View Poll Results: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

Voters
181. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    82 45.30%
  • No

    99 54.70%
Page 11 of 126 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161111 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 1260

Thread: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

  1. #101
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,927

    Re: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

    I guess nobody wants to answer so I will post anyhow. If you are offended, too bad. First of all I asked the question how many of you own a business or run one because I wanted to know if any of you have any true idea of the tax code is and why it is so convoluted, to use a mild term. If you are employed you are being taxed the highest, by PAYING your taxes FIRST then SPENDING what is left over SECOND. Businesses on the other hand SPEND their money FIRST, then PAY taxes on the leftovers SECOND. Most people who are in congress are fairly wealthy, and they wish to keep it. Most congressmen did NOT make their money being EMPLOYED. They did it though investing, or owning a buisness, or inherintence. Hence the laws are going to be such that they will be able to keep and make more wealth. If you are employed you will most likely NEVER gain any appreaciable wealth. To gain wealth requires calculated risk by investment, in youself, or others. Thats just the way things are rigged in this country. I am the owner of a corporation, I pay as little tax as I possibly can leagaly. Most of my money that I spend is BEFORE it is taxed. This gives me a huge advantage over someone who is just employed as I reduce my gross income down to a fraction of that of the employed person, with that spending. The courts say I have absolutely no obligation to pay more. I will not. I would rather spend my money on assets or with other people, then spend it on the goverment. I consider my self taxed too much because I have to spend so much time considering the Tax ramifications of anything I do. I have to employ accountants and lawers to make help me take advantage of every tax loophole or exculsion I can. This is money I can use otherwise to upgrade equipment, employ people and sponser more charities. This is time and effort that could be used to be more productive and take advantage of more opportunities.

    If I am going to be miserable, I d rather be wealthy. I dont know anyone who does not want to be wealthy. Wealth is FREEDOM. The goal of every American ought to be Finacially independent and then free. Wealth allows you the freendom to stand up for yourself, your priciples.

    Taxes in my opinion should be no more then 10% total all inclusive on your SPENDING. That includes state and local taxes. If its good enough for god, its good enough for goverment. The locals would collect it and keep 40% and pass the rest to the state. The state would then keep 50% and give 50% to the feds. The totals would break down this way Locals get 40%, state and feds get 30% each, for a total of 100%. The tax would be on all NEW goods and on services. No exemptions. No other tax or fee or other goverment revenue collection would be allowed. The locals would have their state by the short and curlies, and the states would have the feds by the short and curlys as well. This would apply to everyone and every business. Sweet and simple, and equitable.

    Thats my take. Cheers.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  2. #102
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    I think that letting a family keep its assets in the family is essential. Having to forfeit a large chunk of a person's estate because they died is a bad tax policy idea for a number of reasons. The focus need not be on whether children have a right to inherit, but rather, should people have the liberty to build up savings and (if they don't have to burn through them), leave it to their children?
    Well of course people have the liberty to pass savings on to their children. People also have the liberty to hire people. But that doesn't mean that the recipient of the money can't be taxed for it.

    I mean, sure, passing something on to your children is nice and all. We don't want to discourage that for no reason. But the same is true of any potential source of tax revenue. We don't want to "punish" working either, do we? So why the special treatment for this type? Certainly assets being concentrated on familial lines isn't more important to society than working. And morally I just can't get my head around how Paris Hilton getting $200 million in inheritance for doing nothing at all instead of getting $140 million for doing nothing at all seems like a larger problem to anyone than people who are working two jobs just to make ends meet coughing up another $60 million.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Personally, I think working 50 hours a week is not a sacrifice at all, because it contains virtually no investment risk. I can count on that paycheck if I put in 50 hours. Plus it feels healthy to actually, you know, work. Accepting investment risk, especially after the roller coaster of the last decade, is much more of a sense of sacrifice to me, because usually I'm putting up many, many 50-hour weeks' worth of disposable income and it could just evaporate because rich bankers and corporate knobjobs I've never met are taking enormous, stupid risks that send panic into the system and **** everything up.

    To a motivated, risk-averse, conservative, prudent person, working a full time job is not thought of as sacrifice. We are not victims because we work. We are victims if our work is mooched off of excessively, however.
    Investment risk is wildly overblown. First off, the general public is taking some of that risk when the investor invests. Limited liability imposes the worst of that risk on society as a whole. Secondly, on balance they win. It's technically a risk, but not over the long term if they're not stupid about it.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  3. #103
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,685

    Re: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    and even more importantly, it castrates the extraconstitutional power the government grabbed with the IRS
    Indeed it would. If I bought a home for fair market value in 1980, for $100,000 cash (made no improvements) and sold it for fair market value in 2012, for $200,000 cash then my "capital gain" is said to be $100,000 yet, after taxes, I can not even afford to buy that same home back (for cash). Is that fair?
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-03-12 at 03:50 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #104
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    The only fair comparison when it comes to progressive tax rates are progressive taxes
    TD. This is so far beyond idiotic that I don't even know what to say. You're just openly admitting that you're intentionally only looking at progressive taxes and then declaring that the system is progressive... That's like saying "all marbles are blue" and ignoring the green marbles and then blurting out that it is only fair to look at the blue marbles. You need to get your act together. Why is this so much harder for you than it is for everybody else. Most people don't seem to have these problems with such basic concepts.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  5. #105
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Your "either or argument" makes me suspect that you work yet do not invest, so you prefer "equal" treatment of these earnings. Investing is needed to create jobs for all who work directly for, or do business with, any corporation or small business (just about everyone). Why put money in a bank, or invest it in a business if you can simply spend it now? Do you honestly believe that nobody should have any tax incentive to save or invest, rather than simply spend all of their income now? Why invest in the U.S. if they tax 100% of your gains, instead of Singapor or China if they do not? Much of the movement of capital and jobs to off-shore locations is precisely to avoid the higher U.S. taxation. The rich are not rich because they are stupid or patriotic.
    Investing isn't necessarily more beneficial than spending. The economy needs both. Mostly it needs spending. The overwhelming majority of payroll is covered by revenues, not investment. Investment is just there to spur companies along faster than their revenues could sustain in specific circumstances. New businesses often need investment as do businesses taking a very long term R&D approach or something. But overwhelmingly, businesses are sustained by spending, not investment.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    That's not a logical fallacy, that is what regressive means- takes a smaller share of your income the richer you are.
    I heard Warren Buffet admitted recently (the story with his secretary) the US was actually a regressive tax country. I suggest you change it to flat.

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrM View Post
    Flat tax. . . .If a person makes 20K a year and someone makes 500K a year, in a flat tax, who is going to pay a greater "percentage" of their income toward tax?
    None. They will both pay the same %, so it's a "fair tax". In fact, the only fair tax possible at all.

  8. #108
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,685

    Re: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Investing isn't necessarily more beneficial than spending. The economy needs both. Mostly it needs spending. The overwhelming majority of payroll is covered by revenues, not investment. Investment is just there to spur companies along faster than their revenues could sustain in specific circumstances. New businesses often need investment as do businesses taking a very long term R&D approach or something. But overwhelmingly, businesses are sustained by spending, not investment.
    That is a chicken vs. egg argument. To sell something you must first make, grow or buy it. Try to start (or expand) ANY business with no investment. Use a simple one car, one driver taxi service as an example; it takes over $50K in investment to make that first $20 fare happen, not likely to happen without outside investment. After say, 10 years that taxi guy may be able to repay his investors, and make a decent living, yet he will likely never make enough to buy a second car (it took all his "profits" to replace his own car) and hire another driver, no matter how hard he works. But with investors, he may be able to show his potential for making them some good money, by using his 'experience' to show them he knows how, and get enough backing to buy ten cars and hire ten drivers. ;-)
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-03-12 at 03:46 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  9. #109
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    That is a chicken vs. egg argument. To sell something you must first make, grow or buy it. Try to start (or expand) ANY business with no investment. Use a simple one car, one driver taxi service as an example; it takes over $50K in investment to make that first $20 fare happen, not likely to happen without outside investment. After say, 10 years that taxi guy may be able to repay his investors, and make a decent living, yet he will likely never make enough to buy a second car and hire another driver, no matter how hard he works.
    Sure, but the same is true the other way around. How would the taxi cab business fare if nobody hired it to drive them around? So I don't see why we should give perks to investors to stimulate investment at the cost of depressing spending. They're both necessary.

    What really is the rational thing to do is to adjust the relative levels over time as your needs for investment capital or consumer spending increase or decrease. Right now, we clearly need consumer spending more desperately than we need more investment.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  10. #110
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,685

    Re: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Sure, but the same is true the other way around. How would the taxi cab business fare if nobody hired it to drive them around? So I don't see why we should give perks to investors to stimulate investment at the cost of depressing spending. They're both necessary.

    What really is the rational thing to do is to adjust the relative levels over time as your needs for investment capital or consumer spending increase or decrease. Right now, we clearly need consumer spending more desperately than we need more investment.
    Again you make a circular argument. I assume you want the the gov't to tax "rich" citizen A and give it to poor citizen B since A was not going to spend it and are quite sure that B will to "get things going". Or perhaps you more prefer the Obama borrow and spend approach, where you borrow and give it to B, so that B will spend that money and "get things going". But eventually you must tax A anyway just to pay back the debt, from that which you borrowed and gave to B. My approach would be to let A keep more after tax income and perhaps A will then invest more here, instead of in China. ;-)
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-03-12 at 04:02 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 11 of 126 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161111 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •