency? An economist would argue that percentage cost means nothing, instead you try to maximize surplus in every instance. Anything else is inefficient. This means taking all known costs and benefits ( even those hard to quantify monetarily) into account.

Woowoo! Got to use my economics class in a discussion 😀.

Originally posted by: her209

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"?

What percentage does welfare account for in the national budget?

 

[her209]

I am not trying to pick on you, but this is a very ignorant statement. First of all, they are not loopholes, they are designed incentives. For instance, being able to avoid tax on the sale of real estate by rolling over (via a 1031 exchange) that gain into another equal or larger property. This was done on purpose to encourage investment, not spending. There is a difference. Secondly, these "loopholes" as you call them are available to everyone. Nobody is stopping the "poor" from starting a business to take advantage of these options. The fact is, the US is a capitalistic nation built on businesses providing jobs and opportunity. Take that away, and where the hell are you going to work now? Oops! Now you have to start a business because there aren't any jobs. See the relationship here?

Sorry, I don't know of any poor people who can afford six figure lawyers and accountants to follow up on the current laws to take advantage of this.

 

[wyvrn]

You are going to be easy to dismiss. I know about his exchange by reading it in a book I got from the library. I don't make six figures and I didn't pay anything for the information (beyond property taxes which all homeowners do to pay for the libraries, but this is a sunk cost and cannot figure into the equation. Besides, poor people have free use of the library anyway.)

I don't make six figures. However, I have a lot more money invested and more money every month as a result of reading books and earning my broker's license. VERY VERY few people are born into wealth. Most millionaires are new millionaires, and they started out naked and broke just like you and I 😉 Ignorance is not an excuse 😀

Oh, and I would like to point out the most I every paid for an accountant's advice was $50. There are plenty of accountants that like to help small business owners and regular wage earners. It doesn't take anywhere near six figures to learn to be financially responsible. But it can cost you six figures if you don't learn to.

Originally posted by: her209

I am not trying to pick on you, but this is a very ignorant statement. First of all, they are not loopholes, they are designed incentives. For instance, being able to avoid tax on the sale of real estate by rolling over (via a 1031 exchange) that gain into another equal or larger property. This was done on purpose to encourage investment, not spending. There is a difference. Secondly, these "loopholes" as you call them are available to everyone. Nobody is stopping the "poor" from starting a business to take advantage of these options. The fact is, the US is a capitalistic nation built on businesses providing jobs and opportunity. Take that away, and where the hell are you going to work now? Oops! Now you have to start a business because there aren't any jobs. See the relationship here?

Sorry, I don't know of any poor people who can afford six figure lawyers and accountants to follow up on the current laws to take advantage of this.

 

[SuperTool]

They should end tripple taxation of social security before they end double taxation of dividents.

 

[wyvrn]

We can talk about that too 😀

Originally posted by: SuperTool
They should end tripple taxation of social security before they end double taxation of dividents.

 

[AndrewR]

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.

I agree that it is. However, (and I am addressing this general statement and not your clarification) it is a responsibility and not a mandated act. With power comes responsibility -- the government should not impose a duty or discourage people from achieving a certain level of wealth by threatening to take it away.

The obvious response is that they will say that they are not "unjustly" targeting the rich.

Did you know that Bill Gates Sr. has co-authored a book supporting the estate tax or as sound-biters call it the "death tax."

You're kidding, right? Do you deny that a tenet of Democrat politics is that it's perfectly ok to fashion tax legislation to impose additional levels of taxation on those with more money, particularly those with a large amount of money? Where is the line drawn between the rich and the normal and the poor, and why is there such a line? If you earn your money, then you can keep it just like everyone else, whether it's $1,000 or $1,000,000. If you luck into it by virture of birth or fortune, bully for you. Plus, people with more money are usually adept at making additional money through investments -- something which the federal government is notoriously poor at doing.

As for Bill Gates, he is free to do with his money what he wants. He has already made it quite clear that he doesn't intend to pass his money onto his offspring. Again, that's a CHOICE. Why do people who bray about CHOICE in other circles then wish to impose REQUIREMENTS on those with money?

I'm sounding like a Libertarian. Scary.

 

[wyvrn]

As for Bill Gates, he is free to do with his money what he wants. He has already made it quite clear that he doesn't intend to pass his money onto his offspring. Again, that's a CHOICE. Why do people who bray about CHOICE in other circles then wish to impose REQUIREMENTS on those with money?

Shh! You don't want to enlighten the ignorant. Then they may actually earn some wealth and we might all get along.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: wyvrn
You are going to be easy to dismiss. I know about his exchange by reading it in a book I got from the library. I don't make six figures and I didn't pay anything for the information (beyond property taxes which all homeowners do to pay for the libraries, but this is a sunk cost and cannot figure into the equation. Besides, poor people have free use of the library anyway.)

I don't make six figures. However, I have a lot more money invested and more money every month as a result of reading books and earning my broker's license. VERY VERY few people are born into wealth. Most millionaires are new millionaires, and they started out naked and broke just like you and I 😉 Ignorance is not an excuse 😀

Oh, and I would like to point out the most I every paid for an accountant's advice was $50. There are plenty of accountants that like to help small business owners and regular wage earners. It doesn't take anywhere near six figures to learn to be financially responsible. But it can cost you six figures if you don't learn to.

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.

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.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

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.

Loopholes or not, that doesn't change the fact that the wealthiest people in this nation pay a disproportionately higher amount in taxes.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

Originally posted by: TheEvil1
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!

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.

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

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

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

Umm, just because they're in the same tax bracket does not mean they pay the same amount of taxes, lol.

teh rich should pay more cause they can!

That makes a looooooooooooot of sense, not.

 

[ReiAyanami]

we need to apply 110% taxation on enron, worldcom and other crooked executives.

and gary condit too, he's not good.

and stupid celebrities or sports stars that do stupid things like double murders, they dont deserve to have money so they cant buy johnnie cochrans to get out of jail free card.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

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.

Why? They already are taxed "more", both in % and in total monetary value.

 

[LH]

They already ARE taxed more.

10% of 10000 = 1000, except anyone making $10k isnt going to be paying the government anything.
10% of 1000000 = 100000

How are they not already paying more taxes. There should be equal tax rates, or atleast alot closer than they are now. Maybe 10% for people under 100k, then 20% for those over 100k. Having someone pay half their income in taxes, "because their rich" is not right or moral.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

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.

Loopholes or not, that doesn't change the fact that the wealthiest people in this nation pay a disproportionately higher amount in taxes.

You mean the taxes that they end up not paying because of the kickbacks. It would be interesting to find out how much the average US millionaire really pays in relation to their earnings for that year.

 

[Ferocious]

Think of it as society's desire to put a curb on aristocracies.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[0roo0roo]

heh, that executive at the riaa contributes to society far more then most doctors!! according to their salary i bet🙂

 

[LH]

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.

You must be under the impression that all music and movie executives make millions, and they start out that way. They busted their ass to get there. Both are cutthroat industries, you bust your ass off to make it to were you get. You must be under the impression that most millionaires are in either the sports or entertainment industries, and thats farthest from the truth.

And as for entertainment and the sports industry. They have a commodity, they have talent and/or looks. Its sorta like DeBeers, the have a monoploy on a gem thats basically worthless, but sell it for $$$. The same is said for entertainers, the have a worthless commodity, but people pay $$$ for it.

And yeah becoming a teacher is a stupid choice, if you want to be rich. A person that made a choice to be in a certain profession then envy the rich is stupid, they made the choice to stay in a lower class.

A person that makes the choice to be successful in a feild they can become very rich in shouldnt be punished for becoming rich. All that is, is envy.

 

[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.

 

[IGBT]

Leave all those mega million mucho bucks democrats alone for gawdsakes.