View Poll Results: Is it unreasonable to pay a little more?

Voters
97. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. I'm a greedy bastard!! I need MORE!!!

    28 28.87%
  • No. There's comes a point in wealthiness where it just doesn't even matter anymore.

    61 62.89%
  • I'm not sure.

    8 8.25%
Page 74 of 81 FirstFirst ... 24647273747576 ... LastLast
Results 731 to 740 of 809

Thread: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

  1. #731
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,701

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    It took 30 years of taxing the wealthy too little and spending excessively to create our debt. To think that our debt can be significantly reduced by only addressing one of the causes is not being realistic. to put it nicely.
    its taxing the middle class too little that has caused the middle class to demand so much government

  2. #732
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,520

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    The government has been ripping off every class for the past 230 plus years....IMHO.

  3. #733
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    its taxing the middle class too little that has caused the middle class to demand so much government
    This kind of gaul is what cost Romney and Ryan the election. You take the tax cuts agreed to by the working class because you say it will trickle down, and then you use those tax cuts to move working class jobs overseas, and then have the gaul to complain that those who's jobs were moved out of the country, are now not paying enough taxes.

    All I can say is I hope you guys on the far right can keep it up until 2014 so moderates can retake the House!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #734
    Sage
    BretJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:16 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,364

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Totally agree, but there's two sides to this equation. We need new sources of revenue and spending cuts at the same time.
    The fact is that all of the Bush tax cuts would have to expire in order to make even a small difference. Clinton had a surplus budget because everyone paid their "fair" share. Not just the rich. Bush cut the taxes for everyone because he felt that if there is a surplus in the budget, it rightfully belongs to all tax payers; poor, middle class and rich.
    The opposite of hero is not villain, it is "bystander"
    " In doing what we ought we deserve no praise, because it is our duty." -Aurelius Augustine
    "But why do they use them to make Brawndo??!!"

  5. #735
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-15-17 @ 05:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    424

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    I can't understand why the Uniparty gets so polarized that it's "all about revenue" or it's "all about spending". A shortfall is a shortfall. BOTH numbers figure into the calculation, but the mere notion that operating at continual deficit is somehow sustainable or even sane is something only a "classically trained" economist (IMHO, one of those professions that is highly skilled in precisely measuring something that very few of them understand AT ALL) could support.

    If you want to look at the numbers, it was fairly obvious that Clinton presided over a long, UPWARD trend in spending that saw the budget go from something around $1.8T to $2.1T, but as soon as the "conservative" Bush came to power, that line turned SHARPLY upwards. The PCLL would tell you that the solution is for their President to spend MORE - well, geez, guys, Bush tried that. Spent like a drunken sailor - and guess what - the economy looked great to all of those economists and analysts - then it crashed just like any reasonable and intelligent observer had predicted it would do. DUH!!!!

    But, Bush really did take the cake. While Clinton did increase spending, he matched that with increased tax. Bush's administration (and let's not forget that lovely bunch in Congress that get to duck the blame for their dirty work) did BOTH wrong. Up with spending, down with taxes. How could the RRR defend such stupidity? Then, when the Uniparty shuffled the deck to bring the US "change" the new champion of the RRR did EXACTLY what Bush did, only threw a few trillion more into bailouts - and the PCLL defends THAT idiocy.

    It SHOULD occur to you/us all that there is something more wrong with the country that just the question of revenue vs. expenditure (which for a decade are BOTH wrong).

  6. #736
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    03-07-13 @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    96

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    The tax on the wealthy is only on income. Many of the wealthiest don't have income so they come under a different classification that is not called income. They get a lower tax. This is one scam that is backed by the Whitehouse. Senator Kerry gets taxed on a Senator salary but has assets with his wife that are in the hundreds of millions.

    Another scam are deductions, which were not addressed. Romney was smart since he was going to lower the tax rate, since the tax rate is more for show when it comes to the most wealthy. He was going reduce deductions where the money magic really occurs. This is what allows the rich and well connected get to lower their final tax rate. General Electric had the sanme corporate rate as large business, but through deductions did not have to pay taxes.

    Polititians don't like to touch deductions, because this is how they money launder campaign donations from wealthy special interest groups. The tax code is a who's who of campaign money laundering.

    If you were to touch deductions, the tax code would shrink shrink and the kickback scam would be harder. For example, unions contributed to Obama, so they get a deduction/exemption from Obamacare. They get their contribution money back by donating up front. If we eliminated all new deductions, then campaign contributions may not be cost effective. Hollywood got a new deduction since they provided campaign value via propaganda. They are very wealthy and may say we accept higher rates, but will pay less.

    Romney was well aware of how the game works. But since the game is still on, he and the other smart rich will always win the game, since there is always a need for money laundering by polititians.

  7. #737
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    07-26-13 @ 03:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    47

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I was going by your statement to Boo that he was wrong when he said, "Only a balanced approach, one that includes both tax increases and spending cuts will have any chance of being successful."

    Are you now saying Boo was correct?
    You know what ur right i was wrong,i do agree with Boo. sorry

  8. #738
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    54

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Although I think they should pay way more then they do, I think you went about this badly. Although I think that the reason why they don't pay more is because they are greedy human beings who want it all to be theirs, you should still be as unbiased as possible when making the poll.

  9. #739
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-15-17 @ 05:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    424

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Well View Post
    The tax on the wealthy is only on income. Many of the wealthiest don't have income so they come under a different classification that is not called income. They get a lower tax. This is one scam that is backed by the Whitehouse. Senator Kerry gets taxed on a Senator salary but has assets with his wife that are in the hundreds of millions.

    Another scam are deductions, which were not addressed. Romney was smart since he was going to lower the tax rate, since the tax rate is more for show when it comes to the most wealthy. He was going reduce deductions where the money magic really occurs. This is what allows the rich and well connected get to lower their final tax rate. General Electric had the sanme corporate rate as large business, but through deductions did not have to pay taxes.

    Polititians don't like to touch deductions, because this is how they money launder campaign donations from wealthy special interest groups. The tax code is a who's who of campaign money laundering.

    If you were to touch deductions, the tax code would shrink shrink and the kickback scam would be harder. For example, unions contributed to Obama, so they get a deduction/exemption from Obamacare. They get their contribution money back by donating up front. If we eliminated all new deductions, then campaign contributions may not be cost effective. Hollywood got a new deduction since they provided campaign value via propaganda. They are very wealthy and may say we accept higher rates, but will pay less.

    Romney was well aware of how the game works. But since the game is still on, he and the other smart rich will always win the game, since there is always a need for money laundering by polititians.
    Which is one more reason to STOP taxing income (with the million loopholes in tens of thousands of pages of tax code) and tax consumption by a national VAT on ALL transactions. I could write the entire code on one single page. EVERYONE pays on everything except for healthful foods, medical care (not including drugs) and children's clothing.

    BTW: it is also informative to note the proportion of revenue that comes not from income tax itself, but payroll tax - which IMHO is the #1 shift of tax burden onto the middle class.

  10. #740
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York, New York
    Last Seen
    03-11-16 @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    551

    Re: Is it unreasonable for the wealthiest to pay a little more?

    No one should ever have to pay more than 40% in total taxes.

    Sadly, with today's tax environment some people are paying above 50% total tax.

Page 74 of 81 FirstFirst ... 24647273747576 ... 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
  •