Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
quickdigger
5219 Followers
Drew Hendricks
10003 Followers
NewsMeBack
6467 Followers
Away for a while
3984 Followers
Cecil Helton
12880 Followers
bobosmitor
5469 Followers
dirtyfriesJul 25, 2011
And those tax cuts have been in effect for quite some time now. You know, the ones that promised to bring us prosperity and jobs? Where are those jobs anyway?
And all we hear now is that if we remove the tax breaks, we'll lose jobs and prosperity. Except we had it before, before the cuts.
Hmmmmm....
shwaavayJul 25, 2011
Capital gains should be raised, income taxes are high enough.
mlw4428Jul 26, 2011
High enough for whom? I pay 30% and I make <$40K/year. Why in the f**k should Johnny Richdude pay 18%? No jack the income tax rates for the rich AND raise capital gains tax.
The rich use the roads, police, firemen, and other public services too. It's about time they paid equally for those.
publiclurkerJul 26, 2011
I say they use them more then everyone else. If there were no police who would you rob, Joe in the trailer-park down the street, or Bill, the guy in the mansion who owns the trailer park.
mkautzJul 26, 2011
This is the stupidest f**king argument I may have ever seen on the Internet.
"Rich dudes shouldn't have to pay fair taxes because it makes me less of a target for robbery."
This may stun you, but rich people do not live in the same neighborhood as poor people and likely thieves.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jul 26, 2011
Yeah because poor people don't travel. You're an idiot.
mkautzJul 26, 2011
Poor people can't travel. They are poor. Also, suggesting that poor people travel to/hang out in Beverly Hills waiting for someone to go golfing so they can rob their house is pretty hilarious.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nitoriJul 26, 2011
His statement though crude is correct.
If there were no police they guy in the mansion would have to hire private security.
As for poor people don't travel they still have cars and it's just 20 minute drive from the slums of south central to Beverly Hills.
gr8fulspr34dJul 26, 2011
you can hire a pretty nice security team for $180 million
martoqJul 26, 2011
On a side note but if you think owning a trailer park is going to get you a mansion your crazy.
publiclurkerJul 26, 2011
Well, around here the owner of a trailer park just got about 5 million by forcing a retirement parks residents out onto the street in order to sell their lot to a developer. Then the housing bust happened and the developer went bankrupt. The previous owner had to leave "for health reasons".
melanitaJul 26, 2011
oh...
superkendallJul 26, 2011
Are you sure you pay 30% after deductions? What about houses or IRA contributions or medical expenses? Is it SO unreasonable to end up at 18%?
bagos1Jul 26, 2011
I was thinking the same thing. He's calling everbody else stupid, but paying 30% on <40k would lead me to believe that either he's stupid, or lying....and probably both.
brenisaJul 26, 2011
No, it's easy to hit well over 30% in California making < 40K. Between local, state and federal, social security, and the lack of deductions because you can't afford anything but your rent, car loans and food. Been there.
restilJul 26, 2011
the 18% figure is ONLY the federal income tax rate, and doesn't include state, local, sales, and property taxes, which presumably they pay as well if they choose to live in a state such as california, which many of the rich people do. Also, keep in mind, people like Bill Gates, who would be part of this list, EARN practically nothing compared to what they're worth. He may be worth $50 billionish dollars, but it's all on paper. It's all in stock that he has had since he started Microsoft, and until he sells it, there's no taxable event. Since he's planning to donate the mass majority of it to charity, no taxes will EVER be collected on that money. Therefore, it's very easy for someone like that to draw down the average.
What we need to see is an average tax rate of the 400 highest WAGE EARNERS and see what that looks like.
mlw4428Jul 26, 2011
I was including Federal, State, and Local. Sadly I couldn't afford UBS bank accounts to funnel my wealth and hide it from the IRS and various other local/state governments.
And no, I'm neither stupid nor am I lying. You, on the other hand, are an idiot.
bagos1Jul 27, 2011
You were talking about income tax, idiot. You got called out for being an idiot, or liar, and now you are changing your premise, which does say you are an idiot, a liar and now a bulls**tter.
reaper527Jul 28, 2011
"I was including Federal, State, and Local."
thats great. the article isn't. you are comparing apples to oranges.
blydchyldJul 26, 2011
what medical expenses are they claiming? solid platinum cyborg bodies?
jonpaul333Jul 26, 2011
If you pay 30% in federal income tax on 40k then you're doing your taxes wrong. Worst case tax scenario is that you're single and have no deductions. So you get about 9500 in standard deductions and personal exemptions and your AGI is 30500. Federal income tax on that is about 4200. So worst case tax scenario on 40k is 4200/40000 = 10.5%.
bagos1Jul 26, 2011
Oh no....you're going to collapse his staement with facts!
linuxpersonJul 26, 2011
These kids just don't get it, they think they know everything because they've looked at a few pay stubs.
OP wanted equality, so I'd say it's high time he start forking over more money to get his contribution up to 18%.
On second thought that was a sarcastic statement because I don't believe anybody should have their money stolen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waltaaronJul 26, 2011
Starting your statement with a condescending tone isn't really a good idea. The most ignorant form of argument usually starts out with "THESE YOUNG WIPPERSHNAPPERS TODAY.... THEY JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND"
linuxpersonJul 26, 2011
If being called a kid when you are a kid qualifies as condescension, I feel sorry for you.
bcarl314Jul 26, 2011
That's the real problem, people see "gross" and "net" on their paystub and have no idea that the difference is NOT taxes alone. It includes payments to retirement accounts, health insurance, charity, HSA, etc in addition to taxes.
Some people are too stupid to realize that some of that isn't a tax.
anonadminJul 26, 2011
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid seem like Taxes to me.
That takes the 4200 in taxes up to about 8k in taxes.
That brings it up to 20%, add a 10% state income tax and he could well be paying about 30% of his wage in taxes.
Then, depending on the state, he would have Sales Tax, Property Tax, Consumption Tax, Gas Tax, Car Registration/Plates, Auto Insurance (Should be called a tax considering it is mandatory for Car Registration) The list goes on. I bet when it is all added up, we are paying close to 80% of our wage to city, state, and Federal taxes.
But what the heck, we are only here to SERVE our MASTER. If the RULER WISHES we can handle paying more taxes. Heck, if it gets too much, we can just get a job that pays more so they can take more.
bcarl314Jul 26, 2011
Oh, I know, and on top of those "taxes" we have "food" tax (it really should be called a tax because I need to eat) and movie theater tax (because, I need to see a movie too).
Look, it comes down to this. You either think that taxes are paid in exchange for a valuable service, or not. Me, I enjoy the education system in my state, the fact that I can drive on smooth roads, cops are there to protect me, firefighters will help me if my house is on fire and that I have some reasonable assurance that I will have some money when I'm older to help pay for food and clothing.
If you think these services suck in your state / community, then explain to me how they will get better with LESS money? I'm not saying we need to give them more money, just tell me how things get better with LESS?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
reaper527Jul 28, 2011
"Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid seem like Taxes to me."
going off the post you are replying too, i would say that he was talking about 401k plans and legit insurance plans, not the SS/Medicare deductions.
going off his reply to your post though, he refuses to call anything a tax unless it is labeled income tax, sales tax, or property tax.
Mark7AJul 26, 2011
That's exactly right. Right on the nose!!!
So..why should they pay more than you or me to use them?
They are. I bet their 18% is well more than our 30%.
JustSayNoPartyJul 26, 2011
Because, you don't use 'total amounts'. You look at percentages. Using your logic, of course it is unfair. Hell, why does that guy making 30K a year only have to pay 9K in taxes when the guy making 3 million a year pays 900K? Let's have the person making 3 million also pay 9K in taxes.
Schweppesale2Jul 26, 2011
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
A flat tax rate?
So if our country ever finds itself in a financial s**t show(idk: war?) and we have to raise some immediate revenue - everyone is paying the exact same amount?
Schweppesale2Jul 26, 2011
That's even assuming that we've cut out every single entitlement program from the budget and privatised public services.
JustSayNoPartyJul 26, 2011
Scweppsale, that is not what I was discussing. I was merely stating that you shouldn't 't look at the total dollar amount paid. You should look at taxation based on percentage of income.
Schweppesale2Jul 28, 2011
oh sorry, I completely misread that then :P
Stubs3dJul 26, 2011
Why should EITHER of you pay 18%? That's too much for either of you.
michaelacorleyJul 26, 2011
Yes, but that 18% is a lot more money for one (or more if you are saying that) person to use a road than the 40% you pay.
18% of a million dollars = 180,000 dollars
30% of 40,000 dollars = 12,000 dollars
How about YOU start paying YOUR fair share???Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hawkinsliamJul 26, 2011
The person making 40k a year is left with only 28,000 while the person making 1000k a year is left with 880,000. The difference between a 40k and 28k lifestyle is much much greater than the difference between 1000k and 880k lifestyles. Yes the rich guy is paying 15x more taxes, but he's making 25x as much money. God forbid he can't afford that extra Ferrari he's had his eye on, mean while the person with 28k has to decide between any car at all or health insurance for his family.
fertilebastardJul 26, 2011
What that rich guy wants to spend his money on is none of your business, unless of course you are consumed by greed and envy.
hawkinsliamJul 26, 2011
@fertilebastard
Your right, I don't care if the rich guy wants to spend all his remaining money on a life sized statue of the space station made of butter. The point I was making was that equal tax rates for contrasting incomes effects the lower income to a much greater degree than the higher income. The basic needs in life cost the same whether you make $10,000 or $10,000,000, they do not however cost the same proportion of each income.
I may be wrong but I assume you could live a roughly equally comfortable life off $820,000 as you could with $1,000,000. The same cannot be said for $40,000 and $28,000
sdunesJul 26, 2011
1,000,000 - 180,000 = 820,000 dollars
40,000 - 12,000 = 28,000 dollars
So who is more effected?
michaelacorleyJul 26, 2011
You missed the point where the rich man paid taxes for thirty poor men he never knew.
linuxpersonJul 26, 2011
"The rich use the roads, police, firemen, and other public services too. It's about time they paid equally for those."
But do they use the roads more than you do? You're also comparing equality in percentage to equality in payments which is faulty logic. If somebody making a million a year pays 18% of their income that's going to be way more money than you will pay with your 30% rate making less than 40K, do you agree?
Based upon that rational, imagine for a moment that we take your logic and apply it to a retail store. Should Target charge the millionaire more than they charge you for the exact same goods? If so, how exactly does that represent fairness?
In the end, taking people's money, rich or poor, via the threat or use of aggressive force is immoral. Neither you nor the millionaire should have their income forcefully taken and redistributed to other individuals. Choosing which services you use and subsequently have to pay for along with what charities to patronize should be done a voluntary basis.
audiomodderJul 26, 2011
i don't know, does the guy who owns a trucking company depend on roads more than the truckers? hell yeah he does.
linuxpersonJul 26, 2011
And he will contribute far more than the average person to roads through fuel taxes so your point is entirely moot.
mlw4428Jul 26, 2011
@linuxperson
What's the average wear and tear on a road caused by semis vs one caused by a 4 door car?
What about the costs of accidents that truck drivers (regularly) have?
I'd wager to say that the costs of cleanup on a wreck between two small cars vs a wreck between a semi and a car is quite a bit more on the truck side.
What's the extra costs associated with policing truckers to:
A) Ensure the stuff they're carrying isn't banned by the state/federal government.
B) Ensure that any hazardous materials are properly sealed.
C) Ensure the truckers aren't grossly overweight (important for bridge crosses and the like).
D) Other miscellaneous things that state troopers have to keep their eyes on.
?
linuxpersonJul 27, 2011
"What's the average wear and tear on a road caused by semis vs one caused by a 4 door car?"
It is honestly your contention that all millionaires own trucking companies? If a trucking company uses roads more, they should have to pay more for the roads. Given that the amount you pay in gas taxes is directly proportionate to how much you drive, I'd say that takes care of this problem.
What you are suggesting is that because a person uses the roads more than another person not only should they have to pay more for the roads but everything else.
JulzheimerJul 26, 2011
18% of a million dollars is a whole lot more than 30% of $40k. Stop focusing on the RATE and focus on the raw AMOUNT they are paying. They don't use roads and public services any more than anyone else. How about getting the lazy asses who aren't working and paying 0% of nothing (but still using public services) back to work. That's the problem, not the taxes smart and successful and wealthy people are paying.
rlwrightJul 26, 2011
The rich don't use the roads more than the average american? Ignorance.... Just the fact that we couldn't get to work means that the rich couldn't make profits from our efforts. They wouldn't pay employees if they weren't making money from their efforts. Lets not even consider product shipping, or any of the other ways that the wealthy need these tools for profit over basic transportation which is only what most of us need.
shark72Jul 26, 2011
"The rich don't use the roads more than the average american? Ignorance...."
Can you cite any data that shows correlation between income and miles driven?
I can think of scenarios where a well-off person might drive a bit more than a poor person (e.g. he can afford to live far away from the city), but I can just as easily think of scenarios where it goes the other way. The rich guy gets to fly to vacation; the poor guy drives. The poor guy has to drive to work; the rich guy doesn't.
I believe that it all tends to balance out; this supports the popular wisdom that gas taxes are regressive.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shark72Jul 26, 2011
" How about getting the lazy asses who aren't working and paying 0% of nothing (but still using public services) back to work."
Agreed with you that higher employment will go hand-in-hand with economic recovery, but keep in mind that services tend to be paid for by local sales and excise taxes, the sort of taxes that even unemployed people pay. Federal income tax tends to go more toward things like keeping the lights on at the department of agriculture.
unclefireJul 26, 2011
How the heck do you pay 30% FEDERAL PERSONAL INCOME tax at <40k? Even at Single rates with no deductions or dependents you should be at around 10% (4100, according to the IRS withholding calculator)
linuxpersonJul 26, 2011
He's lying, that much is obvious.
brenisaJul 26, 2011
It's not the only tax you pay. Where are you getting 10%? mine was 25%. In some areas you have a local sales tax 9.75%, a state income tax (6%), everyone's got payroll tax (6.2%) which includes ETT, SDI, and UI in addition to social security and medicare if you live California. All those little bites add up even if you have a standard deduction on the federal tax.
unclefireJul 26, 2011
Holy crap. That's what the article is about-- PERSONAL INCOME TAXES. Not the other taxes we ALL pay. Why do people keep changing the measurements in these discussions? Sheesh.
10% is the number that the IRS calculated on their own site for witholdings on INCOME TAXES. If they guy was married, had kids, itemized or had other things to offset income it is quite likely he'd pay ZERO. A married couple, with one or two kids at around 45k would pay ZERO federal income taxes.
mlw4428Jul 26, 2011
At no point did I say it was all Federal taxes. I realize I should have clarified my statement. My humble apologies oh great "unclefire."
unclefireJul 26, 2011
When u throw a number out you should be clear about what it means or somebody (like me) will call BS. You weren't making an apples to apples comparison.
mlw4428Jul 26, 2011
When you throw out apples you should be clear as to what kind of apples. You weren't making Red Delicious to Red Delicious comparisons.
jacksons98Jul 26, 2011
Funny thing is all those public services you mention come from the state. These are federal taxes, makes you wonder what you are getting for the money.
unclefireJul 26, 2011
That is a silly argument. If you're "poor" you pay much less taxes which fund things like police, fire, schools etc. Many of those are driven by sales taxes and property taxes.
shark72Jul 26, 2011
"That is a silly argument. If you're "poor" you pay much less taxes which fund things like police, fire, schools etc. Many of those are driven by sales taxes and property taxes."
Not necessarily. I make a good deal more than the average salary, but I don't spend proportionally more on gasoline, household goods, and other items on which sales and excise taxes are collected.
To be clear, I do spend more -- but not commensurate with my higher salary. In other words, my total tax *dollars* spent in these categories is higher, but my tax rate in these categories is lower.
This is why sales and excise taxes are generally seen as regressive, unlike income taxes, which are progressive.
unclefireJul 26, 2011
I'm in the same boat-- significantly more than your average family. But think of it this way-- if you live in a bigger house (e.g. higher value), you pay way more in RE taxes than somebody who lives in a small house. Chances are you drive a more expensive car-- higher taxes there (at least in AZ). Chances are you eat out more, buy more "stuff", have a more expensive phone, use your AC/heat more, etc. etc. You have more disposable income and probably spend significantly more.
Agree and know that sales taxes tend to be regressive.
kenjuraJul 26, 2011
Exactly how is 30% of 40 thousand "equal" to 30% of 40 million?
The latter is one thousand times more money.
Rich people do not use roads, police, and schools one thousand times more heavily than the middle class.
I'm not saying we should lower the tax rate on the rich to 3% or 0.3%. But the equality argument doesn't work.
richardprinceJul 26, 2011
OR IS IT TIME FOR US TO TRY HARDER TO MAKE MORE
mlw4428Jul 26, 2011
For those asking, yes I was counting Federal and State and Local taxes. Sadly I cannot own multiple homes and have at least one of those be lower state/local taxes where I have my "primary residency" and can thus declare that as my home state.
I also couldn't afford those nice UBS banks which let me funnel my money overseas to hide the true amounts of my wealth. Sure those might be shut down, but I'm willing to bet that there's still more than a few banks capable of hiding cash for the wealthy to avoid taxes.
But of course all of you apologists wouldn't think to mention that. I pay taxes on ALL of my income, not just SOME of it.
roddackJul 26, 2011
How about we lower your tax rate instead? Ok that wouldn't help the current deficit situation but the point is that people always demand that someone else pay more yet when they look at their rate they are either are paying more than their fair share or just the right amount.
mlw4428Jul 26, 2011
Take 10% of $1, now take 10% of $100.
Who can afford a $1 McDouble from McDonalds? Who could afford more than enough to feed himself (and his family)? Why is it fair that the man who pays 10% on $1 should be considered as being in equal standing and equal quality of life as the man who has 100x more?
Now imagine that man who makes $100 spends some of his extra money on electing conservative officials who drag the $1 man and his family/friends into expensive wars, gives tax breaks so that his $1 job can go overseas to his boss, and then proceeds to run up a massive tax debt. Why should he be expect to be the one who has to make all of the additional sacrifices?
When you can explain that to me without coming off like a heartless, cold, son of a bitch I promise I'll listen.
bcarl314Jul 26, 2011
I don't know why you got dugg down here. You're exactly right. Leave income tax rates alone, and set capital gains tax rates at the same levels.
gymrat777Jul 26, 2011
So the argument goes that having lower capital gains taxes encourages people to invest their money where thay can take advantage of those reduced taxes. But, really, what would these wealthy individuals be doing with their money otherwise? Not invest it? Doubtful. Spend it instead? All the better, as the consumption spending will help the economy, especially on the scale that these wealthy individuals can consume!
So I really want to know, what is the real consequence of raising the capital gains rate from 15% to say, ordinary income rates? What would these wealthy individuals choose to do with their millions, instead?
figecJul 26, 2011
When long term capital gains rates are lower than short term capital gains rate, it encourages long term investment. When the rates are equal, they encourage hot investing. Long term investment is better for the economy. No economist disputes that.
Yes, they'd invest it, but the incentive for "buy and hold" would be removed, denying businesses capital for investing in their own businesses. Money would simply follow short term gains, such as from commodity trading. Imagine what the economy would look like if oil was priced twice what it is now?
There should be a difference between long term and short term capital gains. Mucking with that will bring negative consequences.
audiomodderJul 26, 2011
then what you need to do is raise the short term capital gains tax rate FAR ABOVE the income tax rate to DISCOURAGE it, then make the capital gains tax rate the same as the income tax rate. this discourages the short term in favor of the long term.
gymrat777Jul 27, 2011
I would expect people would invest where they have the greatest risk-return trade-off and not necessarily move their money in and out of stocks quickly. Also, this quick movement of money between companies would only be an issue if the movement is biased in moving money into or out of a firm's stock. (if people are just cycling the money evenly, there will be no change in prices) Also, transaction costs will reduce the excessiveness of trading activity somewhat.
And so what if money would move into or out of stocks more quickly? The purpose of capital markets is to allocate money to the best opportunities. Keeping money in firms with poor prospects for advantageous capital gains purposes reduces the efficiency of this allocation purpose.
figecJul 27, 2011
Good points, gymrat777, so here's my counter.
The greater risk-return ratio is in shorter term strategies when all else are equal (if you can pull your money out quickly, it is less risk), so the incentive is in short term strategies. By keeping a difference between short-term and long-term capital gains taxes, the incentive shifts, allowing for investments with a longer horizon. This allows capital to flow to investments that are time intensive but build greater value over time, such as property, plants and equipment.
Transactions costs are always a concern, but now-a-days do not have as big an impact as they once did.
The cycling of money would have no impact if prices are static. Prices are constantly fluctuating with value, so it is never a zero sum game. Values fluctuate on even perfectly run companies as externalities effect value.
As for investing in companies with poor prospects, I suppose that is the root of risk-return. To make an extreme example, a company may have poor prospects, but if an investment of X has a 20% chance of yielding 20X and 80% chance of yielding 0 with a year and a day horizon, it is worth the investment.
yurmutha412Jul 26, 2011
My guess is you are not an investor. The capital gains taxes will be going from about 15 percent to 28 percent if the cuts expire. I am an investor so I can tell you what I would do. I would invest in safer, longer term stocks and bonds and take the money out slower. What would happen if every large investor did that? There would be lower GDP. There would be fewer investments in high risk stocks, which generally are younger companies. Fewer investments in start ups because the profit would basically be cut by 13 percent, but the risk would be exactly the same. If you think that won't effect the economy, I believe you are sadly mistaken.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shwaavayJul 26, 2011
Extreme volatility does more to hurt the economy than higher capitals gains ever would.
yurmutha412Jul 26, 2011
A flight to safety is what extends a recession. We'll have to see how things go, but if the Dems get the upper hand in the next election they will, of course, drop the Bush tax cuts first thing. That, along with the expanded Medicaid from the HCA, will put the country into another slow down.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
unclefireJul 26, 2011
That's nonsense. The cap gains rate won't change investing patterns much, if at all. If you have money to invest, you'll put it to work. Cap gains rates don't affect my investment decisions other than timing, and making best use of the tax code (e.g. qualified dividends, offsetting gains/losses, long term/short term gains). Short term gains are taxed at your marginal rate anyway so your "long term" comment is nonsense as well.
When the .com industry was going nuts cap gains rates were significantly higher.
yurmutha412Jul 26, 2011
"When the .com industry was going nuts cap gains rates were significantly higher."
They were in a "I can't lose mode" of buying during a market bubble. That's a lot different than being in a stagnant economy where the market is basically going nowhere.
Anyway, I think the Dems and the press are winning the class warfare argument so we'll probably see it happen in the next election unless I miss my guess. I'm saying what I would do in those circumstances. You would do differently, so there is going to be a spread in investment decisions. 28 percent is a nice hunk of someone's profit that is taking an investment risk and I think it's going to show by people moving to safer long term investments and selling less often.
unclefireJul 26, 2011
Don't get me wrong. I sure as heck don't want to pay 28% cap gains, but I'll still be investing.
superkendallJul 26, 2011
"Not invest it? Doubtful."
Oh really? Listen to a Rich Democrat, Steve Wynn of Las Vegas say exactly that:
http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-obama-2011-7
http://contraryinvesting.com/social-mood-trends/steve-wynns-great-rant-ill-take-chinese-politics-over-washington-anyday/
"Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lighthouseJul 26, 2011
they'll invest those dollars overseas doofus, where it helps someone else's economy and still puts profits in their pocketses
david4041Jul 26, 2011
Here's another reason for long-term capital gains.
Let's say I buy a piece of real property. The property increases in value at a steady rate for 20 year such that after 20 years it is worth twice what it was worth when I bought it. (Keeping the math simple, the property increases in value 5% each year). Although I was really making around 5% each year, when I sell it, it will be taxed at a higher rate (perhaps the max rate) than it would have been if you were spreading the increase in value over 20 years.
That was one of the original reasons for long-term capital gains.
gymrat777Jul 27, 2011
Gains from sales on homes are covered under different rules for tax purposes and are shielded from taxes if used to purchase another home. The first $250,000 ($500k if married) of capital gains on the sale of homes is not taxed.
sj3diverJul 26, 2011
Part 1.
Here is the answer to your question. About me first. I am a serial entrepreneur in my mid 40's. I started out poor, broke and three months behind in my rent in my 20's and 40 pounds lighter which is the only thing I like about not having money. At times I owned 3 companies at the same time. I had investors put in 3.5 million in my last company. I grew the company sold it for $40 million and returned $15 million to those investors. They were happy. I invested several million in my new company and then went to look for another $4 million 1.5 years ago. i presented to over 210 private individual investors in four states. I only raised $110K. A massive failure. I got to know several of the potential investors very well and I asked them why they were reluctant to invest. Since I have a track record of great success I thought it would be easy. They said it was not you. They said they were afraid of the new message from the government of "wealth redistribution". They were afraid of the unknown. They opted to stick with doing nothing until the message changed. They felt that the Obama administration was, I believe is, against people with money. Until they feel more comfortable they will not invest. Until the message changes expect the same........
Part 2.
Do a Google search for "CEO bonuses". Why are CEO bonuses up? Well, companies have more money than ever stock piled away. So when the board of directors or owners see how much money they have they naturally thank the CEO and give him/her a bonus. They are not investing in new jobs, expanding plants and new ideas. Why? They are unsure of the future due to the economy AND the message from the Obama administration. They are tired of hearing how evil companies are. They are fearful of the trending socialist direction this country is going. They are tired of Obama's anti business rant.
Part 3.
Tax cuts. They help provide companies with financial incentives to invest. This though must be coupled with either a pro business message from Obama and/or a better economy. Also, did you know that the extra tax collected should these incentives go away amounts to a hill of beans - funds the government for a very short time. Means, its not worth it. If Obama got behind keeping the tax cuts it would send an incredible pro business message to all.
Do not expect things to change until this happens. Expect more of the same or worse.
Lastly,
The top 5% of all taxpayers paid 58.72% of all federal individual income taxes in 2008. I got this from the IRS.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterJul 26, 2011
Part 1: That is the work of the GOP with their fear mongering. The more the GOP talks about how Obama is a socialist that want to destroy business, the more people start believing in it. Undoing the the Bush tax cuts is NOT wealth distribution no more than extending the Bush tax cuts was wealth distributed upward.
"They felt that the Obama administration was, I believe is, against people with money. Until they feel more comfortable they will not invest. Until the message changes expect the same"
They are some very stupid investor than. Whether a tax is 10% or 15% (arbitrary numbers) on a profit, it's only the profit that gets taxed. I know there are plenty of other types of taxes, but we are mostly talking about changing taxes on profits.
Part 2:
"They are not investing in new jobs, expanding plants and new ideas. Why? They are unsure of the future due to the economy AND the message from the Obama administration. They are tired of hearing how evil companies are. They are fearful of the trending socialist direction this country is going."
Business do not run on 'messages' and being tired of getting called evil. They run on maximizing profits. In fact, they don't run on what is best for the company but what is best for upper management. These CEO's will hide loses to the board to maximize THEIR bonuses. The system is broken where bonus structures have destroyed the idea of long term growth for short term growth to maximize their bonus.
Part 3: Tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts. That's all we have been doing for 30 years for f**ks sake! Well, for the wealthy. The rest of us have seen moderate tax cuts but the wealthy have seen HUGE tax cuts. Where has it lead? To a bigger disparity between the haves and have nots. To more and more outsourcing of jobs. To less and less investment in infrastructure and education.
Tell me, and really I do want to hear this, how will further tax cuts change anything if we have already been cutting taxes for the wealthy the past 30 years?
Part 4: No s**t Sherlock! They own almost all the money now. The top 1% had 9% of the income pie back in 1980 and today its about 25%. The top 5% had 35% (i got that from the IRS website) of the income in 2010 so of course they are going to pay a big part of the taxes.
If you seriously think that 10 guys making $20k/each can pay the same in taxes as one guy making $200k, you are nuts. If you had a flat tax of say 20%, a guy making $20k/yr will pay $4k in taxes. That leaves only $16K so that 20% is a HUGE impact as $16K might barely be enough for food, clothing and housing. If a guy making $200k/yr is taxed 20%, he pays $40k. That is not as big of an impact as he still has $160k to spend.
sj3diverJul 26, 2011
1. Your missing the point. Its just a message from several hundred private investors in 4 states. Yes, rich people.
2. People run businesses. You have no clue what you are talking about. How much do u get paid for spitting that crap out?
3. Cutting or keeping the taxes is not going to make much difference to our bottom line. Keeping them would send a strong message to business. I guess u never ran a business before hey sunny. Live on food stamps do you.
4.Steve Jobs is worth 5 billion. Name one person on this planet he has hurt or short changes. You don't understand the basic economics of money in America. And how do they own all the money?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterJul 26, 2011
1. No, your missing MY point. It's not a correct message they are receiving. They have to stop watching Fox News.
2. People run business, you are correct, but they run it to make profits. I work for a mid-size company and I'm high enough in the company to know what's going on but not high enough to be a decision maker (yes, mid-level manager). I do know that if there is a profit to be made, a profit will be made. We will not stop the process of a profitable action items because we hate the message a president or mayor has.
3. Sure, lets cut ALL taxes. Taxes are evil. Why spend it on infrastructure and education when all they do is help an economy grow long term. It was a horrible decision when the US was #1 in both those categories and we were at our economic booms in the 50's and 60's, right? And how does China spend much of its money to keep its economy growing?? Infrastructure and Education!!
4. Huh? You're not making sense now. What does naming one person among the wealthy have to do with all this? Ok, lets play that game. Warren Buffet said it's wrong that he pays less in taxes than his secretary! The man is among the 3 richest people in the world so he must be right!
Look, if your point about #4 was that wealthy people create jobs and innovation, I do not argue that. But there is balance between giving the wealthy breaks and using government resources to stimulate the economy or plan for long term growth. You seem very very blind to the fact that we have already been giving tax cuts after tax cuts for 30 years and all it has done is kill the middle class and put nearly three times of the wealth to the top 1%. It's obvious to anyone who opens their eyes that we have gone to far with tax cuts to the wealthy. The top bracket was taxed at 70% back in 1980 and today its 35%!!! And, by the way, that 70% was reached very early. It was Clinton who created higher income brackets so as to raise taxes on higher incomes and not lower incomes. I believe he created a bracket around $100,000 and $250,000 where he increased the taxes from 31% to 35% at 100k and 39% at 250k.
sj3diverJul 26, 2011
1. What does Fox have to do with anything? I met personally with hundreds of people who have a history of investing. Their investments dropped to almost zero not because they watched Fox but because of Obama AND the economy.
2. The amount of cash companies have is at an all time high, this is a fact, yet they are not hiring, not opening new territories, etc. Why do you think they are not doing this? Obama and the economy. Your too young and too low in the company and lack the experience to understand that. i have talked to hundreds of CEO's and investors. You have not. You just keep spouting liberal democratic BS. Think, use your brain and you might make upper management one of these days.
3. I never said cut all taxes. i just said that their was a relationship between the message that goes with the proposed tax adjustment. Wealth redistribution is not the thing to say in a recession to a rich person or a company. Obama just does not get America. Telling the middle class that they are hurt by the rich is the wrong thing to say.
4. My point. Just because Steve Jobs is worth 5 billion does not mean that he has taken any wealth away from anyone else. His wealth has not reduced the wealth of any other person on this plant. Do you understand that point? If you disagree then show me one person or group of people he has hurt. You can't because they don't exist.
If you tax all the rich people 100% of all the money they this will only keep the government alive for I think 4 months. So really the amount of collected monies are not the point. You spend a bunch of time arguing this tax rate and that tax rate.. The amounts collected one way or another impacts our financial crises only a little. The big problem we have in America is that we have a president who thinks he can just bad mouth the rich and all the other companies and they will just continue to invest like nothing has happened at all. Like I said earlier. He just does not get America.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sj3diverJul 26, 2011
And. Since I am in the middle of starting my 6th company I no longer have the extra time to educate the young and slightly naive on these posts. right or wrong these are the opinions of a non-college educated hard working individual who has started several companies, hired thousands of people, traveled the world and seen hard times with no money and good times. I get it. Obama does not.....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterJul 26, 2011
It's obvious we are not going to agree. You are set in your ways.
However, I want to ask one question to you and other people who give the same response about 'cut more taxes'. Me and several others have continuously shown facts regarding how the wealthy and large corporations are paying less and less taxes over the past 30 years. We have shown a drastic fall of the middle class and a drastic increase in the wealth controlled by the very wealthy. We've shown that large corporations are moving more and more jobs overseas while most new jobs are created by smaller companies. We've shown links to these facts and taxes. We've even shown that Reagan raised taxes 11 times after his drastic tax cuts the first year in office --- realizing there wasn't enough revenue coming in to sufficiently run the country (though he continued to give tax cuts to the wealthy later on at the expense of the lower/mid class).
In response, many GOP supporters such as yourself do not provide clear answers. Do not provide clear explanations of why this has all happened. All we hear is 'tax cuts stunt growth' or 'tax cuts hurt the economy', etc. All this rhetoric while we pay much less in taxes compared to the vast majority of the industrialized nations.
I ask, this one simple question, have we not given enough tax cuts to the wealthy and to large corporations? When is enough enough?
I ask that question because like nearly all matters, there is too much or too little of something. Does it not appear we have reached beyond the tipping point? I just cannot understand why individuals do not see the light. Why they don't look at all the facts and the trends and realize that whatever we have been doing since 1981, it surely isn't working and must be changed........unless of course you belong to the top 20% or more specifically the top 1% of the income earners. THEN, I would understand this individual may be thinking selfishly and only thinking of his own interest and not about the interest of the nation as a whole. And there in lies the problem....the top 1% or 5% control most of the wealth and the politicians and except for a random few, most are out to maximize their own profits even if its at the expense of the rest of the population. Congress is supposed to be looking out for the interest the whole population, but it's become painfully obvious they are looking out only after their top campaign fund contributors.
daimposterJul 26, 2011
Sorry, I must correct myself when I said "Congress is supposed to be looking out for the interest the whole population, but it's become painfully obvious they are looking out only after their top campaign fund contributors."
Congress is supposed to be looking out for their constituents.....however, I was still correct in that they are looking out for their top contributors. Money talks.
JustSayNoPartyJul 26, 2011
You keep throwing Obama's name in the ring. I'd suggest it's the uncertain Global Economy that is hurting things. And no, I don't respect those businesses having an 'all time' high amount of money and just 'sitting' on that money. If I saw their fantastic gains over the last 30 years rising all boats, that would be one thing. However, their gains have really only risen their own boats.
So no, I'm not looking to bend over backwards so that they will please, pretty please, create jobs on the promise that we won't elect another Evil Socialist like Obama.
superkendallJul 26, 2011
Here's a clue for you: Increasing the amount I pay in taxes is in fact EXACTLY wealth re-distribution. It's not like they are going to give that back to me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ldailey06Jul 26, 2011
Boo hoo, it takes a lot to make me cry. How is allowing the top 1% to have 40% of the wealth any better? Guess you're gonna have to cut back on that 3rd yacht.
jeterocksJul 26, 2011
If that top 1% legitimately EARNED that wealth then yes, it's fine. If they can afford 3 yachts, they should be able to purchase them. Taxing the wealthy more simply because they have more is not right. Reward success, don't tax it.
audiomodderJul 26, 2011
hold on, what do you mean by "earned"? worked hard for it? there's a plant here in the city i lived in that moved all its factory workers to 12 hour shifts because it was cheaper to pay 2 shifts of people overtime than pay for 3 shifts. do you think that the executives of the business worked 12 hour shifts? hell no. most of them were seen coming in around 9 and leaving for 3pm tee times. don't give me this BS about "earning" anything. the fact is that somewhere along the line someone got lucky AND worked hard...someone that died 50+ years ago. these guys are riding on their coattails pretending to work hard.
money begets money. there's a reason that most folks in the ghetto see sports, gangs, and rapping as the only way out....it's better odds than getting out any other way.
ben0Jul 26, 2011
It wont let me reply to jeterocks,
If the system, or the game, lets someone extend that much of a lead over others, then surely you change the f**king rules? If 10 people are playing and 1 person takes all their money, you and the other 8 would do -something- about it?
Most importantly, there is more to life than a mansion and a load of cars, a yacht etc.. greater equality makes societies better for -everyone-.
Have you ever been countries with extreme cases of inequality? Like South Africa, where the rich all hire private security, have barbed wire/electric fences, panic rooms... when the poor finally do break in they iron peoples faces. Where you're warned not to walk the streets at night, where you will be killed even if you do hand over your stuff immediately.
I'm not a communist.. people who work hard deserve more than those who don't. People who are gifted and talented, deserve more. Does that more have to always be money? And even if it does, there needs to be a line, 1% with 40% of the wealth, to me seems to have crossed that line.
brenisaJul 26, 2011
EARNED != working hard. Moving up in income means working smarter and getting your money to work hard, not your back. It's not about how much time you clock in. Athletes do it by hitting the ball farther. Businessmen do it by cutting a bigger deal. No one wants to hear someone whine because they can't hit one out of the park. Get it done or shut up and make do with what you've got.
ldailey06Jul 26, 2011
You say they earned all that money. I say they got all that money by exploiting the system which should not allow that much wealth to be collected by one group of people.
david4041Jul 26, 2011
@audiomodder:
There are several ways for people to "earn" their money. It's not simply how many hours you work and how much you sweat.
Some people "earn" their money by studying hard and developing skills which they can use during their career to make good decisions. College tuition, which can be as much as $40,000 a year, is an investment in oneself.
Others "earn" their money by taking risks. These are the people who start companies and put money on the line.
My friend is a MD. After college, med school and residency, he is making $1 million plus per year but works less than 40 hours per week. Are you saying doesn't earn his money? The guy spent about years studying his ass off and accumulated over $100,000 in student loans.
ldailey06Jul 27, 2011
An MD making 1 mil a year. I wish my friends were as gullible as you.
daimposterJul 26, 2011
First, the tax increases will be only on those making over $250,000. If you belong to this group, then I ask you this question. If increasing the amount you pay in taxes 'exactly wealth re-distribution', then isn't cutting taxes to the wealthy only a re-distribution upwards?
If the majority of the tax cuts over the past 30 years have been to the very wealthy, does that not mean that for the past 30 years the wealth has been distributed upwards? I mean, that was the point of all these tax cuts.....give the money to the rich and it will trickle down. What's happened in those 30 years? The top 1% have seen their income triple (adjusted), the top 5% have seen their income nearly double, and the lower 60% have seen relatively stagnant income. I think this nation is still waiting for that trickle down part.
westy411Jul 26, 2011
Give the money to the rich? you mean their money they earned? give that to them? Wow nice to see you think it starts 100% the peoples money and we give you back what we think you deserve.
david4041Jul 26, 2011
<<then isn't cutting taxes to the wealthy only a re-distribution upwards?>>
Taking less money from the wealthy is not the same as giving them money. Don't you understand? They earned that money; it's their money. Like many liberals, you're already thinking that it's your money.
JustSayNoPartyJul 26, 2011
Yet, I'd argue wealth distribution already occurs in many ways beyond just the tax code. The wooshing sound you hear is wealth ever flowing upwards.
GodlessInfidelsJul 26, 2011
...and DECREASING the taxes for the wealthy relative to what the not-so-wealthy pay is also REDISTRIBUTION. That knife cuts both ways.
wilke2000Jul 26, 2011
You're conflating two scenarios.
CEO's can't unilaterally sell a business, they're management, not ownership. Industrial corporations are very different from entrepreneurial firms.
CEO's don't take the sorts of risks that entrepreneurs do, so why should they be rewarded like they are? CEO to worker pay was 40:1 in the 1960's, and topped out at 500:1 in the early 2000's. Yet worker productivity has risen continuously as wages have stagnated. That suggests that CEO's are profiting off the backs of employees.
The CEO's of the largest corporations have little interaction with markets. Industrial firms are characterized by planning more than market forces. Large corporations don't have to deal with competition, they buy their competition. Industry is characterized by oligopoly, not markets. Who competes with Intel? Who competes with ADM?
This country is not headed in a socialist direction, and it's literally delusional to suggest it is. "Obamacare" which is really Romneycare is a corporate handout, there's no state-run anything about it. Unions are being dismantled across the country, not just in Wisconsin. The public sector is being dismantled across the country, not just in Wisconsin. There is no welfare except for corporations; welfare was dismantled years ago, when Wisconsin's W2 program became a national model.
JustSayNoPartyJul 26, 2011
I appreciate your perspective. And, I wish I had your entrepreneurial know how. Much of your points is probably true. Yet, I still don't buy the overall message. Those 'wealthy individuals' have done amazingly well. They've prospered fantastically over the last many decades while most have not.
Obama comes out in favor of ending the 'Bush' tax cuts and all business people recede in to their holes to hibernate? The message I hear from Republicans is that we must remove all Regulations, allow all business permits regardless of environmental harm, and mindlessly cut taxes for the Rich. When these rich folks then feel they are properly 'cow towed' too, they will then go about job creation.
No. The real problem is that the Rich and powerful often call for policies that do not benefit the most for the benefit of the few. You want to create jobs? Develop programs directly focused on job creation. Otherwise, it's just all Trickle Down.
demhater123Jul 26, 2011
Without the wars, Bush's tax plan is the most ideal tax structure ever known to this country. The real problem is what we're spending it on. I'll be honest, we didn't exactly make the best investment with the war in Iraq. Frankly, we should have signed oil deals from it a long time ago and gave ourselves a nice discount sending it back to America. We have plenty of taxes coming in based on hardworking Americans such as my self even tho we have 50% of the voters living off the land and not exactly contributing. As long as we stop spending our taxes to ridiculous programs such as welfare for those who dont need it, we will eventually have a greater tomorrow. We need to put those who actually receive welfare legitimately as they need it and are not just lazy like the traditional user, to work. Jobs!!!!! I don't care shine my car. Get my dry cleaning. Do something that betters the lives of those who work hard all day to receive their pay check with 50% of it going to pay for new roads and education for children that i dont have. GET MY DRY CLeaning!!!! and mayb i'll pay more taxes. until then don't ask me to pay another dime liberals!!!!!!!!!!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wilke2000Jul 26, 2011
Don't assume that paying taxes is the only way a person can contribute to society. Don't assume that personal wealth is equivalent to personal worth. That's just sick.
The only welfare left in this country goes to corporations, not individuals. Welfare was dismantled years ago when Wisconsin's W2 program became a national model. And Most Americans do pay taxes: sales tax, property tax, payroll tax, social security tax, etc. Those who get most of their income tax returned need that money to spend -- which helps businesses. And if you pay your income taxe and get it refunded, you're basically giving the government an interest free loan, which is still contributing.
sushimaster89Jul 26, 2011
Do you make over $250k a year? If not, you won't have to pay any more than you do now...
But if you do, it's very clear where your argument is coming from.
Taxes should be the same for everybody except for the ones who don't make enough to afford having a roof over their head. It makes sense for them to pay less tax. Once you can afford the basic necessities, why shouldn't everyone pay the same amount in tax percentage-wise?
Also, jobs are made when there is demand. The more people who have money to spend, the more demand there will be, and thus, the more jobs there will be.
demhater123Jul 26, 2011
I like your perspectives sushimaster. I'm a big fan of sushi as well. Thank you for sharing
mcarrelJul 25, 2011
They get the shares, we get the sacrifice.
miklkitJul 25, 2011
Another way to put it would be: They get the gold, we get the mine.
Closed AccountJul 25, 2011
I'm not on the hate the rich bandwagon, but in the spirit of striving for excellence:
They get the mine, we get the shaft.
wilke2000Jul 26, 2011
I don't think anybody is hating on the rich, it's congress that sets the tax rate.
docterrorJul 25, 2011
More like: They get the gold, we get to mine it for them.
publiclurkerJul 26, 2011
No, they bring in the illegals to do that. that way they can cut corners on the safety rules.
misanthropeaceJul 26, 2011
Private profits at community cost....the Republican way.
wilke2000Jul 26, 2011
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
"As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."
anomaly100Jul 25, 2011
And only the middle class is supposed to sacrifice?
Unregistered_CowardJul 25, 2011
How much do you pay?
More? Less? The same?
Everyone should pay the same percentage on all income. A dollar earned is just that, a dollar.
FallteaJul 25, 2011
I think if they have been pissed on lately by the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer ... let them piss back for awhile then call it fair when the economy stabilizes if it seems viable and not another screw job
Unregistered_CowardJul 26, 2011
How rich is too rich? Where should we draw our line? If I make $99,000 I'm OK, but I make $101,00 I'm suddenly rich?
It's a fools game.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FallteaJul 26, 2011
lol a 2k difference... Add a few more 0's then say that statement.
daimposterJul 26, 2011
ever heard of MARGINAL taxes? It's not like your income taxes are going to change for all $101,000 if the marginal rate began at $100,000
Unregistered_CowardJul 26, 2011
No s**t Sherlock. What makes the money on the right side of the line more taxable than that on the left?
The only way to fairly treat everybody is flat tax.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedJul 26, 2011
I think the president drew the line at 250k
Sounds rich to me!
Unregistered_CowardJul 26, 2011
Why 250k? Why not 100K?
westy411Jul 26, 2011
There is not enough money to tax above 250k. it will have to be lowered to a much lower number than 250k
gearedoutJul 26, 2011
That all depends on where you live. It's not all that much money in some places, but it is a whole lot in others. Should the tax code now incorporate place of residence? I for one think it's already way too complicated. We need to work on simplifying it. The Government can pretty much do what ever they want because no one can understand the tax code. Even the experts have trouble.
user500Jul 26, 2011
we need a maximum wage.
pdxfJul 25, 2011
A dollar is actually not just a dollar...it depends on how much is made. A dollar to someone who makes $20,000 per year is vastly different than a dollar to someone who makes $300,000 per year.
Unregistered_CowardJul 26, 2011
No it isn't. It is a dollar, holding the same value regardless of whether it was gained from can redemption or stock investment.
daimposterJul 26, 2011
Give a man making $20k/yr a $100 bill and give a man making $500k/yr a $100 bill. Which one is going to put that back in the economy faster? Which one needs it much more?
Unregistered_CowardJul 26, 2011
But we're talking about the government and tax revenue.
It's not about need, it's about fairness and equity. Does the person earning $20,000 get a tax deduction for his apartment rental? Eliminate the deductions, flatten the tax and tax all income.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sushimaster89Jul 26, 2011
@Unregistered_Coward
What is your argument? From which angle are you coming from? It's sounds like you're trying to make the "Fair" argument.
I agree that the "Fair" argument makes the most logical sense, where everyone pays the same percentage, but it's highly impractical, just like how communism sounds wonderful, but would never work in anything other than a super small community.
Sure, literally, a dollar is a dollar. But the dollar is not worth the same thing to different people, just like a bottle of water is not worth the same thing to a person that's dehydrating in comparison to someone who has one already. The tax is not supposed to punish rich people, but it's supposed to help benefit the country as a whole (aka everybody).
Also, unless you make over the bracket, why does it matter to you?
wilke2000Jul 26, 2011
A dollar is not just a dollar.
If I buy a cup of coffee with $2 cash, that coffee is exactly $2. If I am poorer and have less cash, and need credit to make ends meet, when I buy that coffee at $2, it may actually cost me $2.50 when I get around to paying it.
Spread across the millions of Americans who need credit to make ends meet, all those little 50 cents tally up.
Also, the wealthiest might not need mortgages or auto loans: cars and houses are cheaper for them because they are wealthier.
And if you are wealthy enough to afford a new hybrid car as opposed to a used car, you are paying less in gasoline taxes for the roads you use -- because you are wealthy.
There are all sorts of subtle ways in which the wealthy are rewarded for their wealth, and the poor penalized for their poverty.
mlw4428Jul 26, 2011
Oh but isn't this debt on EVERYONE's shoulders? I hear them cutting programs for the poor and those in need, why can't the rich give a little more blood too?
Oh that's right, it's not about fairness if it impacts the bottom line of the top 400. I getcha.
wilke2000Jul 26, 2011
No, the poor get screwed too.
stealthspcJul 26, 2011
Sacrifice what? The middle and lower classes pay very little tax.
mexistacheJul 26, 2011
Wow you guys pay s**t-all for taxes in the States. In Canada our LOWEST federal income tax bracket is 15% and our highest is 29%. I realize we have social medicine, but considerring how much less we spend on the military it should balance out. If you guys are only charging your top 400 earner 18% I can see why you guys are in the trouble you are, and frankly it seems you kind of deserve it.
superkendallJul 26, 2011
Our highest is higher than yours.
huangismJul 26, 2011
yea canadian tax is way too much lol if i didn't have income tax i be rich haha
no wonder US is in bad shape, that's what happens when you elect an idiot for president lol
Closed AccountJul 25, 2011
Either I'm suposed to click on something or this is a horribly incomplete story that paints a grim picture with very little info.
crom99Jul 25, 2011
That's because lowering taxes on the rich allows them to create jobs. Oh, wait...
ObaAdeleJul 26, 2011
So, the so-called "job creators" have been creating tax avoidance for themselves, in the meantime, we have infrastructures to repair especially the ones they can afford to use frequently.
equinox2o12Jul 26, 2011
I say pay you taxes or get your accounts frozen.
afk2Jul 26, 2011
FROM GEORGE BUSH>> i screwed you all ,thanks for blaming it on the black guy...
ascusJul 26, 2011
The big lie of Republicans is the allowing rich people to keep more money will allow them to hire more people. That is a complete BS, companies keep people around because they make money from them. A company that needs 52 people to operate effectively will have 52 people, regardless if they pay 10% tax or 99% tax.
vance9281Jul 26, 2011
Where did you learn math? North Korea?
armedrebelJul 26, 2011
This is what I've been saying for years. Every time I see some assh**e Republican say that "every dollar more a company pays in taxes is one less dollar they can use to hire someone" I want to f**king shoot them because payroll is TAX DEDUCTIBLE. What is worse is that it's a complete, vicious lie they're telling because I know they know better.
vance9281Jul 26, 2011
It may be deductable, but it is a dollar the business person no longer has in hand. This is called opportunity cost. One learns it in Economics 101. Perhaps you were cleaning your weapons that day & missed the discussion. .
JustSayNoPartyJul 26, 2011
I certainly didn't miss that discussion. Now, we've been putting more of those dollars in to that business person's pockets for the last three decades. Benefit?
auditortuxJul 26, 2011
Lets explain tax deductibility, shall we?
Lets call me the government and you the taxpayer, and my wife your employee. For every dollar you give her, I'll give you $0.35 cents back. Fair deal for you, right? That extra dollar of payroll really only costs you $0.65, right? So you're be willing to pay my wife $100,000 a year so long as I turned around and gave you $35,000, right?
Come on, I LOVE that arrangement.
armedrebelJul 26, 2011
The point is that taxes don't inhibit hiring ability. Let's say I have a $200k/yr revenue business and taxes are 90%. Neglecting all other expenses for the sake of simplicity, it's not like I only have $20k to spend on employees. I could still hire $150k worth of employees because I would deduct $150k and then the taxes would only be on the remaining $50k.
linuxpersonJul 26, 2011
"The point is that taxes don't inhibit hiring ability. "
Taking your argument to its logic end, corporate and income tax rates of 100% would not inhibit hiring ability. That obviously is an assinine statement.
armedrebelJul 26, 2011
Technically, it wouldn't. However, the business would obviously cease to exist. But the thing is; We're not talking about 100% tax rates. Increasing taxes on the rich to levels previous seen would have absolutely ZERO impact on their ability to hire. Decreasing taxes on the rich have absolutely ZERO impact on their desire to hire. This is the point. The ONLY way to get businesses to hire is to increase their demand. Period. This fact is replaced by a lie in the conservative agenda.
unclefireJul 26, 2011
Assuming we'd ever have 100% tax rates on corporate profits is silly as well. And if we did, I assure you that companies would do whatever they needed to show a zero profit. Ever heard of non-profit companies-- they DO make "profits".
gearedoutJul 26, 2011
Maybe we should start treating employees like dependents. When you think about it that's what they are. Give tax credits to companies for the the amount of employees hired yearly. Don't give them breaks first and then hope that they use that money to grow their business. That's obviously not working.
BluntzworthJul 26, 2011
"companies keep people around because they make money from them. A company that needs 52 people to operate effectively will have 52 people, regardless if they pay 10% tax or 99% tax."
I can't understand (well I do they are just greedy) why people can't understand that basic tenent of business highlighted above.
Having money lying around does not spur job growth. Having a need to meet a demand that current production levels cannot meet, spurs job growth.
bijaJul 26, 2011
If everybody paid attention and voted in their own best interests, we wouldn't be in this mess.
waltaaronJul 26, 2011
Let's all thank Rupert Murdoch and Fox News for creating a bunch of emotional, fearful, ignorant voters.
THANKS RUPERT!
bijaJul 26, 2011
Very true. I have the Fox News channel disabled on my TiVo screen guide so I don't even have to see it.
Simple_UniverseJul 26, 2011
That's why Huckabees proposes consumption tax when he was running wasn't that crazy of an idea. Get rid of income tax all together. Instead of paying taxes on what you earn, you would pay on what you spend. Basically a higher sales tax. This will make illegal immigrants and cash employees "have" to pay into the system too. So if Mr. Rich buys a 500k boat he's taxed for it and if a poor lady buys a $2 loaf of bread she's taxed at the same rate. Done. No tiers, no avoiding it. Everyone will pay their relative share.
hangglideJul 26, 2011
Except both rich and poor people need that same $2 loaf of bread. The rich then end up paying a much lower percentage of income on household staples that everyone needs. That is why sales tax is a recessive tax. Recessive taxes in general are not a good idea.
westy411Jul 26, 2011
We need to have an income price scale for stores so bread price etc.. is adjusted upwards based on your income. 2 bucks if your poor and maybe 3 or 4 if you are rich and 2 bucks doesn't mean that much to you. Or maybe you buy two loafs but one is given to the poor guy so its like you had to pay more for the one you keep.
slmz00Jul 26, 2011
WHY??? is the real question and not "who did it?" or what circumstances.... These "richest americans" have more say than 300,000,000 people? Wake up and take control!!!!
vincesmithJul 26, 2011
of course, because most of them are in Congress or has Congress in their pocket
carlmosconiJul 26, 2011
Of course!
icadilJul 26, 2011
But they work so hard for their money! Us middle class peons are much more lazy.
alexamoreJul 26, 2011
That's actually pretty accurate. Why don't you get off your A$$, start a business and make millions and billions if it's so easy? Hmm?
icadilJul 26, 2011
Ask any billionaire, they will all say that luck was a major aspect in their success. Most CEO's just manage anyway, creatively and with years of schooling behind them but that doesn't mean that their day to day workload is any stressful or loaded than a single mom raising three kids, or a plumber, or a construction worker, or any body else. They just got lucky. Especially considering the fact that the vast majority of people stay within the same social class they were born into.
alexamoreJul 26, 2011
Luck? You sound like either a dazzled spectator at a magic show or a religious nut. Prove to me your BELIEF that luck exists. You have clearly never gone through what it takes to get to those high levels of income so it's just a magic show to you.
Is Tiger Woods lucky? It sure looks like it when all you see from start to finish is him playing at the highest levels of the PGA. Let's just forget all the hard work he had to put day in and day out for years prior.
You could certainly get on the path to becoming a millionaire. Grab a book on business, salesmanship, and study social media for example. You could start a social media consulting business as an entrepreneur with NO need of college education. It's gonna be a booming business in the near future. There ya go. Study trends and learn to sell em. Will you do it? Probably not because like most fatasses in America you'll buy the machines to help yourself but never use em. You're too lazy.
Millionaires acted. Maybe they failed 50 businesses prior (it's happened), but they learned from their failures and they ACTED in the first place.
test_particleJul 26, 2011
And how many people are going to try to start million-dollar companies in social media and never figure it out?
It's certainly true that the CEOs that succeed are talented and put lots of work in, which helps to explain their large salaries, but there's plenty of equally talented and hard-working people that never strike it rich.
stealthspcJul 26, 2011
You wont get super rich working a normal job. You have to take risks and put in a lot of work. If you go home from work and watch TV, you wont make it.
icadilJul 26, 2011
No, most Americans have different interests. Also, there is a great deal of people who never even get the opportunity in the first place. In city kids have to deal with survival first and foremost at the expense of schooling. Of course some make it out, but again its all about luck.
Millionaires are lucky that the people were willing to pay for their services, or visit their website. Facebook would not be the juggernaut it is today if Myspace would have put some more work into their site when Facebook starting gaining their users. They were lucky that another site stopped progressing. Walmart was lucky that China changed its economic policy and allowed some corporatism in their previously communist country. That allowed for cheap labor and the major expansion of the company. Skill is certainly a factor, but not nearly as important as luck. And again, I still refuse to think that just because a millionaire makes a s**t ton more money that it means they work harder than the rest of the people in this country. That is complete bulls**t. How many middle class workers can skip a day a play golf, or take a month long vacation? Very few, because they actually have to work for their livelihood.
hangglideJul 26, 2011
I actually had the wife of a wealthy man look me straight in the eyes and tell me with a straight face almost that exact quote. At the time she thought she was talking with a rich peer as we were at a party. I just turned and walked away. I had nothing in common with this type of thinking.
nitoriJul 26, 2011
The top tax rates need to be raised back to 1960s levels as the theory of trickle down economics has been thoroughly proven incorrect.
westy411Jul 26, 2011
Just take it all and give them welfare back, that's all they need to get by.
martin92003Jul 25, 2011
And the conservatives want to give them more money from the middle class... And they dont care if you are republican or democrat!!!
coachdaveSJCAJul 26, 2011
More reason for a flat tax - no deductions - equally applied to all. The so called tax stimulus plans that congress keeps passing create those boom and bust cycles we keep experiencing.
iMoneyMakerJul 26, 2011
Interesting to learn this. I would have thought the richest americans paid over 35%.
paulekuJul 26, 2011
Everyone should pay the same percent. If I have $5 and you have $1, it does not mean I should pay more for the same thing. It means you should buy less. People shouldn't be punished for being successful.
That being said, I dont know what the rates are for all income ranges. But if I am paying 18%, I dont see why anyone else should pay more. We all use the same things.
waltaaronJul 26, 2011
The super rich aren't being punished. Paying taxes is patriotic. People who think otherwise are selfish and greedy.
paulekuJul 26, 2011
Uh-mur-ika. f**k YEA.
LordDiggerJul 26, 2011
wow, very interesting!
stevencpdavisJul 25, 2011
That is not surprising
martoqJul 26, 2011
All this does is reenforce my feelings on us moving to a Flat Tax.
gkiltzJul 26, 2011
If they ACTUALLY PAY 18% we shouldn't complain. Globally, most of the world's millionaires are under 3%.
We raise taxes on the wealthy too much, they hide more money off shore.
aligoldieJul 26, 2011
The saddest part is how the poor still has no food, shelter or any rich people contributing.
Dragon2k10Jul 26, 2011
We need tax shelters, not tax cuts. Shelters promote investment, cuts promote hoarding.
carmfieldJul 26, 2011
People can argue both sides of this issue until they're blue in thne face...and, at the end of the day, the only answer is a "fair tax", with everyone paying the same percentage across the board. The only problem is that its too simple, and we'd have to toss out the old enormously cumbersome tax code. That would put a LOT of CPAs and attorneys out of work, and congress and DC are FULL of attorneys. So, you can guess where that idea will go...
user500Jul 26, 2011
its a shame the "fair tax" is not a fair tax. The only "fair tax" is a import tariff. Back in the good old days we taxed the imports to keep our people working. I say F**k the WTO. Another more useful bit of legislation would be a balanced trade amendment. Imports must equal exports Trillion dollars in should be an equal amount out. Any amounts shorted on ether side are refunded.
antialiasJul 25, 2011
The bottom 45% pay 0% income tax or less(with earned income & other credits).
I do think the rich are getting richer and that if the trend continues we're in for some rough times though.
redwing61Jul 25, 2011
1. That's only been an accurate number for the past couple of years because of stimuli.
2. When taxes other than income taxes are included – as was done to come up with the 18% figure for the 400 richest Americans – the percentage of income paid as taxes is no longer zero. It's not as if the bottom 45% of Americans are getting a free ride.
betteroffedJul 26, 2011
HA. They are *absolutely* getting a "free ride." You can't argue with accounting. 45% of Americans paid ZERO federal income tax last year. Contributions to social programs (SSN, medicare, etc) don't count here, because the public (and specifically the poor) will get that money back as assistance. 45% of Americans contributed nothing to the operating budget of the federal government. This is a completely factual statement without spin.
Now the reason that they don't is because most of those people are living at the poverty level. But those people are indeed getting a pass on contributing to the government's revenue at the expense of the rich making up for their portion. I don't have all of the answers, but please don't distort the truth.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
qinellaJul 26, 2011
Actually, this figure about 45% of Americans paying no federal taxes is used for spin purposes and is not accurate. It is generated statistically, but the reality is people like me, with no kids and no disability or health issues, get almost nothing back on federal tax returns.
Read #1 on http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=901335
"Those who pay no federal taxes are mostly the low-income elderly or very poor families with children. Even about half of those with annual incomes under $10,000 pay some federal tax, most often payroll taxes on wages."
Statistically, yes, *some people* don't pay taxes. It doesn't mean everyone at that income level doesn't pay taxes. This claim is used by pundits as a launch pad for hyperbole.
betteroffedJul 26, 2011
The link you provided is a good one, and you just made my point for me and perhaps didn't realize it:
""
About 45 percent of households will owe no federal income tax in 2010, according to our estimates. Half of them earn too little, while the other half -- mostly middle- and lower-income households -- will take advantage of tax credits such as the earned income credit, the child and child-care credits, the American Opportunity and Lifetime Learning credits, which help pay for college, and the saver's credit, which subsidizes retirement saving.
""
...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
youareretardedJul 26, 2011
So tax credits and loopholes for the poor and middle class are bad but when it's for the rich it's ok?
betteroffedJul 26, 2011
@youareretarded Define "loophole" please,
betteroffedJul 26, 2011
One more link for you since you engaged the discussion. Most countries are of the opinion that America currently has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html
...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterJul 26, 2011
Ha! Have you ever looked at other industrialized countries tax system? First of all, while we have a 35% top marginal tax rate that is only reached after about $250k or $300k in income, most of these other nations have a top bracket of 50% or higher!
Now, the middle class (not as much lower class) does pay a bigger piece of the tax pie than we do here for VARIOUS reasons. One is that their middle class receive many more benefits that we do...such as universal healthcare, free or low cost prescription drugs, free or reduced higher education costs, etc.
Second, and perhaps the BIGGEST reason, is that their rich don't make as much as our rich. The US has about 40% of the world's billionaires! In 2008 or 2009, there were about 1,000 billionaires in the world. The US, with only 300 million in population, had roughly 400 of them. Europe, with about 800 million people, had about 275 of the billionaires. They have systems that generally cap CEO pay or have systems or a culture that gives more of the profits back to the workers. Think about it, Europe has about 250% our population but only 70% of our billionaires!
betteroffedJul 26, 2011
Fact: There is no other country in the industrialized world for a which a larger portion of the population / electorate pays absolutely no portion of the collected federal taxes. (45%) Yes--including your highly exalted EUROPE.
Now, I'm not saying that those people should have to pay taxes. I'm not so naive to think that you can get blood from a stone. But I just think that it's amazing that people like you believe that while almost half of the population pays *nothing* into the system, that the rich still aren't "aren't paying their fair share." They are. I'm certainly not one of them, but they are. They're paying for everything. The top 1% of American taxpayers account for 25% of tax revenue collected. And the top 10% account for almost HALF of tax revenue collected. If that's not "progressive", then I don't know what is.
And your "BIGGEST reason" in your last paragraph can basically be summed up as: "It's NOT FAIR! I WANNA BE RICH LIKE THEM!" You have class envy. And that's just kinda sad.
BluntzworthJul 26, 2011
We don't have "class envy". We have "upper class get all the breaks at the expense of the lower classes" envy. We don't care that people are rich. We do care that rich people supposedly create jobs because they get a tax break, when all they really do is pocket that money.
Higher corporate tax rates force the company to reinvest it's profits back into the company (job creation).
Lower corporate tax rates allow the CEO/Board/Owner to pocket the money that they would normally reinvest back into the company.
daimposterJul 26, 2011
@betteroffed:
Did you read my f**king post? I mentioned WHY the US has a higher portion of the population that doesn't pay federal income taxes. All you did was restate one stat again for which I had explained the 'fallacy' in that stat (that is the political twist you gave it).
You seriously have a class warfare issue, don't you? You post just about everywhere about class envy as if you have absolutely no care about people who do not belong to the top 20%.
My last paragraph was there to EXPLAIN why we have such a 'progressive tax system' (although it's only federal income taxes). I provide facts on why the wealthy pay a larger share of the taxes than they do in other countries. If you don't like facts, that's your problem. However the truth remains, if you are going to try to put a political twist to the link you provided by basically claiming "the US tax system is unfair', then know your facts. That stats taken are not true representative of the whole picture. As I stated, we have many more billionaires because of the system we have created it. They take a much bigger piece of the pie here than they do anywhere else in the industrialized world and thus have more taxable income.
Let me put to you in an analogy maybe you can even understand. The GDP is like a pie. The pie is dived among the whole population. Lets say there were 100 people in a nation. On pie #1 you have 5 people that own 50% of the pie. On pie #2, the top 5 people only own 20% of the pie. If pie #1 has a tax of 20% and pie #2 has a tax of 30%, the top 5 people of pie #1 pay about 10% of the pie. The top 5 people of pie #2 pay about 6% of the pie. As you can see, the top 5 people on pie #1 has paid more than the top 5 people in pie #2 BECAUSE they own a bigger piece of the pie!
Have you ever looked at the income taxes of most of these European nations? If the US were to have the same income distribution they do now, the income tax system of a European nation would actually 're-distributte' more of the wealth than our current system. This is what i mean that you are putting a spin on a stat. I'll give you an example. Germany which is on your link is much lower than the US (1.07 vs 1.35) and has among the lower tax rates in Europe among large nations. In the US, the taxes for an individual are as follows:
1. 0-8.5k: 10%
2. 8.5k-34.5k: 15%
3. 34.5-83.6k: 25%
4. 83.6-174.4k: 28%
5. 174.4k-379.2K: 33% 67.58
6. 379.2k and above: 35%
In Germany, it's as follows - in euro (US$):
1. 0-8k (~$11k): 0%
2. 8k-13.5 ($11k-$19k): 14-24% linear increase
3. 13.5-52.8 ($19k-$74k): 24-42% linear increase
4. 250.7k & up ($350k): 45%
The more wealth concentrated among a the top, the bigger of the tax pie they will pay under the German system. Compare a guy making $19K/yr vs a guy making $32K (median income) to a guy making $380K to a guy making $3.8million. Under the US system, they pay approximately 12%, 14%, 29%, and 35%
Under the German structure, it would be 8%, 15.5%, 39%, 45%. The top bracket is 2.9 times higher than the median income under a German structure and a 2.5 under a US structure. The more money at the top, the more that will be payed at 45% under German type of taxing and the larger % that is paid by the wealthy.
As I mentioned, the US has a higher disparity of wealth than these countries. When there is less disparity in wealth, there is also less disparity in income taxes paid. I have also chosen Germany as an example as they are perhaps the 'worst' to make my case as they have the lowest taxes of large European nations. The UK, France, etc.....much easier but then you would say 'well, you just picked that one country'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Tax_Germany_2010.pngComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
betteroffedJul 26, 2011
@daimposter Earth to whiny, one-sided little bitch: I'm really sorry you weren't born into a wealthier family. Now you'll either have to work for your money, or just bitch for the rest of your life. Looks to me that you've got a head start on the latter by smearing your snake-oil attempts at misdirection all over Digg. Kudos.
WTF does GDP have to do with taxable personal income? The article is about income brackets and what the rich vs poor are taxed.
The fact is this: The more money you make in America, the more the government takes percentage-wise. Period. If you tax people MORE as they excel financially and become more affluent, then what incentive do they have to stand on their own and strive to achieve? None. And with almost half of America paying no federal income taxes at all, we're living in a veritable nanny state, and you appear to be ready to suck the s**t out of the teat even further. I'm sorry that you weren't born rich as you've lamented multiple times in other posts. Really I am.
The only way to fix the situation we're in is not to levy more unfair taxes on the upper class and create further class warfare. The only way is to CUT the f**kin' SPENDING. And by that, I mean everything from a bloated jobs-program military to ridiculous entitlement programs to redundant regulatory agencies. But that won't happen. Do you know why, Skippy? Because pandering to the poor is easier than making sense, and it gets more votes too. The democrats tell the poor that they'll take care of them financially, and the republicans tell the poor that they'll protect their god, protect their guns, and keep the "evil gays" away from their children. Period.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterJul 27, 2011
@stupidoffted:
you sound like a greedy bastard. 'it's my money and I shouldn't have to pay any more than any other individual because those poor bastards deserve it'. This isn't supposed to be an every man for himself country nor are any industrialized nation. We have the highest income disparity among wealthy nations because we are becoming greedy bastards such as yourself.
A nation should try to maximize the the happiness and opportunities for all its population, not just the wealthy. Complain all you want that this isn't fair or that isn't fair, but the top 1% controlled more wealth than at any other time since the 1920's. What happened both times? The f**king Great Depression and the Great Recession. A country is like a game of Monopoly, every once in a while the players start loosing their money to other players until eventually too many players are out and the game needs to be restarted.
In the late 19th century, the government new that the money stated at the top. The wealthy stayed wealthy and the poor stayed poor. It was nearly impossible to to move from one class to the next. So they began to break trusts up, reduce monopolies,etc. Basically shake the board up a bit. The same happen when The Great Depression hit. The wealth was controlled by far too little and this was mostly a result of HUGE tax cuts for the wealthy (top marginal tax was about 70% or 80% around 1920 and about 28% around 1925). They shook the board up a bit. Increased taxes for the rich to well over 50% for the top bracket eventually hitting about 80%-90% after WW2 and settling at 70% from the mid 60's to 1981. Now, the Great Recession has hit and not only have we not shaken up the board a bit, but they want to continue to give more tax breaks to the wealthy? WTF! Where is the logic!
"The fact is this: The more money you make in America, the more the government takes percentage-wise. Period. If you tax people MORE as they excel financially and become more affluent, then what incentive do they have to stand on their own and strive to achieve? None."
Oh yes, that makes plenty of sense. Since we have much lower income taxes than most other wealthy nations and we are no longer near the top of innovation. Interesting, the time we were #1 in innovation and education was when we had, relative to today, double the income tax on the wealthy. In the 50's and 60's we were #1 and had marginal taxes at or over 70% during that time. We invested that money on education, infrastructure, R&D and technology. That fact is: you don't know crap.Do you really think that letting the Bush tax cuts expire which would send the top bracket from 35% to 39% will eliminate their incentive? That's absurd.
"The only way to fix the situation we're in is not to levy more unfair taxes on the upper class and create further class warfare. The only way is to CUT the f**kin' SPENDING."
Read up some history, skippy. First, we have NEVER cut our way out of a recession. NEVER. You spend your way out of recession. I do agree we need to cut some fat in our spending, notably defense spending, and be more efficient and cost effective in other agencies. However, we cannot just make broad cuts across the board. We still need to spend money on certain programs and projects...notably infrastructure. We once were #1 and now we tend to rank to the very bottom on infrastructure among the top 30 wealthy nations.
Levy more unfair taxes on the upper class and create class warfare? I'm sorry, I think the wealthy STARTED the class warfare back in 1981. Reagan cut the income taxes on the top bracket from 70% to 28% in a few short years while the rest of the population only saw small cuts. Then, the capital gains tax was 'created' or at least began to be used in a way it was not meant to be. So now you have hedge fund managers and other wealthy people using this tax loophole to pay 18% in income taxes....much lower than most people who pay income taxes.
"And with almost half of America paying no federal income taxes at all, we're living in a veritable nanny state, and you appear to be ready to suck the s**t out of the teat even further."
Whats with this rhetoric that implies federal income taxes are the ONLY taxes the poor would pay. They still pay plenty of other taxes. Fed Inc Taxes is just a small piece of what they pay.
And did you NOT READ MY f**kING post above? 47% don't pay federal income taxes because we have the f**king highest wealth disparity of any wealthy nation. Perhaps that doesn't mean s**t to you, but it sure is a problem for those 47% AND for this f**king economy. As I mentioned earlier in this post, it hasn't turned out well when we have such wealth disparity.
p.s. the top 1% have seen their income triple since 1980, the top 5% has seen their income double since 1980 and the lower 60% have seen stagnant growth in the same period. Class Warfare? It's obvious the wealthy are winning this war. In fact, I wouldn't even call it a war since a war needs to parties fighting to be called a war. It's more of an attack.
p.s.s. hey skippy, i'm not in the lower 60%. I'm just not a selfish prick like you.
betteroffedJul 27, 2011
@daimposter: Ha. I'll leave you with two things you ignorant, self-righteous assh**e:
(1) You don't know two s**ts about me, so I'll go ahead and enlighten you: I care a helluva lot about those who are less fortunate than me, and that's why I DONATE a huge portion of what I make every year to those people and causes. This discussion is about the role of government not the selfishness or charities of individuals. Two separate issues completely. Where you fall on the fiscally conservative / fiscally liberal side of the fence has nothing to do with your personal altruism.
(2) Kindly go f**k yourself.
GorillionaireJul 26, 2011
So have a family and help america, you wil be rewarded with tax benefits and you will have a family....
agmlauncherJul 25, 2011
Income tax is a tiny fraction of the total taxes Americans pay.
Sales tax, service tax, luxury taxes, prepared food taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, etc etc etc.
The difference is, those small taxes add up to quite a bit for the bottom 45%, while they're negligible for people who are rich.
antialiasJul 25, 2011
While I agree that taxes are much less a burden on the rich, they do provide the lions share of the tax revenue. They often invest heavily in real estate, paying property taxes on all their investment properties as well as pretty high property taxes on their multi million dollar homes.
Again, I don't mean to defend the rich necessarily as I think the income gap is causing a lot of stress on our nation, but to say the rich don't pay their "fair share" isn't really accurate unless you think they should be paying far and above the average American percentage wise.
daimposterJul 26, 2011
Yes, they should be paying above the average. They have created a system that has seen the top 1% nearly triple their income in the past 30yrs while the bottom 60% are stagnant.
They provide the lions share of the tax revenue because they have the lions share of the income pie. In 1980, the top 1% had 9% of the income pie and now that slice is over 25%. That means the 'lower' 99% had 91% and now have 75%. That's a huge loss.
I get that you are arguing that 'fair' is basically when one pays equal to his share of the wealth so if the top 1% have 25% of the income pie, then they should pay 25% of the taxes under a 'fair' system. That's called a flat tax....and flat taxes are not fair when you consider the luxuries people born into wealth vs the disadvantages of people born into poverty.
betteroffedJul 26, 2011
Holy s**t.... If you're argument is truly "It's not fair that they're born into wealth while I'm not.", then you really have no argument and you need to take a look at your life. I'm sorry, but the class envy in that last paragraph is *astounding*.
daimposterJul 26, 2011
The luxuries of people born into wealth: True - they have certain resources available to them that rest don't
The disadvantages of people born in poverty: True - there many resources not available to the poor such as a good education, often healthcare or proper healthcare, etc.
To me, 'fair' is all things considered equal. However, the system we have is set-up so that the wealthy stay wealthy and the poor stay poor. The system is set-up that the wealthy have a 20 meter head start on the 100 meter dash. I am not saying the wealthy shouldn't be allowed to use their resources but it's naive to think that the lack of resources made available to the less fortunate is not a HUGE disadvantage.
The fact that you see everything as 'class envy' leads me to believe you care little about the less fortunate and are only interested in your own matters even if it has negative consequences to the less fortunate.
Lets make everything 'fair', right? What's good for the rich is good for the poor? So lets eliminate social security, unemployment benefits, medicare, higher education financial aid, all levels of public schools, etc. The wealthy don't need any of that....they would rather opt out of social security and medicare and just use their own private insurance, they don't need unemployment benefits or financial aid to a university, the don't use the public schools,etc.
By your definition of fair (or what you implied), then the above paragraph would be a fair and right country.
blean1Jul 26, 2011
Holy crap....that's just brilliant! Of course it's negligible for those that have much more than you! So what?
agmlauncherJul 26, 2011
So what? Here's some basic 2+2 = 4 logic for you.
Even though poor people don't pay income taxes, they pay through the nose in every other tax. Thus we cannot increase the taxes on the poor because they are already paying a s**tload of taxes on everything else (phone bill, gas, prepared food, property, etc etc)
Since these taxes are relatively small for those who are wealthy, and you cannot add more taxes onto the rich, then there is nothing wrong with increasing the income tax on the wealthy to make up for the fact that the share of taxes they pay is smaller relative to their income than it is for people who are poor.
That's what......
daimposterJul 26, 2011
It's insane people are saying the lower 45% should pay more. They have about 1% of the countries wealth and about or less than 5% of the income.
If the top 1% have 25% of the income, and the lower 45% have 5% of the income, even if you taxed ALL the income of the lower 45%, it will still be 1/5 of the total income of the top 25%.
There is NO 'revenue' to be gained from the lower 45%. Most of them already live paycheck to paycheck so they are already putting their money back into the economy and any tax increase on them means they will suffer even more. A small tax increase on the top 1% earners would have a much bigger effect to revenues without causing as much damage to the individual.
Mark7AJul 26, 2011
I don't think ANYONE should pay more tax. I think the government scale back so we can keep our money and spend it the way we want to.
yeahwhatever58Jul 26, 2011
What a novel and great idea! I grow so tired of reading all these comments that are so infused with jealousy and envy over OPM, that it is nice once in a while to read a simple statement that speaks volumes about how people should look at how a person's personal property should be treated! BRAVO to you!
daimposterJul 26, 2011
It would be STUPID to just cut off all spending like you suggest, since that would be the only way pay down a debt in the short term. Long term, I can see some validity in your statement HOWEVER, most of the wealthy nations have higher taxes than we do so although it sounds better to say 'no more taxes', in reality, large nations don't do as well with lower tax rates than what we currently have.
Sure, we can eliminate social security and medicare and let the people decide what to do with their money. Sure we can reduce spending on infrastructure and education. Sure we can cut spending on the EPA and the FDA or just eliminate them. Sure we can cut Park and Wildlife resources. There is a lot we can do, but will it make the US better?
I do think our system is flawed though. Too many pork projects, too much spending on military and there is a lot of fat that can be cut in certain programs or agencies so that it is leaner and more efficient. But government can (and does in many other wealthy nations) be of a big help. We just need to remove the power of lobbyist and their corporate backers from DC.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
westy411Jul 26, 2011
The fact that Income tax is only a "tiny" fraction of your tax burden is a large part of the problem. Earn some more money and contribute damnt.
sj3diverJul 26, 2011
Why if the rich get richer will things get harder? it does not work that way.
mkautzJul 26, 2011
If the rich get proportionally richer than the middle class, there are problems because the wealth gets even more unevenly distributed and the end result is an unsustainable consumer market. A very extreme example. If the rich controls 99.9% of the wealth and the 'less fortunate' control the remaining 0.1, where does our GDP lie? There is simply no room for economic stability when a really small number of people control a really large amount of the wealth.
UnaBomberrrJul 26, 2011
wealth is not finite. Its comical that you feel that way
kasha34Jul 25, 2011
Be careful what you wish for, libs.
For example: municipal bonds give tax free income. You want to take that away? Fine. Then cities and towns will end up paying way more in interest to borrow money for projects.
user500Jul 26, 2011
i guess our mayor will have to do with only one solid gold toilet seat.
kasha34Jul 26, 2011
Bloomberg? That f**king traitor?
resistoonJul 25, 2011
Lets not forget that while the rich pay less in taxes due to tax breaks, they also invest more money than anyone else. And those investments are good for the economy!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
agmlauncherJul 25, 2011
They would be good for the economy if they were investments in companies that used those investments to hire Americans. But in 90% of the cases, those investments are overseas, or investments in American companies that are outsourcing jobs, as those are where the better returns are.
Also companies big enough to be publicly traded are often big enough to have overseas operations. The mom and pop small businesses that employ most of private sector America, aren't publicly traded companies and thus do not benefit from investments.
betteroffedJul 26, 2011
All of what you say is completely true. And you've really said nothing new.
But what is the solution? Tax breaks for companies that keep jobs and investments in infrastructure domestic?
betteroffedJul 26, 2011
...mind you, I'm not arguing with you. I just think that the answer is very problematic given that the movement towards a truly global economy is inevitable.
daimposterJul 26, 2011
I agree. However, we do know the current system has too many flaws and with people continuing to think that large corporations are our job creators, we wont have progress.
The key is small & mid size companies. We need to lower their taxes since they are the ones forced to pay the higher taxes caused by large corporations hiring thousands of lobbyist to create tax loop holes. I think we eliminate most tax loop holes and subsidize (not all, there are a few that do serve a purpose that does not include donations to a congress member's campaign), lower corporate taxes, and higher taxes on the wealthy. Go back to Clinton taxes which help created revenue so we can pay down our debt.
One thing people forget is that business might move operations to another country and take hordes of jobs with them......but very few INDIVIDUALS leave a country due to a small marginal tax increase. Just look at Europe....they have very high income taxes but lower corporate taxes (and MUCH fewer tax loopholes) than the US. You don't see the individuals leaving that place like a sinking ship.
And yes, I agree with "Tax breaks for companies that keep jobs and investments in infrastructure domestic" that you mention.
I don't see our issues as problematic given a truly global world, some countries are doing much better than us in this transition, I see it as problematic from a political process. As long as big Corporations are in the pockets of Congress, there won't be the changes and reforms we need to adapt to the globalized world. The big corporations will continue to get their way and it will be at the expense of the smaller and mid size companies. For every dollar a large corporation avoids in tax dollars, that's one less dollar saved we cannot pass to the smaller companies. Think of it like basketball. There are only so many shots that are taken in a game (there is a certain amount of revenue the country needs to function well). When the top player takes more and more shots (major corporations taking more and more of the potential savings), that leaves less shots for the rest of the players (less savings for the smaller companies).
dustbunny52Jul 26, 2011
I am sorry Resistoon. You will have to explain that one to me. When I buy 100 shares of GE it usually comes from some other private citizen. They may have received some cash from me but they gave up something that had about the same value. How did that help the economy? If the stock were bought directly from GE I could say that the money might be invested by the company in jobs or corporate infrastructure. That is not the what usually happens.
betteroffedJul 26, 2011
Sorry--you need to get educated on how capitalism works.
figecJul 26, 2011
dustbunny52, you sort of have the idea. Supply and demand: when demand is put on a stock, its price goes up. When there are more buyers of a stock than sellers, that puts demand on that stock, no matter who is party to that transaction. Buying and holding a stock contributes to this effect (less supply, higher price).
This allows companies to sell shares at higher prices in the market. Each company keeps a reserve of their own stocks with which it trades (not to be confused with Public Offerings). They buy when they feel the price is cheap (or want to create a dividend effect without short term capital gains associated with a dividend) and sell at a profit when they feel it is expensive to raise money.
When their stock is priced well to reflect future incomes, they can also build a healthy credit rating which allows them to borrow money at cheaper rates. Typically, these monies are all used for capital investments.
dustbunny52Jul 26, 2011
OK, I also pointed out that the purchase of stock directly from a company increases the investment in the company but the company reserve of stock is a drop in the bucket compared to the volume of stock traded. Most any purchase of stock is from an individual and yes supply and demand comes into play here but demand usually comes from improvements in the company you are buying from. Either an increase in market revenues. a decrease in costs, reduction the number of shares on the market or an increase in dividend value is needed. In the extreme case a rise in price that has no supporting cause is called a bubble and will eventually crater. So increasing demand comes ideally from increasing value.
However, trading stock from one individual to another is more or less a game of gambling rather than contributing to an economy. At the actual time of purchase it is a zero sum game. It is the companies actions and general market conditions that will eventually change the value of the stock.
Perhaps Resistoon was referring to investing in bonds. Buying someones debt does contribute to actual investment and increasing economy but again not where the bond is changing hands between individuals.
I find the case of buying stocks on the market as only weakly affecting the actual amount of money that companies can use. I could see targeted reductions of taxes for certain direct purchases of stock from companies or direct purchases of corporate or municipal bonds but not for the general markets.
resistoonJul 29, 2011
Let's also not forget that the rich donate more money than the rest of us. Take away their tax breaks and they will donate less, if any at all. I am not rich, but not a hater of the rich. They should not be taxed extra, just their fair share like with the rest of us.
If anything we should get the lower income class to start contributing, instead of taking all the time. People being on welfare for decades is just insane.
nihilJul 26, 2011
and the bottom 50% of earners pay 2.59% of their income on average to Uncle Sam. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html)
Its not a revenue problem, its an out of control spending problem.
Since 2003, income tax revenues have increased from $700 billion to over a trillion. The top 10% of earners have been responsible for $200 billion of that increase.
armedrebelJul 26, 2011
That's exactly what it is - a revenue problem.
Without the 1981 Reagan/Bush 2001 tax cuts:
http://www.liberalatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/usbudgetest.jpg
This is a revenue problem. Stop lying or listening to lies.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
walt01Jul 26, 2011
Who said this?
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
Suckers.
rambolincolnJul 26, 2011
This article is stupid. Anyone can take advantage of the 15% capital gains rate, not just the rich.
From Wikipedia: "A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor."
As long at you can invest in stocks, bonds, or real estate you can take advantage of the 15% capital gains tax. If you sell your house at a $300,000 markup you only have to pay a 15% capital gains tax on that profit.
The rich simply have more money to invest.
playa4theeJul 26, 2011
This is all BUSH doing! But he'll have you believe it was/is Obama's fault.. That's what he did best!!! Btw anyone wants to see the list for the top ten richest men in the world then check this out http://tips21.com/top-ten-richest-men-in-the-world.html
walt01Jul 26, 2011
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
ted944Jul 26, 2011
Nice, they can always use extra money to buy another private jet or thousands of acres of land.
lighthouseJul 26, 2011
hmmm... 18% of a rich dude's income is a hell of a lot more than the 0% that half of our fellow citizens pay in INCOME taxes
prosperity66Jul 26, 2011
Well, I think it's a worldwide problem and that 18% is huge when compared to some European countries where they pay almost nothing - some definitely don't pay taxes at all. It's also unfair for those who work hard with the aim of a comfortable life but have to pay so much that they sometimes end up broke.
norman619Jul 25, 2011
This is pretty damn predictable. The usual suspects pushing class envy and their followers eating it up. How about getting upset with those who put the tax code together? No.... that makes far too much sense.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bdbrJul 26, 2011
And this is why the 400 richest Americans will continue to pay low taxes...because the people we're not complaining about are the ones with the power to fix it.
jqp123Jul 26, 2011
"How about getting upset with those who put the tax code together?"
A lot of those people are dead and gone. Get upset at them if you want but it certainly won't change anything with regard to the current artificial debt crisis.
norman619Jul 26, 2011
No... Congress makes the tax code. Last I checked we still have a congress.
jqp123Jul 26, 2011
Most of whom inherited the tax code, they didn't have any hand in putting it together.
user500Jul 26, 2011
Let them eat cake!
blean1Jul 25, 2011
Simplistic. Some people should wake up and know what's going on. The richest don't have that money in their mattresses....it's held in things like bonds, stocks, and other investments. They pay taxes on that when they sell it. Big time. Not to mention other tax-deferred investments. You ain't got the 'cash' to do that? SORRY.
Quit playing the class warfare game. You ain't got the scratch, too bad. You want to be fair? EASY....18% flat tax straight across the board. Oh no....you don't want to really be 'fair' do you? You don't want to pay 18% do you? You just want someone else with more to pay much more than you do so you reap the benefits. That's intellectually dishonest, so shutup you hypocrits. Nearly HALF of all US taxpayers don't even pay federal income tax.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Jul 25, 2011
I already pay MORE than 18% of my income in income tax. I don't need advocates for those making THOUSANDS of times more than what I make saying this is "fair" & I need to accept everyone paying the same. And if the wealthy weren't benefiting MORE from the system to which we all pay in than I am, we'd all be enjoying the benefits of an 18% or LESS tax rate too.
"The richest don't have that money in their mattresses....it's held in things like bonds, stocks, and other investments. They pay taxes on that when they sell it. Big time. Not to mention other tax-deferred investments. "
They may not be "hoarding" that wealth but then they're obviously not creating jobs with it either.
blean1Jul 26, 2011
Yeah....'obviously'.
waltaaronJul 26, 2011
We can talk percentages all day, but really the only thing that matters is that people can provide for themselves and their families. Taking 10, 20, or even 30% from a guy making 40k-60k a year has a greater impact on that family than taking 30 million from a person making 100 million a year.
I think it should be based more on utility. What allows for the most good for the most amount of people. The answer is always going to be to take more from the super rich and less from the dwindling middle class. I'm not talking about people who make 1, 2, 3 or even 10 million in a year, I'm talking 50 million plus. Taking an extra chunk of their wealth will affect their overall lifestyle very little. Maybe they can't build their own Jurassic Park or have a replica Bat Mobile built for their 16 year old son, but they can still live high on the hog. They can still have giant coke parties and buy a fleet of lambos.
This is Philosophy 101 here. Taking even $1000 less from 10 lower middle class families will have a substantial impact on those ten families. Taking that extra 10k from the super rich is like a parking ticket.
If you or your family made your fortunes in the US you should have to pay out the ass. Plain and simple. Most corporations and their owners find numerous tax loopholes as it is, asking them to pay more should be no big deal.
ieatskunkJul 26, 2011
And how much is that in dollars? The article conveniently leaves that out. I guess it wouldnt sound as bad if they said each one pays an average of 90 million in income tax.
mcfriendlyJul 26, 2011
IF you believe this is wrong - WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN and express your ANGER. I can't understand how anyone can defend this growing disparity in wealth obtained by Lobbyists, Corporations, and corrupt elected officials. DO SOMETHING PROACTIVE!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chris0588Jul 26, 2011
What only 18 percent! How the hell can we expect to pay for Obama's entitlement programs? Rise the debt ceiling quick!!!
BluntzworthJul 26, 2011
What only 18 percent! How the hell can we expect to pay for 10 years of war in 2 different locations? Raise* the debt ceiling 7-8 times (without a peep from the republicans at the time) quick!!!
apps1232772576931791212540224dJul 26, 2011
This is why we must raise the debt limit and not let our country go into default. We can't make business worse! It's already bad enough for many people who got blasted in the last GOP attack.
JGXJul 26, 2011
Most of the wealthiest people have already massed their fortunes. Their gains, whether legitimate or not, are theirs.
The tax rates of today only limit the new capital possibilities.