What a...

[Z1NONLY 10+ year member]

After 5 times asking the same question with no answer, what do you expect. I edited my post. (even though you didn't provide a tax rate.)

You are a class bigot. You think rich people have less of a right to what they earn than you do.

"Fair share" my @$$.

The rich already pay higher income tax rates than everyone else.

It took us years to understand how separate and unequal by race was bad. I guess it will take longer still before we realize that "Jim crow" isn't any better when it's implemented by economic class.

Hell. At least the bigots that supported "jim crow" tried to at least pretend that it was separate but "equal".

Class bigotry is so in-style, that the left doesn't even bother to pretend they want to treat this minority group equally.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Yeah, those poor poor millionaires.

At the end of the day, I think it's fair for the people at the top to pay a larger share of their income than the people at the bottom so the people at the bottom can live a little bit more comfortably. It makes a big difference for the people at the bottom, while the rich will be rich regardless. The fact is, though, that there is no objective correct or incorrect. We have different positions and different ideologies. Sure, I'd characterize it as you're more worried about the .5% richest people in this country (millionaires) who don't need anyone to worry about them while I care more about the majority who DO need people to worry about them, but it's still entirely objective.

What isn't objective, however, is the effects of what I think is fair versus what you think is fair. The middle class is a socialist creation. It was created by the government and is supported by government taxing the rich more than everyone else and redistribution of wealth. What is fact is that if you move to a flat tax where everyone pays the same amount, the middle class will disappear and the standard of living so many Americans have benefited from will along with it.

Stick to your principles if you want, but don't complain that our economy never gets better.

 

[thevic24 5,000+ posts]

Three Good Reasons to Let the High-End Bush Tax Cuts Disappear This Year
Letting the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year (notice, in the progressive tax system we have, their income under $250k will still be taxed like everyone else in the country, it's just their income over $250k that will be taxed more) will save us $690 billion dollars over the next 10 years. In case you're not familiar with the Bush tax cuts, we're talking an increase from 35% to 39.6%. A 4.6% increase results in $690 billion in savings over the next 10 years. And that isn't taking into account the save on the enormous interest we pay.

Here is what the tax rates were before Reagan's cuts, adjusted for inflation. (And we survived good before then)

0% $9,715.89

14% $15,716.88

16% $14,002.31

18% $34,005.61

21% $45,721.83

24% $57,723.80

28% $70,297.31

32% $85,442.66

37% $100,588.02

43% $130,878.72

49% $171,456.84

54% $244,611.77

59% $312,622.98

64% $464,076.53

68% $615,530.07

70%

The dollar amounts is the max that the rate applies to. So, for example, the rate is 0% for income up to $9,715.98. It's 14% for income between $9,715.90 and $15,716.88. There doesn't need to be that many brackets, but I think we should use these as a base.

This is what they are now.

10.0% $17,000

15.0% $69,000

25.0% $139,350

28.0% $212,300

33.0% $379,150

35.0%

Here is an idea of what I want.

0% $10,000

8% $40,000

15% $60,000

20% $80,000

25% $150,000

35% $250,000

45% $650,000

55%

Here is what people of these income levels would pay in income tax.

Income: Before Reagan / Today / Mine

$12,000: $319.78 / $1,200.00 / $160.00

$20,000: $1,645.39 / $2,150.00 / $800.00

$30,000: $3,445.39 / $3,650.00 / $1,600.00

$45,000: $6,475.22 / $5,900.00 / $3,150.00

$60,000: $10,144.62 / $8,150.00 / $5,400.00

$75,000: $14,532.72 / $11,000.00 / $8,400.00

$90,000: $19,560.59 / $14,750.00 / $11,900.00

$120,000: $31,825.31 / $22,250.00 / $19,400.00

$150,000: $45,872.59 / $30,069.50 / $26,900.00

$200,000: $71,799.74 / $44,069.50 / $44,400.00

$260,000: $104,969.16 / $63,254.50 / $66,400.00

$350,000: $159,938.01 / $92,954.50 / $106,900.00

$400,000: $191,938.01 / $109,871.50 / $129,400.00

$600,000: $325,374.95 / $179,871.50 / $219,400.00

$750,000: $430,064.34 / $232,371.50 / $296,900.00

$1,000,000: $605,064.34 / $319,871.50 / $434,400.00

$2,000,000: $1,305,064.34 / $669,871.50 / $984,400.00

$10,000000: $6,905,064.34 / $3,469,871.50 / $5,384,400.00

Notice that today versus before Reagan, poor people pay more, the middle class pays about the same and the rich pay significantly less. And what has this done for us, other than build up a gigantic debt? Nothing.

My tax brackets would significantly decrease deficit and you could remove a lot of exemptions as well, for both the rich and poor/middle class.

Tax bracket information: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf

I see your point but....

I just cant see how its fair for one group to pay X % in tax while another group pays X amount.

IMO, it should be the same % for everyone that makes more than....lest say 15k a year.

We also have to take into account the taxes the uber rich pay when the buy something uber expensive.

You get hit with a luxury tax along with sales tax and so on for certain goods.(Jets, excessively large home, exotic cars and so on.)

Joe Blow making 25k a year is not out there buying jets, limo's, buildings, and homes in the Hampton's...

For me, asking(or forcing)someone to pay .45-50 cents (and more) for every dollar they make is just not fair no matter how much you make.

Specially when there is wasteful spending of any kind in the government.

If I find my self needing more $$ but can't get my job to give me a raise, well then I need to look into my budget with what I make and cut out the

wasteful spending.

It would be like me blowing all my $$$ on coke and hookers, not being able to pay my bills and then forcing my job to pay me more....

If I was uber rich, making 10, 000,000 + a year and got taxed 50% or more, I could just close up shop and move me, my business and my $$$ to somewhere over seas and continue to live nicely.......with that, the US would be out of what I would have been paying in the first place.(as an example)

To be honest, I'am a cheap bastard and would not want to make that much $$$. I am more than comfortable now, still have 2 homes (Fl and Ga), 3 trucks, a boat and a car. Nothing fancy but Iam (me and the family) very happy. But that is just me.

 

[thevic24 5,000+ posts]

Yeah, those poor poor millionaires.
At the end of the day, I think it's fair for the people at the top to pay a larger share of their income than the people at the bottom so the people at the bottom can live a little bit more comfortably. It makes a big difference for the people at the bottom, while the rich will be rich regardless. The fact is, though, that there is no objective correct or incorrect. We have different positions and different ideologies. Sure, I'd characterize it as you're more worried about the .5% richest people in this country (millionaires) who don't need anyone to worry about them while I care more about the majority who DO need people to worry about them, but it's still entirely objective.

What isn't objective, however, is the effects of what I think is fair versus what you think is fair. The middle class is a socialist creation. It was created by the government and is supported by government taxing the rich more than everyone else and redistribution of wealth. What is fact is that if you move to a flat tax where everyone pays the same amount, the middle class will disappear and the standard of living so many Americans have benefited from will along with it.

Stick to your principles if you want, but don't complain that our economy never gets better.

So let me ask you,

If you become a very successful architectural designer through all of you schooling, hard work and having to pay your cost of schooling back. Then you come up with an outstanding design, sell it for 10mil, you would then have NO problems giving up half or more of that with out question? (honestly)

Requiring someone to do this, to me, is basically punishing them for being successful.

In the above example, you would be punished by paying more(you get fined when you speed, run lights and brake the laws) money for the success you just had with YOUR time, money invested, and hard work. Not saying that all the uber rich get that way honestly and with hard work but a lot do, same with the poor. Some are by unfortunate events and some are because they are just plain lazy.

And in your quote above, that would not happen. There will always be poor, middle class and rich no matter what. (unless you tax the rich into being poor and then you would have even more poor.)

There will always be someone making "min wage", some one making boo koo $$$$ and those in between that, what ever the actual income levels are.

 

[Z1NONLY 10+ year member]

Yeah, those poor poor millionaires.

Are they, or are they not American citizens? Do they, or do they not have as much of a right to their income as other citizens?

At the end of the day, I think it's fair for the people at the top to pay a larger share of their income than the people at the bottom so the people at the bottom can live a little bit more comfortably.

Of course you do. And white plantation owners once thought it was "fair" that people with certain skin colors bailed the hay.

Here's a hint. Don't use your status as a member of the majority to inflict burdens on a minority group you are unwilling to carry with your own **** shoulders.

It makes a big difference for the people at the bottom, while the rich will be rich regardless.

If a given tax rate is to high for anyone it's to high for everyone.

As a compromise to class bigot's, I would be willing to render equal treatment under the tax code to every citizen above the poverty line.

A national sales tax, with a "prebate" for every man woman and child (rich or poor) for the amount of sales taxes paid on "needs" would treat everyone equally..and still end up with the "evil rich" paying most of the taxes in this country.

The fact is, though, that there is no objective correct or incorrect.

You are simply wrong. Equal treatment under the law is objective. Equal means equal. You seem to have an "Animal Farm" view of the word "equal."

We have different positions and different ideologies. Sure, I'd characterize it as you're more worried about the .5% richest people in this country (millionaires) who don't need anyone to worry about them while I care more about the majority who DO need people to worry about them, but it's still entirely objective.

Sure. You could also claim that pigs fly out of your @$$ and be just as accurate. I want equal treatment under the law for everyone. You....don't.

What isn't objective, however, is the effects of what I think is fair versus what you think is fair. The middle class is a socialist creation. It was created by the government and is supported by government taxing the rich more than everyone else and redistribution of wealth.

Really now? Seriously? WTF is wrong with you? The "classes" are simply arbitrary lines set for the purpose of pitting petty envious people against those who have more than they do.

Free people, grown men and women, making choices with their own resources and putting forth effort where and how they choose determines where they end up. (In a free society at least)

What is fact is that if you move to a flat tax where everyone pays the same amount, the middle class will disappear and the standard of living so many Americans have benefited from will along with it.

Really? You think a "fact" is an event you predict will happen?

The truth is that it's easy for people to demand government goodies when they can also vote to force others to foot the bill.

Obama called it "skin in the game". Right now half the country is able to vote on the income tax game and use other people's "skin".

That's a recipe for disaster and I'm surprised we've survived this long with people voting themselves money out of other people's pockets.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Well, of course I wouldn't like it. But while I know I'd never convince anyone here of this, no, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Even if I knew that that is my future, I'd still have the position I do today. Even if that is my future 30 years from now and I'm making millions, I'll still have the position I do today. I'd be more than happy knowing a large amount of that money is going towards helping those who aren't so fortunate as me to sell a collection of papers for $10 million dollars. Plus, $5 million is still a shit ton of money.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Of course you do. And white plantation owners once thought it was "fair" that people with certain skin colors bailed the hay.

Are you really trying to say that leaving someone who makes $10 million dollars a year $5 million after taxes is just as bad as subject thousands of people to slavery?

 

[thevic24 5,000+ posts]

Well, of course I wouldn't like it. But while I know I'd never convince anyone here of this, no, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Even if I knew that that is my future, I'd still have the position I do today. Even if that is my future 30 years from now and I'm making millions, I'll still have the position I do today. I'd be more than happy knowing a large amount of that money is going towards helping those who aren't so fortunate as me to sell a collection of papers for $10 million dollars. Plus, $5 million is still a shit ton of money.

....Not liking something usually means someone has a problem with that something, hence the reason for not liking that something.

 

[Z1NONLY 10+ year member]

Are you really trying to say that leaving someone who makes $10 million dollars a year $5 million after taxes is just as bad as subject thousands of people to slavery?

I'm saying your definition of "fair" is unequal treatment of people under the law. Slavery was also unequal treatment.

Are you admitting that discriminating against a minority group is ok with you?

 

[thevic24 5,000+ posts]

And with the whole socialism vs capitalist thing...

Look at every major economy in the world. The US(capitalist) have a few socialist ways of doing things.

China and Russa (socialist) have always had a few capitalist ways.

As far as China is concerned, they have been leaning towards a capitalist society more and more for the last few decades and look at

what is happening for them. Russia is slowly leaning away from socialism as well.

Iam not saying either way is to blame for China's enormously booming economy but clearly becoming more capitalist is helping.

While at the same time, we (the US) seem to be slowly leaning more and more socialist with the opposite results.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

....Not liking something usually means someone has a problem with that something, hence the reason for not liking that something.

Like anyone, I'd rather have $10 million instead of $5 million. I don't like the government taking away my money but I know it's for the greater good so I'm okay with it.

 

[Z1NONLY 10+ year member]

Like anyone, I'd rather have $10 million instead of $5 million. I don't like the government taking away my money but I know it's for the greater good so I'm okay with it.

Discrimination against a minority group "for the greater good." What a great excuse for a bad, and fundamentally unfair, idea.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

we (the US) seem to be slowly leaning more and more socialist with the opposite results.

You're going to have to be more specific. I think the opposite. In the past 100 years we've gone from mostly pure capitalism to a mixed economy and it has been extremely beneficial to the average person. In the 1800s people were working 80 hour weeks and 24 hour shifts for less than poverty wages, with no alternative. And they lived in housing owned by the person they worked for and they owed money to him. It was basically indentured servitude. It wasn't until government created things like minimum wage, child labor laws and the 40 hour work week that the middle class was born. Senior poverty was rampant and creating problems and things like SS and Medicare were created. These things are all socialism and they're all extremely beneficial and successful. Over the past 100 years the middle class has gained a larger share of wealth and that is why our economy was so strong. Economies are built from the bottom up, not the top down. If you give the middle class/poor more money to spend then the rich will sell more products and in turn hire more people. A strong economy isn't about the amount of money owned by the rich but how much money is flowing through the economy.

In the past 30 years, we've seen the opposite of this. Government is redistributing less, the middle class/poor have a smaller share of the wealth in this country (and thus, less money to spend) and the economy is suffering because of it. The middle class is disintegrating and it's because of less government, not more.

Also, China isn't doing so well because of capitalism, it's because labor is extremely cheap there and US companies are outsourcing all of our jobs there and it's bring in a lot of money.

 

[Z1NONLY 10+ year member]

In the past 30 years, we've seen the opposite of this. Government is redistributing less, the middle class/poor have a smaller share of the wealth in this country (and thus, less money to spend) and the economy is suffering because of it. The middle class is disintegrating and it's because of less government, not more.

Really?

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Really?

I'm not watching some idiotic youtube video that sources the heritage foundation. Show me a legit article and I'll read it.

And yes, really.

Census: US poverty rate swells to nearly 1 in 6 - Yahoo! News

Middle-class income fell in the last decade - Yahoo! Finance

Personal savings rate: worse than we thought - Jun. 30, 2010

Economy: Will Middle Class America Ever See A Real Raise Again? - ABC News

The Vicious Cycle of Stagnant Wages | Mother Jones

Top 1 Percent of Americans Reaped Two-Thirds of Income Gains in Last Economic Expansion — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

That last one is an excellent one and shows exactly what I was saying. In the middle of the last century, thanks to government, the middle class's wealth overall grew enormously. Now, thanks to the rise of the right the past 30 years, the gains are being lost.