View Poll Results: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Income Taxes

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

    38 33.93%
  • No

    72 64.29%
  • I don't know

    2 1.79%
Page 46 of 61 FirstFirst ... 36444546474856 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 603

Thread: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

  1. #451
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,748
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    What I've said for a long time now, Jack, is that if entry-level workers are paid a living wage, then they can pay their fair share of taxes...which you must admit would take some of the tax burden away from the rich. One could argue that instead of paying taxes, the rich would lose just as much or more because they'd be paying their workers more...but the flip side to that argument is that the lower middle-class and below generally don't have much in the way of savings - they spend pretty much all their income...which goes right back into the pockets of the rich.
    Rising incomes at the bottom will never cause tax rates at the top to be lowered.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  2. #452
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by PoS View Post
    The so-called poor in America would actually be considered well off if you compare them with other countries so to even label them as "poor" is just socialist propaganda and caters to those who want to maintain the welfare state.

    What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox
    The max income to be considered impoverished by the federal government is $11,670 for an individual. Those in the top tax bracket make 34 times that amount. Even after they pay their 'high" taxes they keep at least 22 times that amount. (assuming they take no deductions)

    It is because of our welfare state that we don't have large numbers of sick, crippled, seriously malnourished people, including old people and children begging on our streets and we don't have shanty towns like they do in many places without a safety net. We are also free of the riots and rebellions associated with extreme poverty.




  3. #453
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    That comment has no meaning.
    Get some reading comprehension.


  4. #454
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,748
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Get some reading comprehension.
    There is no point to your comment. It is devoid of meaning. It is an empty dodge.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  5. #455
    User Clem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    22

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    I am not aware that there has been any MW increase of 50% in the past...and that means that your question is logically fallacious. I asked you if you can show if there have been many jobs lost in the past due to MW increases - and there HAVE been many MW increases. But your question asks me to prove a negative...which is a logical fallacy.

    FYI, it was 1938 when America first introduced the minimum wage - and one could argue that the initial introduction of a minimum wage is by definition a 100% MW hike. So...when the MW was first introduced in 1938, did that drive us further into the Depression? Apparently not.

    And Australia - where the minimum wage is over twice what our own is - has not had a recession in over twenty years. Been to Perth three times and Hobart, Tasmania twice...and you'd be amazed to see the similarities in how things work there compared to here...and I never once saw a homeless person there.

    I know, I know, your next reply will be "So why don't you move to Australia?" And my reply to that is (1) I've thought about it many times, but I like the weather here better, and (2) what the heck is wrong with looking at what other nations are doing, and if their ideas are working better, putting them into action here? There's nothing wrong with that - we're all every bit as human as each other...and people really are the same all over the world.
    Your ignorance does not necessarily make others queries illogical fallacies, which as a rule tend to be in answer and not question form.

    Meanwhile, 1950. Check it out. It's in the "or more" range. And as any logical person would expect, unemployment dropped precipitously. When demand increases due to larger paychecks being spent, hiring is needed to meet the higher demand. But that's basic stuff and very obvious.

    One of the less obvious dynamics of rapidly increased worker pay is a lowering in inflation of consumer goods which easily scale to demand (most, if not all, today). Businesses have two ways of profiting: margin and volume. As inflation steadily chips away at buying power, businesses focus on margin. Fewer units must make more per unit. Then something happens, such as wage laws or the union forcing a better wage at the local mill. Stuff is suddenly purchased in higher unit quantity and business responds as it tends to (fear of opportunity loss). Sales are up. Profits are up. Wait. My competitor is doing better, too. Probably better than me. But if I put my most popular seller on special I'll snap up some customers before the competition can respond; some or even many of whom might become regulars once they see that I'm way better because my frozen fries have seasoning salt and not plain salt, which is what I prefer, so everyone will go ape over it. It's marketing that makes me money (lower margin), rather than advertising with that damn yellow pages book that reaches the last three non Google users at the old folks home, and will be way more successful because I know this business and don't need no fancy pants MBA guy to tell me how to make money. (read: small business is the backbone of America, and that backbone is comprised of idiots. People too damn stupid to get a job or see that the business they know nothing about is a long shot at best. But some serendipity (market tanks and steak buyers cut back to crappy burgers and frozen fries with some orange crap sprinkled on them that tastes weird but fits the lower spending needed to avoid foreclosure) shine it's bright light on the moron and he / he is now a business genius and did it by power of sheer will, hard work and above average intelligence for a guy who struggled in high school probably cuz teachers didn't reach his upper intelligence and thus he had no choice but to think about which WWF athlete has the best mullet.)

    Job creators. The folks who make life possible and keep us from being USSR or North Korea, who did everything themselves with no help whatsoever from guvmn't, which needs to get out of the way of business and let hardworking businesses that create jobs for kids that need to learn about working so someone later in life can pay them decent, and let business accept EBT since Subway cold sandwiches and burgers with orangish looking fries is the same stuff.

    Read: businesses are frightened little rabbits with idiots running them. We need to create an environment that even an idiot can sell stuff. Workers with disposable income is the key.

  6. #456
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,471

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Rising incomes at the bottom will never cause tax rates at the top to be lowered.
    Why not? And please don't say that "those liberals" won't let it happen. You must admit that - just as Dubya argued in 2001 - if we've got a surplus (which would be more likely with the added tax revenue from the entry-level people making a living wage), then a lot of people would support tax cuts since they would think the government no longer needs that extra revenue. The fact that the money would be better used to pay down the debt - which Clinton did with $453B over four years even though the interest accumulated an extra $400B - will probably not register as strongly as another tax break would.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  7. #457
    Minister of Love
    PoS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oceania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,938

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    The max income to be considered impoverished by the federal government is $11,670 for an individual. Those in the top tax bracket make 34 times that amount. Even after they pay their 'high" taxes they keep at least 22 times that amount. (assuming they take no deductions)
    Whether they keep 22 times that or a million times that why do you care?

    It is because of our welfare state that we don't have large numbers of sick, crippled, seriously malnourished people, including old people and children begging on our streets and we don't have shanty towns like they do in many places without a safety net. We are also free of the riots and rebellions associated with extreme poverty.
    Welfare was enacted in the Great Depression. And we never had riots and rebellions when it came to poor people. The fact of the matter is if a so called poor person in the US can afford to buy an Xbox then that person isnt starving. Nobody starves to death in America unless its on purpose.

  8. #458
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,471

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Clem View Post
    Workers with disposable income is the key.
    The above is the only sentence in your comment that really advances the argument. Entry-level workers normally spend just about every penny of their income - and that would almost certainly not change if they were being paid a living wage. If every entry-level worker's making a living wage, pretty much every bit of that is going back into the economy...and back into the pockets of the rich.

    Here's a Harvard study for you - it turns out that Costco, which is paying its workers a living wage, is spending less per employee than Sam's Club, which pays its workers normal Wal-Mart pittances. Now doesn't that look strange? Costco's spending less per employee even though they're paying their workers a lot more? How could that possibly happen?

    The High Cost of Low Wages:

    Though the businesses are direct competitors and quite similar overall, a remarkable disparity shows up in their wage and benefits structures. The average wage at Costco is $17 an hour. Wal-Mart does not break out the pay of its Sam’s Club workers, but a full-time worker at Wal-Mart makes $10.11 an hour on average, and a variety of sources suggest that Sam’s Club’s pay scale is similar to Wal-Mart’s. A 2005 New York Times article by Steven Greenhouse reported that at $17 an hour, Costco’s average pay is 72% higher than Sam’s Club’s ($9.86 an hour). Interviews that a colleague and I conducted with a dozen Sam’s Club employees in San Francisco and Denver put the average hourly wage at about $10. And a 2004 BusinessWeek article by Stanley Holmes and Wendy Zellner estimated Sam’s Club’s average hourly wage at $11.52.

    On the benefits side, 82% of Costco employees have health-insurance coverage, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart. And Costco workers pay just 8% of their health premiums, whereas Wal-Mart workers pay 33% of theirs. Ninety-one percent of Costco’s employees are covered by retirement plans, with the company contributing an annual average of $1,330 per employee, while 64 percent of employees at Sam’s Club are covered, with the company contributing an annual average of $747 per employee.

    Costco’s practices are clearly more expensive, but they have an offsetting cost-containment effect: Turnover is unusually low, at 17% overall and just 6% after one year’s employment. In contrast, turnover at Wal-Mart is 44% a year, close to the industry average. In skilled and semi-skilled jobs, the fully loaded cost of replacing a worker who leaves (excluding lost productivity) is typically 1.5 to 2.5 times the worker’s annual salary. To be conservative, let’s assume that the total cost of replacing an hourly employee at Costco or Sam’s Club is only 60% of his or her annual salary. If a Costco employee quits, the cost of replacing him or her is therefore $21,216. If a Sam’s Club employee leaves, the cost is $12,617. At first glance, it may seem that the low-wage approach at Sam’s Club would result in lower turnover costs. But if its turnover rate is the same as Wal-Mart’s, Sam’s Club loses more than twice as many people as Costco does: 44% versus 17%. By this calculation, the total annual cost to Costco of employee churn is $244 million, whereas the total annual cost to Sam’s Club is $612 million. That’s $5,274 per Sam’s Club employee, versus $3,628 per Costco employee.

    In return for its generous wages and benefits, Costco gets one of the most loyal and productive workforces in all of retailing, and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest shrinkage (employee theft) figures in the industry. While Sam’s Club and Costco generated $37 billion and $43 billion, respectively, in U.S. sales last year, Costco did it with 38% fewer employees—admittedly, in part by selling to higher-income shoppers and offering more high-end goods. As a result, Costco generated $21,805 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee, compared with $11,615 at Sam’s Club. Costco’s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.
    (boldface mine)

    The above isn't liberal tripe - it's real-world numbers. Pay your workers a living wage, and you'll have more loyal workers and spend a heck of a lot less in turnover costs.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  9. #459
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    There is no point to your comment. It is devoid of meaning. It is an empty dodge.
    Jesus H.Christ Jack, do you know when to stop this bull****?


  10. #460
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,748
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do The Rich Pay Too Much Federal Income Taxes

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Why not? And please don't say that "those liberals" won't let it happen. You must admit that - just as Dubya argued in 2001 - if we've got a surplus (which would be more likely with the added tax revenue from the entry-level people making a living wage), then a lot of people would support tax cuts since they would think the government no longer needs that extra revenue. The fact that the money would be better used to pay down the debt - which Clinton did with $453B over four years even though the interest accumulated an extra $400B - will probably not register as strongly as another tax break would.
    Those liberals won't let it happen.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

Page 46 of 61 FirstFirst ... 36444546474856 ... 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
  •