13% of Taxpayers pay 72% of the tax burden

Me>> Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
Should the rate on capital gains be set in order to produce the most revenue for the government and growth in the economy or just to satisfy the greed and envy of those who make little income and out to get the high earners?

Yep that's about it, so which is it or give me your other option.

Having trouble keeping up?

You >> Quote Originally Posted by expatriate View Post
they've already got the best government money can buy.... why not get even richer in the process?

The "they" you were talking about.

Dodge noted.

 

No I continue to ignore your specious dodges.

False, but then it would be a simple matter to restate

Try again and be specific this time

When it comes to FEDERAL TAXATION 20% pay over 80% of those taxes, what is not fair about that and if that is not progressive enough then what would be.

What about them

And again 20% pay over 80% of those taxes, what is not fair about that and if that is not progressive enough then what would be?

How about a straight answer this time?

And he was lying unless he is paying his secretary over $300,000 a year, the people you claim are not paying enough.

Then tell that to your fellow liberals and have them start supporting Republican efforts to reform the tax system.

You can either kiss off with those types of comments or be civil and answer the salient questions posed to you.

 

tax anything earned over a million the same as labored income...

 

Theodore Roosevelt Progressive

I fixed it for you

 

It's you guys who want to factor in WEALTH into your tax rate, remember?

Try again, my wife and I have saved all our lives and have quite a bit saved up for retirement, we sacrificed to do so. My neighbor makes the same as us but has not saved, has nothing. Why should I pay a higher tax rate than he does? Why should I pay more in actual dollars than he does?

That garbage was debunked the minute he said it. Buffett pays the highest effective rate on earned income and the highest effective rate on unearned income and his secretary would have to making in excess of $300,000 to even come close.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204573704577187033128016916

 

How do you arrive at that? How much should the bottom 50% pay?

 

If their income is so low, Why should they pay income tax?
I want to see a progressive tax system that mitigates the negative effects of capitalism, so that capitalism can survive.

 

In other words, you can't find any military enemy to defend against, or any actual defense in the last 60 years. And of course, you neglect to mention nearly every European nation. The best you can do is desire more soldiers and military budget "just in case", without being able to name a single case. As expected.

 

You don't. So why do you ask why you do? Or are you finding a confusing way of saying wealth should not be taxed? I personally don't think it should be taxed away from YOU. You worked hard and earned it. But I also think there should be a reasonable limit on what can be inherited.

I guess Warren Buffet doesn't understand taxes as well as you do.

 

You continue to ignore the whole picture. Until you can be honest, I see no sense trying to discuss anything with you. As I said.

 

The "pain" of government should be equalized.
Not an equal membership fee.
The burden of government is currently regressive and that is what it is all about, not redistribution of wealth.
I want the person who made 2 million dollars to know equal pain of taxation as a person who made 50K/year.
By pain I mean budgeting primary life needs, food, housing, health care, education -
Not having to budget the number of vacation estates.


Moi

No ​

 

NAFTA did not get approved until just before Clinton left office.

 

For a democracy to work everyone should have some skin in the game (so to speak). Why shouldn't "they" pay something? The type of system you advocate mitigates the positive effects of success, productivity, job creation, hard work, and intelligence. Luck is an element of success for some, but in reality most people make life decisions that determine success or failure. A lot of people who make bad life decisions blame those that have achieve success, i.e., believe success is a zero sum game.

 

I would suggest that the political process actually works at blending those two options.

Dodge? I am surprised that you are so naive as to think that those people are all against Obama.

- - - Updated - - -

federal income tax is not the only repository of "skin".

 

I notice you did not answer Flintcs question - who are we actually defending the nation against? A lot of American soldiers have paid with their blood for Iraqi "Freedom" -- to what end? Having a military advantage is smart. Fighting senseless and costly wars does not seem very smart. When we do have an advantage we don't use it. For example, why didn't we carpet bomb Fallujah into rubble? Most civilians left and they had a few weeks to leave. No anti-aircraft defenses. Yet we have soldiers kicking down doors and getting killed and wounded doing so. I have to agree with Flintc that the Vietnam war and post Vietnam adventures (with the possible exception of Panama) were in no way defensive conflicts.

- - - Updated - - -

And another repository of skin would be?

 

All the platitudes in the world won't change the fact that the system is rigged to concentrate wealth among the few.
That's what the numbers show.
Higher tax rates on the wealthy mitigate that, that's what the data shows.

 

You clearly believe wealth is a zero sum game. It is not. That being said, the system is rigged to [expletive deleted] the middle class.

 

Nowhere have I said that wealth is a zero sum game, I am saying that transferring low marginal utility wealth to high marginal utility applications increases the wealth of the society as a whole.

 

This is complete stupidity... If there are two things that are true in this world, they are that wealth preserves capital and the government and poor spend it. So, while investment helps grow the economy, it is dwarfed by consumption.

 

Capital Gains doesn't need to be taxed as ordinary income. It just needs to be taxed differently. The lower the taxes, the greater investment became as part of the economy. The economy currently has the greatest inflows of capital owned by foreigns, due to the incentives created for foreigners to invest in the United States.

So?

 

Only short term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income.

 

I grew up in a 1000 sq foot house, my dad made $6000 a year in the 60s. I did well in school and ended up at an elite college, where I met and am friends to this day, with many rich people all over the country. Later my Dad started a company on a shoestring and sold it 15 years later, retired comfortably. Two of my uncles did better, one ended up with a $20 million company and another a $100 million company. My father and two uncles grew up poorer than I did, no part of the family more than three generations removed from subsistence agriculture. Later still, I ended up in an elite Wall Street law firm. I'm not some savant, just a smart guy who was willing to work, just like my father and uncles. I'm not "rich" atm, my family is very rich, yet all came from the same 1940-50s lower middle class. In my travels, I've run into about 1 case of inherited wealth for every ten earned wealth cases. Even my "rich" friends in college got that way only a couple of generations before my family did. Friends in my community who simply learned a trade and expanded to a few plumbing/electrical trucks retire early and very very well.

The point of all the above anecdote is that a vast supermajority of the wealth in this country is earned over a couple of generations, not the product of some Social Register inbreeding going back to Plymouth Rock. That's the "Daddy Warbucks" leftist fiction the theft proponents want the gullible to suck down unquestioned. Some people have a leg up, but that only puts the disadvantaged a few years behind, and advantaged in drive/motivation that someone with a trust fund feels as disadvantage. The rich don't have much of an innate advantage due to some "old boy" status, despite the mountains of leftist propaganda to the contrary. Of course I can see how Teddy Roosevelt and you have a misguided idea about American wealth and how it is formed, you had silver spoons. That reality sheltered you from just how easy social mobility is in the US, and remains even in this recessionary miasma.

 

I'm not saying I disagree with you. I do agree with you, to an extent.

But regardless, those people aren't going anywhere. Do you think they won't resort to violence or thievery to get what they want when the 'welfare' tap is turned off? Why or why not?

 

I can't agree with this. 'Wealth' is not a black or white issue.

Sure, it's not completely zero sum. But there IS a limited amount of wealth compared to the number of people alive on the planet at any one time. The main dispute is how to distribute that wealth.

 

I would say violence would occur if the various welfare payments were eliminated based on the 68 riots and the fact that these riots have not reoccured. We have paid protection money in the form of welfare payments and conditioned the welfare recipients to expect to keep getting this money. The problem with paying people not to resort to violence is we are running out of money and the percentage of people taking but not giving is increasing. Rome paid tribute to the Huns, yet in the long run the Huns destroyed half of the empire.