Should the incomes of the wealthy be cut down to size?

[Robertinfremont]

Oh yeah, really? Take a guess on how much money Jeff Bezos paid in income tax last year? 0%

Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the top 1% said that his secretary pays more federal income tax than he does.

NO, the super wealthy do NOT pay their 'fair share' of income tax.

There always exception to any event.

Warren can always deliver more taxes (since supposedly income taxes are voluntary) along with he can give his secretary a lot more income since he has it.

Fair share to Democrats excuses them from paying their share since they pass their share to the rich. Funny they never show how unfair the least supporting of Government are escaping income taxes. To read the rich do not pay a fair share can in Democrats minds always take us down the path of being unfair to the Rich, yet very generous to themselves.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Oh yeah, really? Take a guess on how much money Jeff Bezos paid in income tax last year? 0%

Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the top 1% said that his secretary pays more federal income tax than he does.

NO, the super wealthy do NOT pay their 'fair share' of income tax.

I wish you understood what his salary is. He pays higher salaries to others on Amazon payroll than he is paying himself salary from the same firm.

Bezos gets wages a bit higher than $81,000 per annum.

Jeff Bezos made $81,840 last year. He's still the richest person in the world - CNN

New York (CNN Business)Jeff Bezos, the richest person in the world, has made the same $81,840 salary for two decades.

MORE ABOUT JEFF BEZOS
Fast facts about Jeff Bezos
He has never taken a stock award. Bezos doesn't need it -- he already owns 16% of Amazon, a stake worth more than $100 billion.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Poll? Where is the poll in this poll thread?

If you think they should be cut down, I have some questions.

1. Cut down for what purpose? ___________________
2. Cut down, how can they hire workers?__________________
3. Does the rising tide, lift all voters (er boats?)__________________
4. What happens to the new rich, such as Jeff Bezos? You do realize he started out poor and advanced his income by making your life easier? So since he is so good at cutting your expenses, do you gain by cutting back, laying off his workers?

This is only the beginning. We have thousands of the rich that bid for your food and sell it you cheap. You can purchase new autos due to the purchasing po:2dance:wer the rich have plus they cut down your costs of owning cars.

So should incomes be severely curtailed?__________________________

 

[rickc]

Righties :doh

You just can't fix stupid!

 

[Robertinfremont]

Poll? Where is the poll in this poll thread?

Oh hell, I am so sorry for abusing your right to read a poll.

I got started and forgot I was in the creating poll department.

 

[VanceMack]

Oh yeah, really? Take a guess on how much money Jeff Bezos paid in income tax last year? 0%

Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the top 1% said that his secretary pays more federal income tax than he does.

NO, the super wealthy do NOT pay their 'fair share' of income tax.

1-Buffet never said his secretary made more than he did. Not once. Obama inferred that...Buffet never even implied that or mentioned his secretary. Talking points are not your friend.
2-Buffets comments only tell part of the story. INCOME is taxed at a certain rate while INVESTMENTS are sheltered...but when those investments are cashed in you can bet your ass they will be taxed. Buffet will likely die never having touched his investment income. For all of his bull**** talk about benevolence, if he was sincere he could pull out the capital gains TODAY, be taxed on them, and then use that money for good.

Instead he made a pretty speech and everyone coo'd at him and told him what a marvelous billionaire he was.

 

[mrjurrs]

I suggest you study the ACRS laws that vastly increased revenue to Government but led to a magnificent rise in incomes for virtually the entire nation.

It was the way Reagan taxed us all and going into a much more efficient way that caused our rapid rise from poverty.

Reagan raised us from poverty? Hysterical laughing...

 

[mrjurrs]

It would truly benefit almost every citizen for Trump to be using the Reagan system. But Democrats are out to prevent using that system. Trump has to make do with his Democrats resistance.

You are far too emotional to be in this thread given you do not understand economics.

Claiming Reagan was our economic savior disqualifies you from discussing anyone's ability to understand economics.

 

[zimmer]

If you think they should be cut down, I have some questions.

1. Cut down for what purpose? ___________________
2. Cut down, how can they hire workers?__________________
3. Does the rising tide, lift all voters (er boats?)__________________
4. What happens to the new rich, such as Jeff Bezos? You do realize he started out poor and advanced his income by making your life easier? So since he is so good at cutting your expenses, do you gain by cutting back, laying off his workers?

This is only the beginning. We have thousands of the rich that bid for your food and sell it you cheap. You can purchase new autos due to the purchasing po:2dance:wer the rich have plus they cut down your costs of owning cars.

So should incomes be severely curtailed?__________________________

Yes... government employees should have their income seriously curtailed... and a huge chunk of them should be fired so the do something productive for society.

 

[What if...?]

But we live in a capitalist country. Those that work hard, experience great success, and have a right to reap the rewards. That's what the American dream is all about, that's why people came from by millions from countries all over the world to have the opportunity to get a slice of the pie. The rich just aren't paying enough because it's only the rich, not the middle class and certainly not the poor, that have all sorts of tax write-offs and can afford a bunch of tax attorneys making certain they aren't paying their fair share. It's the laws that are to blame.

Which they also purchase with campaign donations and promises of lucrative opportunities after serving in congress.

I agree with you to a point. But there are two kinds of rich people.

Those who provide some valuable product or service, some world changing technology. That become wealthy as a byproduct.

And those who just figure out how to tap income streams. Speculators who drive housing costs up by the simple expedient of buying up enough of the available properties in an area. Stock market types. Those kinds of activities. Extractive rather than productive.

And they all become problematic when their wealth grows to the point where they can buy politicians to increase their wealth.

 

[zimmer]

Reagan raised us from poverty? Hysterical laughing...

Are you familiar with stagflation?

Do you know why Carter is the 2nd worst President in American history... one notch above Obama?

Do you know who The King of the Misery Index is... and who inherited it and lifted us out of its deepest depths to an American Renaissance?

 

[HumblePi]

No true. Amazon allegedly paid zero.
First off, he didn't SAY that. He said she paid a higher RATE, which was disproved several times.
LOL, ah yes the idiotic LW mantra "fair share". That mythical mantra that has NEVER been quantified. Given that the top 10% of earners pay almost 90% of all income tax revenue what exactly is "fair share". You guys "jealousy taxation" is:

Now with your third trolling issue with my comment, and your response "hogwash" -- I will prove you wrong, again.




View attachment 67273724

Or course I meant Amazon, ie: Jeff Bezos' company, and 'the company' paid zero federal taxes last year, that's exactly what I said.

Irregardless as to whether Warren Buffet's paid more federal income tax or she paid a higher rate than he did, the point is the same. The billionaire paid income taxes at a much lower rate than his secretary and proportionately paid LESS.

Now to my last point and to your trolling comment of "hogwash". When the wealthiest Americans and big corporations take unfair advantage of the many loopholes in the tax code the rest of us pick up the tab. Rather than cutting S.S., Medicare and Medicaid or cutting education funding for our children, we should ask millionaires to pay a tax rate at least as high their secretary’s.

But there's something else, and we can use Trump as a perfect example of this since this began with Fred Trump. The extremely rich like the Trumps aren’t only earning and owning more, they're also passing wealth to their heirs tax free. What does that do? It creates a whole new American aristocracy with vast fortunes. Tax deductions that the wealthy take should at least meet a ceiling of 28%. Trump created another great tax savings for his friends, he did away with the heir tax. Some of the ultra-rich are able to take advantage of loopholes so they pay almost nothing in inheritance taxes. Others take advantage of the fact that the exemption levels for the estate tax are very high, $5.3 million per individual.

Without a doubt the system is geared to give the wealthy more benefits in tax loopholes than even a secretary is able to take advantage of.

So, Hogwash with your Hogwash!

 

[rickc]

Are you familiar with stagflation?

Do you know why Carter is the 2nd worst President in American history... one notch above Obama?

Do you know who The King of the Misery Index is... and who inherited it and lifted us out of its deepest depths to an American Renaissance?

View attachment 67273730

Really? Study the gold standard.and the.arab oil embargo

Carter’s immediate challenge was the combination of both inflation and unemployment. President Nixon had created inflation by ending the gold standard in 1973. As a result, the dollar's value plummeted on the foreign exchange markets. Import prices rose and created inflation. Nixon tried to stop it with wage-price controls in 1971. That cramped business growth and increased unemployment.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Claiming Reagan was our economic savior disqualifies you from discussing anyone's ability to understand economics.

I am very qualified. When he took charge of the then terrible Carter economy of that era, it is true the Reagan economy vastly improved.

PS. I grant one excellent move by Carter. He had deregulated prior to the Reagan years.

 

[Ikari]

If you think they should be cut down, I have some questions.

1. Cut down for what purpose? _To give to me__________________
2. Cut down, how can they hire workers?_Man, they have all that extra money they would have normally put in their own bank account, hire some more folk, raise wages, give it to me._________________
3. Does the rising tide, lift all voters (er boats?)_Not when the top 1% keep putting holes in the bottom of other people's boats_________________
4. What happens to the new rich, such as Jeff Bezos? You do realize he started out poor and advanced his income by making your life easier? So since he is so good at cutting your expenses, do you gain by cutting back, laying off his workers? They'll be alright, they'll still be rich. The only super rich person in the Republic should be me.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Really? Study the gold standard.and the.arab oil embargo

Carter’s immediate challenge was the combination of both inflation and unemployment. President Nixon had created inflation by ending the gold standard in 1973. As a result, the dollar's value plummeted on the foreign exchange markets. Import prices rose and created inflation. Nixon tried to stop it with wage-price controls in 1971. That cramped business growth and increased unemployment.

NO" no and NO.

I hated Nixon's guts and still do, yet he clamped down on America with his tax hikes, his mishandeling of the worst oil crisis and jailing of some oil producers. The Gold standard was useless. Proof is that the standard in no way prevented inflation nor depressions and or poor economies.

 

[presluc]

1-You never heard me support corporate bailouts.
2-Who controlled the budget in 2007?
3-Outsourcing has been a constant problem caused by unions, excessive government regulation and taxation. You want to keep ****ting on US workers, by all means...keep advocating for those leftist measures you support.
4-Education cuts, teacher cuts...take that up with your states and state legislatures. While you are at it you also probably want to talk to them about their ****ty management of their pension funds that are bankrupting their state budgets.
5-Food stamps are being cut because more people are in the workforce than at any time in history. Its truly sick that the previous administration not only created the food stamp dependency but also cheered it on as a 'good' thing.

And again...you missed the critical component that people like you ALWAYS miss in your talking point bull**** rhetoric. The single greatest INCOME category of the top 10% is PRIVATE BUSINESS...successful entrepreneurs...not the corporate entities you love to demonize.

Face it...no one stole your pennies. Whatever failings you have...you own them.

1 rich corporations ask for corporate bailouts remember the ones you constantly defend the rich the 10% so you must defend what the rich do they ask for bailouts.
2, Obama after he extended the tax cuts from 2000, your point or are you saying it matters which party was in office to submit the same damn policy that got us here to begin with
Perhaps I can save you some trouble if Bernie Sanders or any Democrat said things will stay the way they are I would criticize them just as hard.
When Obama was elected I Heard somebody say he extended the tax cuts , I figured well he must have a plan to slow them down or something no plan just more ****.
3 So are you saying that there is no Federal taxes taken from states now? That federal taxe are not applied to cigarettes now, that no federal housing takes place in any state.
States should be on their own, so if a state decides that no tax cuts for the rich here the money spent in this state stays n this state? HELL NO Wouldn't work I know that you know that , So stop blaming the states , last time it was the middle class living beyond their means, before that it was the elderly expecting a handout in SS, before that it was the working poor and poor lazy shiftless people living off of the government ,. So now it's the STATES FAULT, what next everybody that isn't rich or doesn't support the rich it's their fault for asking for CHANGE????
How about the management of tax funds that are not paid to the American government by corporations any of those out there any oil companies still getting subsidieseace

 

[VanceMack]

1 rich corporations ask for corporate bailouts remember the ones you constantly defend the rich the 10% so you must defend what the rich do they ask for bailouts.
2, Obama after he extended the tax cuts from 2000, your point or are you saying it matters which party was in office to submit the same damn policy that got us here to begin with
Perhaps I can save you some trouble if Bernie Sanders or any Democrat said things will stay the way they are I would criticize them just as hard.
When Obama was elected I Heard somebody say he extended the tax cuts , I figured well he must have a plan to slow them down or something no plan just more ****.
3 So are you saying that there is no Federal taxes taken from states now? That federal taxe are not applied to cigarettes now, that no federal housing takes place in any state.
States should be on their own, so if a state decides that no tax cuts for the rich here the money spent in this state stays n this state? HELL NO Wouldn't work I know that you know that , So stop blaming the states , last time it was the middle class living beyond their means, before that it was the elderly expecting a handout in SS, before that it was the working poor and poor lazy shiftless people living off of the government ,. So now it's the STATES FAULT, what next everybody that isn't rich or doesn't support the rich it's their fault for asking for CHANGE????
How about the management of tax funds that are not paid to the American government by corporations any of those out there any oil companies still getting subsidieseace

1-Please feel free to fail at showing a single instance where you have ever seen me defend a corporate bailout. What I DO defend against is the idiotic tendency of socialists to blame corporations for their own pathetic existences. And yeah...you will find LOTS of examples of that.
2-Nice dodge...now answer the question. Who controlled the budget in 2007?
Your 3 was I assume supposed to be 4...and again you fail miserably at answering the question. The federal government does not pay for teachers or schools. You wont find me defending exorbitant federal taxes for redundant federal programs like the Dept of Education. I think that rather than sending state money to the fed for that money to be burned in bureaucracy, the fed Dept of Education should be killed and the states should keep their money and better apportion it a required. BUT...if you are bitching and moaning about teachers salaries and education spending, blame yourself, blame you sate...because thats your job. Do your job.

And before you bitch about taxing corporations, you should actually do abetter job at understanding corporations. People like and AOC bitched about Amazon and cost their city billions in jobs and tax revenue...because you dont understand who and what you are demonizing.

Look..Ive said it before. You dont like corporations...fine. You know what would be awesome? People like you build your wonderful commie socialist workers utopias RIGHT NOW. Invest YOUR money,..your work...put YOUR ass on the line. Get investors...hell...Bernie would probably mortgage a few houses to help you out....right? EVERYONE talks big **** about corporations and capitalists and blah blah blah...until you are given the task to put up or shut up. Then....all you have are excuses.

 

[mrjurrs]

I suggest you study the ACRS laws that vastly increased revenue to Government but led to a magnificent rise in incomes for virtually the entire nation.

It was the way Reagan taxed us all and going into a much more efficient way that caused our rapid rise from poverty.

1-you're gonna need a source for that claim
2-the idea that accelerated depreciation lifted the wealth level of the nation is laughable (unless you want to claim that wealth accumulated by the top 10% makes the nation wealthier)

 

[mrjurrs]

Obama increased taxes and spending at a much higher rate.

Sorry but though Reagan submitted his own budget. Congress never even one time kept spending as low as Reagan wanted.

cherry pick much?

 

[mrjurrs]

The "path to ruin"? Are you ****ting me? This country is more prosperous and successful than ever before.

Don't let the truth hit you in the rear. Please define prosperous and successful.

 

[mrjurrs]

I am very qualified. When he took charge of the then terrible Carter economy of that era, it is true the Reagan economy vastly improved.

PS. I grant one excellent move by Carter. He had deregulated prior to the Reagan years.

Which president started the dramatic increase in our national debt?

 

[Casper]

However you would be completely unavailable to be enormously taxed. This is the major problem with having Democrats pick who gets to pay super high taxes vs virtually no taxes for others. Fair taxes would be when the Congress spends responsibly lowering paid taxes.

Dude, I believe in a workable consumption tax, no loop holes, no avoiding it, when you spend you pay, real simple.

 

[mrjurrs]

So you support the rip off artists. I realised that up front.

You don't think the top 10% of Americans aren't ripping off the country? Did you look at any of the income graphs posted earlier? Who are the rip off artists in your mind?

 

[Bullseye]

Don't let the truth hit you in the rear. Please define prosperous and successful.

If I have to define those terms, you'll never understand.