- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 59,366
- Reaction score
- 27,050
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Which has to do with what?
Jallman gets it.
Which has to do with what?
Which has to do with what?
It's not for someone who is already a billionaire and who earned more than a billion dollars in one year.
Jallman gets it.
Tax income goes to more than "just" providing housing for those who cannot.
Warren told me that they can f**k off then, he wont work for two years tax money.
If I would go utopian for a moment, I would rather have them tax certain consumer goods heavily. We all need food, shelter and things that give us hope like education and healthcare, no need to tax that heavily. On the other hand, hummers, fake tits, kaviar, whale meat, pda's, lawyers and other crap could be taxed 500%.
I'm sure most rich socially responsible people would have no problem being taxed higher than the most so long as they knew the government was spending their money responsibly. If we are to tax the rich like the way I was saying, the government would have to be much more responsible and transparent and it would need to downsize too.
What do you think, would people earning over $250K a year miss 5%?
Which justifies robbing a man of his money...how?
Which "aristocrats" pay nothing in taxes? I call bull****.
The uber rich, the likes of Buffet and such, tend to pay a lower marginal tax rate than their secretaries.
I guess what I don't get is why you have this aching desire to penalize people's success with higher taxes.
Only they pay 186 million in taxes. Which is basically the budget of an University.
Only they pay 186 million in taxes. Which is basically the budget of an University.
I don't have a desire to tax those with a higher income. My dad is one who is earning over 250k. I have a lucky life. And we know many people who earn similar or more money. I am not saying to raise the income tax on them. Raise the income tax on the Warren Buffets of this country. They make more money then the combined salaries of many small size companies. Its ridiculous.
That is nothing compared to what they are earning.
So again, why penalize the success of a man with higher taxes just because he has succeeded in making a higher income?
So again, why penalize the success of a man with higher taxes just because he has succeeded in making a higher income?
Because their comes a point where they have earned it to the point where they are just sitting around not doing anything to earn it. Like Warren Buffet.
K, so you favor regressive taxation. Got it.
I don't think that when some level is reached, people are given options to lower their tax rate while others making less are left with no such option. We can solve the problem by lowering everyone's taxes. Though we'll have to cut services as well.
So they earned the right to...stop earning?
You aren't even making sense. Face it, your logic is the same logic that the shoplifter uses. Walmart isn't going to miss it so just take it from them.
That's not cool.
And you're dishonest in claiming the rich pay 'nothing' in taxes when in fact they pay more in a year than you and I could hope to pay in our lifetimes.
I'm all for cutting services.
We can start with these junkie needle exchange programs here in california. And the junkie nurses to give junkies their shots "safely" programs. And then we can stop paying for all these spontaneous parades here. I mean, do we really need a mexican day every single month?
That's just a start.
No...that's not my logic.
They still would be earning and still be considered a billionaire and still be able to afford a million islands or buying their own country if they want to even after paying their income taxes.
What I am suggesting is that if these people paid more in their income taxes then we wouldn't have to pick up their slack. They are not making you rich. So why do you care so much? Do you understand that they would still be able to afford the nicest things in life? It is in no way stealing.