Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on September 21, 2003, 06:20:59 PM
-
I had a very interesting conversation today with a gentleman I see on Sunday's at the Museum.
The conversation started normally discussing interest rates, the market, and his account at another investment firm.
Somehow the conversation turned to politics and Mike's (not his real name) Distaste for the current president.
I asked him why he spoke with such venom for George Bush.
He said that he did not believe in what we're doing in Iraq, and that he didn't think we could possibly succeed.
So I asked him how long it took to rebuild Germany. Mike is a World War II veteran and a bomber pilot who was captured by the Nazis. He went on to tell me how years after the war, you can still see the devastation in the German countryside. He told me how entire cities were leveled, cratered and annihilated, and how the situation had not improved noticeably even by 1947.
I quickly pointed out that even in Nazi Germany, there was a significant amount resistance after the war. Mike disagreed saying he was nowhere near the level of resistance we've encountered in Iraq. I said that was probably not true, but because of the Internet and the proliferation of television, it simply seemed like they were more postwar casualties in Iraq, where they're probably were many more in Germany, simply because the size of the occupying force. Those casualties simply were not broadcast on a daily basis, nearly instantly.
I asked Mike how long it to before Germany really started to progress. He simply rolled his eyes and said it had to be at least four years. I said to Mike you do realize we've been in Iraq for 18 weeks.
Strangely enough, he changed the subject. The economy, he thought, was President Bush's greatest downfall. Why is that liberals have a tendency to change the subject so quickly, instead of exploring the opposition's feelings on-topic? Instead of trying to see it from another point of you, soon as they sense resistance to their cause or their believe structure, they suddenly become defensive and want to talk about something else.
So we started discussing George Bush's recent tax-cut. Mike said he was of the belief that the tax-cut, and the Republican Party simply favor the wealthy. My first thought and comment was, " but Mike you just finished telling me he got $2 million in municipal bonds at that other investment firm. Youre a wealthy men." Mike disagreed and said he wasn't. I said you do realize that the average salary in United States for family of four is about $35,000 per year. He was surprised to hear this but simply continued saying that the the wealthy did not need tax-cut. I asked him why as this made no sense to me. It's my understanding that the more you pay and taxes, the more you should benefit from a tax-cut. I went on to describe how a person who pays $2000 a year in taxes should not yet the same amount of money back as someone who pays $200,000 in taxes. Everyone getting back the same, regardless of how much is earned or paid, sounds a little bit like the redistribution of wealth, or a Communist system.
Mike said he believed that if you cut taxes for the lower and middle classes, you are much more likely to spur the economy as these people will spend the money,while the ultra wealthy will not. I simply cannot see this, because I see a person who makes $1 million a year, having a lot more spending power, and putting more money back of the economy than some who earns $20,000 a year. Not that one person is better than another, but that one simply drives economy more.
It's like a story I heard recently about a baseball game. Imagine a ballgame, where there are four different grades of seats. You got the bleacher seats that cost $10, the upper tiers that cost 20, the fieldlevel boxes that are 50 and the Diamond club suites that cost $100. Now imagine the game is rained out. According to the way I see it, everyone should get back what they paid. The Diamond club owners get $100 and on down to the bleacher seats that get back $10. This is not how the liberals see it. It was up to them, the Diamond club ticketholders would get back nothing. Why? Well they don't need the money they're obviously wealthy, and it's up to them to help everybody else. The field level boxes would get back $25, because there still pretty wealthy and really don't need all their money back. The upper tiers, they're the middle class and they need almost every dime they can get so they get back a full $20. Now the bleacher seat ticketholders will get back $20. They did not pay as much but obviously they're not doing so well. They need all the money they can get so will give them twice what they paid.
It seems to me that Democrats and liberals are very generous with my money. Mike has no problem voting in a democratic candidate, who may bring about the flat tax, or even pass legislation, that takes aim at the upper middle-class or wealthy. Apparently, success should be penalized in this country. Why should Mike worry? He's got $2 million in tax free municipal bonds paying him $70,000 a year in tax free interest. I guess it's easy to be generous with other people's money.
-
The way you mentioned a flat tax at the end of your post makes me think you would be against it. Why?
I think I would prefer a flat tax over a national sales tax.
-
WHat you are talking about is 'trickle down.' I think Bush Sr called it "voodoo economics" It didnt work in the 80's. DO you think it is working today?
Have you really thought about what you are saying, or are you repeating what you have heard from Bush and Co?
your friend Mike is right. THere are alot more people making 35k than 200k, people who are going to spend their tax refund on a new tv or something, instead of the rich dude who is just going to sock that money away to make it earn some more money for him.
this whole trickle down supply side nonsense is just an excuse to give tax breaks to the rich. THat is where the majority of the tax cut is going. Its really a form of class warfare if you think about it.
strk
-
Originally posted by strk
WHat you are talking about is 'trickle down.' I think Bush Sr called it "voodoo economics" It didnt work in the 80's. DO you think it is working today?
Have you really thought about what you are saying, or are you repeating what you have heard from Bush and Co?
your friend Mike is right. THere are alot more people making 35k than 200k, people who are going to spend their tax refund on a new tv or something, instead of the rich dude who is just going to sock that money away to make it earn some more money for him.
this whole trickle down supply side nonsense is just an excuse to give tax breaks to the rich. THat is where the majority of the tax cut is going. Its really a form of class warfare if you think about it.
strk
So who buys the mansions and the BMWs? Not the guy pulling down 35K. It's all percentages. If I make 200k a year, I'll spend 150. If I make 20, I'll psend 15. Are you telling me wealthy people do not buy more, and higher ticket items than the rest of us?
And who builds those mansions, repairs, and builds those cars? People like us. This is why it's called "Trickle Down" and not the "Floodgate" effect. Not all the money works it's way down to the lower tiers, but I'd wager the bulk of it does.
I'm not 100% sure a flat tax would be a good or bad thing. I've not done enough research on it to form an opinion yet. Do you have any links where I can read up on it?
-
Sorry, no links handy.
Listened to Rush discuss this years ago and read up on it then.
A flat tax would be levied against all reported income. Those who make less than a set minimum would pay nothing.
A national sales tax or Ad Valorem tax could be as much as 22 pct. If I were on SS and medicaid I don't see how I could afford a sudden price increase of 22 pct.
It's not much but it's all I can recall at the moment. Geting busy around here, be back later.
-
http://www.taxreform.com/national_sales_tax.html
http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.salestax.org/
-
How excactly do you give large tax cuts to people who dont pay very much income tax anyway? You left wing guys do realize that the upper income bracket people provide the vast majority of all income tax revenues..
-
Originally posted by strk
WHat you are talking about is 'trickle down.' I think Bush Sr called it "voodoo economics" It didnt work in the 80's. DO you think it is working today?
Many economists cite the economic boom that we had in the 90's as being a direct result of the economic policies on the 80's.
Have you really thought about what you are saying, or are you repeating what you have heard from Bush and Co?
your friend Mike is right. THere are alot more people making 35k than 200k, people who are going to spend their tax refund on a new tv or something, instead of the rich dude who is just going to sock that money away to make it earn some more money for him.
"Socking it away" is exactly what spurs the economy. They invest that money and get a return on it. The investment does more for the economy than buying a TV will ever do.
this whole trickle down supply side nonsense is just an excuse to give tax breaks to the rich. THat is where the majority of the tax cut is going. Its really a form of class warfare if you think about it.
strk [/B]
That is an outright,uumm, untrue statement. Can't call ya a liar if you don't know better. Look at the percentages. That is what the illegal and unconstitutional income tax that was instated in the late 1800's to fund a war, and was supposed to end a few years later, is based on. If you really want things to be fair, look at the fairtax.org link that I posted. You get taxed for what you spend, not what you produce.
-
So who buys the mansions and the BMWs? Not the guy pulling down 35K. It's all percentages. If I make 200k a year, I'll spend 150. If I make 20, I'll psend 15. Are you telling me wealthy people do not buy more, and higher ticket items than the rest of us?
mansions and BMW's don't drive the economy. the problem with your 'rich driving the economy' argument is that most rich people have some cash left over at the end of the year. this can go into savings or they can invest it in a politician to see that the laws work the way they would prefer.
while poor and working class people rarely have any money left. a very large percentage of these peoples would lose their homes and be financialy wiped out, if they where to lose their income for even a couple weeks. when these people get a little more money they spend it.
now honestly, do you really think that if Bill Gates recieved an extra $500 this year it would make any difference in how much he spends?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
now honestly, do you really think that if Bill Gates recieved an extra $500 this year it would make any difference in how much he spends?
This has nothing to do with Bill Gates. Look at the statistics of who makes and pays what. If you honostly believe that someone who earns 37,000 a year have a higher percentage of his income taken than someone that earns 25,000, then you are a socialist.
-
This has nothing to do with Bill Gates.
really, I thought the statement was that the rich have more spending power, and I agree that they do, however giving them more money will not likely increase their spending.
this part is particularly flawed
If I make 200k a year, I'll spend 150. If I make 20, I'll psend 15.
if you make 200k you spend 150 (that I'll agree with), but if you make 20k you spend 20k.
you seem to be lossed. we where discusing the spending power of rich verses poor, while you seem to be discussing strugling(35k) verses broke(20k). Bill gates is an example of a rich guy, and we where discussing rich guys and poor guys, it seems very obvious to me.
sorry you got confused.
-
hail the ameristocracy.
ill pass.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
mansions and BMW's don't drive the economy. the problem with your 'rich driving the economy' argument is that most rich people have some cash left over at the end of the year. this can go into savings or they can invest it in a politician to see that the laws work the way they would prefer.
while poor and working class people rarely have any money left. a very large percentage of these peoples would lose their homes and be financialy wiped out, if they where to lose their income for even a couple weeks. when these people get a little more money they spend it.
now honestly, do you really think that if Bill Gates recieved an extra $500 this year it would make any difference in how much he spends?
The Bill Gates Scenario holds no water. You have to use percentages to be fair. $500 is 2.5% to someone making $20,000 a year. 2.5% of Bill Gates' salary (assume 50,000,000) is $1.25 million. You're going to tell me he wont: Reinvest it in his company hiring more people, etc. Invest it in the market, Keeping people like myself employed? Donate it? He just gave several million to the NYC Public schools. What do they do with it? Buy books? Who prints the books? Buy computers? Who makes the computers? Buy lunchs? Who grows the food?
Maybe old bill will splurge on another Lear Jet. Who makes the aluminum? Who mines for the metal? Who builds the components?
You have to realize, people have it in their nature to spend to their income level. People who make 10 million a year, spend 8. And whats so bad about investing? You do realize it keeps an entire industry in business, from CEO's and Analysts to Mail room clerks.
Wealth trickles down. I see it happen every day.
Any speaking about being financially wiped out..I thought we had Workers Compensation, Disability, Social Security, and welfare in this country. Me next door neighbor is on disability. He fell down because he is an alcoholic, and now picks up a check every month because he can't work. I watch he walk from his house to 7-11 every day to pick up a six, but he can't work. He has not lost his house. Sure some fall through the system, and it's tragic.
Your argument is not very compelling. I'm sorry.
-
Ahh, I'm sorry, you sem to be the one confused.
First of all, that second quote is not mine, but nice try.
Second of all...
however giving them more money will not likely increase their spending
who is giving money away?
Third of all..
if you make 200k you spend 150 (that I'll agree with), but if you make 20k you spend 20k.
If you earn 200k, then it is yours, not the schmuck that dropped out of high school when he got his girlfriend pregnant and now doesn't have the initiative to make more than $20,000 a year to support his family. The opportunity is there for everyone to make a very good living in this country, legaly. I did notice you skirted the issue of the flat rate tax. I'm curious to hear your viewpoint on this. If you spend $150k, then you pay taxes on $150k, if you spend $20k, then you pay taxes on $20k. The 'rich' pay more.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
hail the ameristocracy.
ill pass.
Like you had a choice.;)
-
Oh, and BTW, the 2 largest economic indicators in the country are................mansions and BMW's
Well, housing and the automotive industry, but you get the idea.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
really, I thought the statement was that the rich have more spending power, and I agree that they do, however giving them more money will not likely increase their spending.
this part is particularly flawed
if you make 200k you spend 150 (that I'll agree with), but if you make 20k you spend 20k.
you seem to be lossed. we where discusing the spending power of rich verses poor, while you seem to be discussing strugling(35k) verses broke(20k). Bill gates is an example of a rich guy, and we where discussing rich guys and poor guys, it seems very obvious to me.
sorry you got confused.
Even if they do not spend the other 50k, they do invest it, which drives another sector of the U.S. Economy which is primarily service driven today.
But no matter how you slice it, even give the advantage of spending a higher % of their income, $150K pumped back into the economy is still more than 7 times that of the $20,000 the average person is spending.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not wealthy by any means, but I've busted my arnold to make a living, buy a home, and raise a family. I do my 50 hour weeks. My wife does 50 hours. We sacrifice to make ends meet. I respect the wealthy who earned thier way, envy the ones who inherit, and deplore those who simply want to live of the teat.
I know no one WANTS to be poor, but there are different levels to which people are willing to sacrifice to be successful. If given the drive, every person in America has the oppotunity to be relatively successful.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Don't get me wrong. I'm not wealthy by any means, but I've busted my arnold to make a living, buy a home, and raise a family. I do my 50 hour weeks. My wife does 50 hours. We sacrifice to make ends meet. I respect the wealthy who earned thier way, envy the ones who inherit, and deplore those who simply want to live of the teat.
I know no one WANTS to be poor, but there are different levels to which people are willing to sacrifice to be successful. If given the drive, every person in America has the opportunity to be relatively successful.
Well stated sir
-
First of all, that second quote is not mine, but nice try.
I realise my try failed :rolleyes: . what I was trying for was to explain to you the topic that I was posting on in the first post. (the part that confused you. you know, the part when I was quoting a post that compared 200k incomes and 20k incomes, and you somehow thought we where talking about people making in the 25-37k range, much lower range than the rich we where talking about and somewhat higher than the poor)
in the last post I even tried explaining the subject (because simply quoting it didn't help you much in the first post), and following that up with a smaller part of the original quote (again in an effort to help you get it).
ah well, like you said "nice try", maybe you can understand this post.
-
Wow, you sound like my boss when he tries to explain something, are you a manager somewhere? :D
-
And Bill Gates makes $200k a year:rofl
mansions and BMW's don't drive the economy
Housing and the automotive industry are two of the largest indicators used when looking at the economy.
the problem with your 'rich driving the economy' argument is that most rich people have some cash left over at the end of the year. this can go into savings
Yes it can, it is their money. But investing money also drives the economy.
or they can invest it in a politician to see that the laws work the way they would prefer.
This is just laughable.
while poor and working class
A person that makes $200k doesn't work??:confused:
while poor and working class people rarely have any money left. a very large percentage of these peoples would lose their homes and be financialy wiped out, if they where to lose their income for even a couple weeks. when these people get a little more money they spend it.
Sounds like poor planning to me. This is niether my fault or my responsibility. Feel free to give them as much of your money as you want, and I will do the same if I choose to, but don't steal the fruits of my (yes I'm working class too) hard work and redistribute it.
really, I thought the statement was that the rich have more spending power, and I agree that they do, however giving them more money will not likely increase their spending.
I agree. It will likely increase their investing, which will do much more for the economy than a TV purchase.
The post is about redistribution of wealth, and it is a fact that a person that makes 20k pays a lower percentage of his income than a person that produces(earns) more, be it 35k or 200k. The current system punishes productivity. It is not a matter of being able to make a campaign contribution to the politician of your choice, it is the bribing of the voter by telling him that you will take money from the rich, the 'non-working' class apparently, and give it to away to people that haven't done what it takes to be successfull. What does it matter if Bill Gates gets the same percentage of his money back as any other citizen?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How excactly do you give large tax cuts to people who dont pay very much income tax anyway? You left wing guys do realize that the upper income bracket people provide the vast majority of all income tax revenues..
Thats because the less than 1% have all the money. Who do you think toils so they accumulate all that wealth?
-
I snagged this off the web, some of you may well recognize the source: :D
Only The Rich Pay Taxes
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
October 23, 2002
The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.
Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income.
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)
The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.
I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.
Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.
And another:
Democrats Get More Money From "Rich"
December 18, 2002
Another myth about "the rich" has been shattered – namely the conventional wisdom that they are all Republicans – thanks to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. A December 18, 2002 Washington Times editorial reports that donors giving "small and medium amounts" in 2002 overwhelmingly supported the GOP, while "rich or deep-pocketed givers" hugely backed the Democrats!
Those giving $200 to $999: GOP $68 million; Democrats $44 million. Those giving $1,000 to $9,999: GOP $317 million; Democrats $307 million. The "fabulously wealthy" donors of $10,000+ gave $111 million to the GOP – a whopping $29 million less than the $140 million they lavished on the Democrats! Among those who gave $100,000+, the Democrats raised $72 million – more than double the $34 million the GOP took.
"Yeah, but all those millionaires are Republicans." No, that's not a fact, my friends. The fact is that in the 2002 election cycle, those who gave a million dollars or more poured $36 million into the Democrat coffers, and a paltry $3 million into the pockets of the GOP. Again: millionaire donations went Democrat by a 12:1 margin! The two parties took in about the same amount overall – GOP: $384 million; Democrats: $350 million. Just look at the Hollywood left, and you see where the big money goes.
In addition, the GOP attracted 40% more individual donors! (George W. Bush set an all-time fund-raising record by collecting the most money from one-thousand-dollar donors in the history of presidential politics.) Far more people giving small amounts exist as contributors to the Republican Party - while Democrats skunked the GOP among the super-rich. That's no surprise, since nine of the twelve richest members of the United States Senate are Democrats.
We're going to put this up on our website homepage permanently, right alongside the story that the top 50% of wage earners, those who make more than $26,000 a year, pay over 96% of all income taxes. This myth that the Republicans are the party of the rich is breathing its last gasps, so we're giving you these figures to help put it out of its misery for good. This is not a political commercial you have to disprove. These are actual results of campaign contributions in just the 2002 cycle, which is why this class-envy garbage isn't getting the traction it used to.
And one more article, this one from the Washington Times:
Washington Times Op-Ed: The Richest 1%
Dateline: December 18, 2002
Headline: The richest 1 percent
Byline: The Washington Times
So much for Republicans being the party of the wealthy. According to a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more appropriately belongs to the Democrats. "Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle," the report notes, "but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers." Among donors who gave more than $200 but less than $1,000, Republicans enjoyed a substantial $68 million to $44 million edge over Democrats. The margin was closer among those individuals who gave $1,000 or more: The GOP took in $317 million, compared to the Democrats' $307 million.
But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million. And when it comes to the millionaires' club - those kicking in $1 million or more - the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million. Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts - $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats - the number of individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more than 40 percent.
In other words, in 2002 a select group of bigwigs dumped big money into Democratic causes, while a broad base of folks donated respectable [but not overwhelming] amounts to Republican candidates. That goes a long way toward explaining the Democrats' shallow support in the midterm elections, and should give an indication of which party's agenda has been hijacked by the big money-men.
But it also sheds light on the president's first round of tax cuts - arguably the highest-profile domestic referendum in the midterm elections. We can't help but notice that only those who are so stinking rich that money doesn't matter supported the Democrats' opposition to tax cuts. Meanwhile, the many more who form the backbone of America's economy supported the Republicans. As the White House and congressional Republicans prepare a new tax package, we hope they bear that in mind. And just to show that there are no hard feelings, we'll still support tax cuts for the limousine liberals. With all that extra change in their pockets, maybe they'll put it to more productive uses than propping up the rejected policies of the Democratic Party.
There seems to be more of a connection between wealth and liberals than I previously thought, good topic muck.
Ok, all done. Fire away!!
-
Originally posted by Twist
I snagged this off the web, some of you may well recognize the source: :D
Only The Rich Pay Taxes
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
{QUOTE]
Yes its fuzzy math again:} Of course the rich pay a bigger %. They make the most money. If we all pay 20% in fed tax then of course the earner making $200000 contributes more $ but not more of a % of income.
In a seemingly never-ending campaign to 'give the rich a break,' the top marginal income tax rate has been reduced from its all-time high of 91% to the current 33%. This reflects the failure of our society to properly educate the people about citizenship, responsibility, and duty. To the continuous detriment of social progress, Americans have been convinced (by Republicans) that the money they pay in taxes belongs to them rather than to society, and that they have a right to keep as much as they can tear away from the 'thuggish' IRS. This is unfortunate, and will have to be reversed eventually. We need a restoration of fiscal responsibility, and a recognition of the essential fact that those who benefit most from society have the largest obligation to give back. Until we return to this (once common) understanding, Republicans will continue to erode the fabric of our society by offering the rich a free ride and encouraging the politics of greed.
-
"If we all pay 20% in fed tax then of course the earner making $200000 contributes more $ but not more of a % of income."
You were talking about fuzzy math?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"If we all pay 20% in fed tax then of course the earner making $200000 contributes more $ but not more of a % of income."
You were talking about fuzzy math?
What dont you understand about the math?
-
So in your mind 20% of 10 is more in % terms than 20% of 100 is as as a % of 100?
I think that logic is kinda poor....
-
Originally posted by Silat
[B To the continuous detriment of social progress, Americans have been convinced (by Republicans) that the money they pay in taxes belongs to them rather than to society, and that they have a right to keep as much as they can tear away from the 'thuggish' IRS. This is unfortunate, and will have to be reversed eventually. [/B]
No shirt!
This idea that your money is YOUR MONEY has got to be reversed!
Wherever would anyone get THAT idea?
(hmmmmmmm)
Hey Silat! Your money ISN'T your money! It's mine and I'd appreciate it if you could return all of it to ME.
Thanks ever so!
-
:rofl Toad!
-
Excellent Post, Twist.
Very compelling, and worth the time to read it.
If everyone could post facts instead of emotions, we could learn alot from each other.
Of course, an open mind would help too.
-
So if we had a modified flat tax, where the first 30,000 (or some appropriate level) was tax free, and the rest was taxed at some moderate percentage, no deductions for anything.......
naw, never happen.
-
It's interesting to me that people think money used to fund government services is "their money", but debt incurred to fund those same services is not "thier debt".
-
Originally posted by GScholz
How does buying BMW's help your economy? I can see how it helps German economy, but not yours. Injecting more money at the top is not much help for a society that imports most of its luxury products.
Holden McGroin, our tax system works pretty well. As your income increases so does the percentage of tax you pay, but not as much as the percentage of increased income of course. If you make less than a certain amount (aprox. $13.000) you pay no income tax. Income tax ranges from 24% to 56% depending on income.
Dealerships, Service centers, Manufacturing plants domestically (Not sure about BMW on domestic manufacture). Add in Marketing, Advertising, Utilities...etc.
It all goes around and around.
Even if BMW is a bad choice, pick another car company. You know the spirit behind the words.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
How does buying BMW's help your economy? I can see how it helps German economy, but not yours.
BMW's are assembled here in the USA by American workers(the hot-selling Z4 and X5). These workers are paid handsomely and place that money back into the economy. 2/3 of our economy is based on consumer spending.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Originally posted by Twist
I snagged this off the web, some of you may well recognize the source: :D
Only The Rich Pay Taxes
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
{QUOTE]
Yes its fuzzy math again:} Of course the rich pay a bigger %. They make the most money. If we all pay 20% in fed tax then of course the earner making $200000 contributes more $ but not more of a % of income.
In a seemingly never-ending campaign to 'give the rich a break,' the top marginal income tax rate has been reduced from its all-time high of 91% to the current 33%. This reflects the failure of our society to properly educate the people about citizenship, responsibility, and duty. To the continuous detriment of social progress, Americans have been convinced (by Republicans) that the money they pay in taxes belongs to them rather than to society, and that they have a right to keep as much as they can tear away from the 'thuggish' IRS. This is unfortunate, and will have to be reversed eventually. We need a restoration of fiscal responsibility, and a recognition of the essential fact that those who benefit most from society have the largest obligation to give back. Until we return to this (once common) understanding, Republicans will continue to erode the fabric of our society by offering the rich a free ride and encouraging the politics of greed.
I don't really know where to start in responding, but do you actually think that the top marginal tax rate should be over 90%?! That is outrageous! There once was a country that espoused the mantra "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need." I can't remember which it was, but I don't think it's around anymore. Why is that? Lots of reasons, I suspect, but primary among them is that its social-economic underpinnings are diametric to human nature.
-
Silat is a communist and when I'm done with school and start earning some real money it's gonna be a cold day in hell if I let a communist POS like that interfere in my life again by stealing all my money...
Silat shut the hell up right now, start packing and move to cuba - you will simply love it there. Dont even bother rersponding, just move there now.
And no it's not worth it trying to argue sensibly with you - you will not change your sick view until the last breath you draw unless you see the error in yiour thinking yourself....
As of now you are an idiot.
BTW feel free to send me 90% of your money - I'm a poor college student and tuition is expensive...
-
The top tax rate in the USA was above 90% from 1944 to 1957.
-
Originally posted by popeye
The top tax rate in the USA was above 90% from 1944 to 1957.
And save for WW2 it was stupid strangle on US prosperity - IIRC one of the best things Kennedy ever did was his massive tax cut..
-
Originally posted by popeye
The top tax rate in the USA was above 90% from 1944 to 1957.
Do you think that would be a positive thing today? If so, why? I'm genuinely curious as to how one defends a practice that seems, to me, larcenous.
-
As noted above, the high tax rates were effected to pay for WWII and the Korean War. I'm not sure how such a policy was justified to the taxpayers, but I'd guess it was seen as a reasonable sacrifice in a time of national emergency. I believe the estate tax was also implemented to pay for WWII, as well as a tax on excess "war profits" of corporations.
I don't think 90 percent rates would be justified today, but it does seem unusual that the only people called to do significant sacrifice are those in the military and their families, and those who rely on government programs falling to budget cuts, while the $2000-a-plate crowd gets new tax breaks.
Of course, these are different times.
-
Originally posted by popeye
I don't think 90 percent rates would be justified today, but it does seem unusual that the only people called to do significant sacrifice are those in the military and their families, and those who rely on government programs falling to budget cuts, while the $2000-a-plate crowd gets new tax breaks.
Of course, these are different times.
I'm not sure I agree with you about "the only people called to do significant sacrifice," unless you're limiting that group to people who put their lives at risk to protect the rest of us (and even then I don't entirely agree). I would agree that our men and women in uniform are undercompensated, but there are a number of others I would add to that list, such as teachers.
In any case, I'm curious as to where you think the "$2000-a-plate crowd" begins? Really, how much does one have to make to get into this club? In other words, how much money does one have to make until those who make less are willing to say, "Screw you, buddy! You make so much money that I don't care how much tax you pay! All I know is that YOU'RE NOT PAYING ENOUGH!"? I'd really like to know, because I suspect that many would be surprised just how little one has to make before the screws of the current tax code (e.g., higher marginal rates, disappearing deductions, AMT, etc.) start to kick in.
-
Originally posted by Silat
In a seemingly never-ending campaign to 'give the rich a break,' the top marginal income tax rate has been reduced from its all-time high of 91% to the current 33%. This reflects the failure of our society to properly educate the people about citizenship, responsibility, and duty. To the continuous detriment of social progress, Americans have been convinced (by Republicans) that the money they pay in taxes belongs to them rather than to society, and that they have a right to keep as much as they can tear away from the 'thuggish' IRS. This is unfortunate, and will have to be reversed eventually. We need a restoration of fiscal responsibility, and a recognition of the essential fact that those who benefit most from society have the largest obligation to give back. Until we return to this (once common) understanding, Republicans will continue to erode the fabric of our society by offering the rich a free ride and encouraging the politics of greed.
I can't believe that someone can actually think like that.
You've got to be trolling...
-
(http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s159/gif/s159t4.gif)
From:
Tax Rates, Tax Revenues and Economic Growth (http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s159/s159.html)
This study investigates the international relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. Based on an econometric analysis of taxes in 103 countries, we conclude that:
On the average, governments collect the highest possible revenue when they take about 43.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in taxes.
If governments try to take a larger share of private sector income, the tax base will shrink so much that total tax collections will actually go down.
For specific taxes, governments collect the highest amount of revenue when tax rates equal 22.5 percent for the income tax, 12.5 percent for the sales tax and 13.2 percent for taxes on international trade.
And:
(http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/tables/Individual/Current/GIF/brackets/individual_2003.gif)
Not to mention:
Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2000 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html)
Note that those rich basteegeezes in the Top 25% of all payers are paying 84% of ALL INCOME TAXES.
We need to soak these suckers a WHOLE LOT MORE... these Kings of Commerce are making over $55,000!!! for pete's sake!
-
Telling mispeak or just funny chit?
trying to see it from another point of you
-
Originally posted by mietla
I can't believe that someone can actually think like that.
You've got to be trolling...
That's what I was thinking, but he seemed dead serious.
-
So, a Bradley Fellow of the Heritage Foundation thinks taxes should be low?
What a fuzzy bunny. :)
-
Originally posted by Creamo
That's what I was thinking, but he seemed dead serious.
where is this mentality coming from? It is just insane. Wealth is created and belongs to its creator. Only a thief can think that he is owed a piece of someone else's property.
-
I have no problem with business and rich folks getting tax breaks. More money is spent (2/3's of our economy is consumer spending) and creation of more jobs (Business expansion) However, the Dems consider anything over $45,000K income as "Rich". LOL!
-
I think a fat tax is bipartisan. I'd be all for it.
So would that be by the pound or Oz. ?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Silat is a communist and when I'm done with school and start earning some real money it's gonna be a cold day in hell if I let a communist POS like that interfere in my life again by stealing all my money...
Silat shut the hell up right now, start packing and move to cuba - you will simply love it there. Dont even bother rersponding, just move there now.
And no it's not worth it trying to argue sensibly with you - you will not change your sick view until the last breath you draw unless you see the error in yiour thinking yourself....
As of now you are an idiot.
BTW feel free to send me 90% of your money - I'm a poor college student and tuition is expensive...
Nice attitude Grun. Ive served (Drafted 69)and made my $$$. You on the other hand apparantly have very little real world experience.
I dont want the upper tax rate higher but I do expect the rich to do their bit. And by the way Im in the upper bracket and pay my share. I also give away more than my share which I think is the moral and responsible way to be, since I benefit so much from what this country has to offer.
You on the other hand resort to immatuer name calling. Which brings up the issue of schools. They obviously dont teach you children very well anymore.
-
And yes it was a troll .
Not the 20% of X part but the part about your money isnt yours.:}The paragraph after that is pure carp bait.
And I do believe the upper 1% who control 90% of the money have a bigger responsibility in our society.
Even so Gruns name calling was uncalled for . I am not a communist. I am a pervert :} :lol
-
Originally posted by Silat
I also give away more than my share which I think is the moral and responsible way to be, .
And that's the way it suppose to be. It is your money and you can dispose of it any way you wish.
It is not the government's job to distribute your or my money. That's theft.
-
Ditto
-
Originally posted by Silat
The paragraph after that is pure carp bait.
And I do believe the upper 1% who control 90% of the money have a bigger responsibility in our society.
Even so Gruns name calling was uncalled for . I am not a communist. I am a pervert :} :lol
I agree with everything you said:D
Assuming that their responsibility is their own choosing, not mandated.
http://www.fairtax.org/
Still would like to hear some opinions on this.
-
Originally posted by Silat
I dont want the upper tax rate higher but I do expect the rich to do their bit.I also give away more than my share which I think is the moral and responsible way to be, since I benefit so much from what this country has to offer.
You on the other hand resort to immatuer name calling. Which brings up the issue of schools. They obviously dont teach you children very well anymore.
Silat-
Did you bother to read some of the posts in this thread?
"The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite. "
That's what I call the upper earners paying their fair share. Would you like them to cover the entire tax burden? I mean, there SHOULD be a penalty for working your arnold off and being successful. Really, why should Warren Buffett have more money than me? Everyone should have the same, right?
I'm happy that you give money away, but you have no right to push your ideals or sense of charity on me or anyone else. Do what you like with your money, but keep your hand out of my pocket. I donate money and time, but I'll be damned if some liberal beauracrat is going to dictate to me how much I should give.
Finally, on the subject of name calling, which is reprehensible when anyone does it....did you just call Grun a child in the same breath as complaining about his name calling? Way to take the high ground.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Silat-
Did you bother to read some of the posts in this thread?
"The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite. "
That's what I call the upper earners paying their fair share. Would you like them to cover the entire tax burden? I mean, there SHOULD be a penalty for working your arnold off and being successful. Really, why should Warren Buffett have more money than me? Everyone should have the same, right?
I'm happy that you give money away, but you have no right to push your ideals or sense of charity on me or anyone else. Do what you like with your money, but keep your hand out of my pocket. I donate money and time, but I'll be damned if some liberal beauracrat is going to dictate to me how much I should give.
Finally, on the subject of name calling, which is reprehensible when anyone does it....did you just call Grun a child in the same breath as complaining about his name calling? Way to take the high ground.
Yes I read them.. I have never said that the upper earners (me) should cover the entire tax burden.. I never said my hand should be in your pocket. And I dont ever remember "child" being name calling.
And you need to read the post again. The sentence I used was "They obviously dont teach you children very well anymore."
I assumed by Gruns statements that he is still in the child catagory? Meaning anyone under 30 considering my age.:}
I stand be my statement that calling me a communist, and an idiot is name calling .
__________________
-
Originally posted by Silat
Nice attitude Grun. Ive served (Drafted 69)and made my $$$. You on the other hand apparantly have very little real world experience.
They obviously dont teach you children very well anymore.
I agree that calling you an idiot is name calling, but I hardly consider anyone under 30 a "child".
Calling you a communist would be insulting as well.
Calling you a bleeding heart liberal hippie tree hugger..well, that would just be accurate. ;) J/K
-
Yes I called you those things... What incentive would I have to work hard if up to 90% of my money was stolen as yiu want it to be?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes I called you those things... What incentive would I have to work hard if up to 90% of my money was stolen as yiu want it to be?
Jail if you didn't...:D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes I called you those things... What incentive would I have to work hard if up to 90% of my money was stolen as yiu want it to be?
It was a TROLL .. OK? Get it?? :}
You dont know me. Calling me those things is just immature. If you arent going to apologize then that is your right. This is America after all.:}
I dont want anyone taxed at 90%.The troll never said that although you have brought it up more than once.. Just stay in school as long as you can . Being a professional student is the way to go.:}
When you have worked 35 years,and had employees as I have then we will discuss paying taxes and the system. You would be surprised how your opinions will change.
-
Does this mean Silat ISN'T going to send me all his money?
:(
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Calling you a communist would be insulting as well.
Why? I suspected that Silat was trolling and he confirmed that, but if you take his original post verbatim, it is a statement of devout communist.
-
Originally posted by Silat
It was a TROLL .. OK? Get it?? :}
You dont know me. Calling me those things is just immature. If you arent going to apologize then that is your right. This is America after all.:}
I dont want anyone taxed at 90%.The troll never said that although you have brought it up more than once.. Just stay in school as long as you can . Being a professional student is the way to go.:}
When you have worked 35 years,and had employees as I have then we will discuss paying taxes and the system. You would be surprised how your opinions will change.
I met Grun, his head is straight on his shoulders. God forbid his opinions never change to yours or we might as well just fly a flag with a Hammar and Sickle.
Comrade Silat said:"Americans have been convinced (by Republicans) that the money they pay in taxes belongs to them rather than to society, and that they have a right to keep as much as they can tear away from the 'thuggish' IRS. This is unfortunate, and will have to be reversed eventually. We need a restoration of fiscal responsibility, and a recognition of the essential fact that those who benefit most from society have the largest obligation to give back. Until we return to this (once common) understanding, Republicans will continue to erode the fabric of our society by offering the rich a free ride and encouraging the politics of greed."
Unbelieveable....(http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/jpshakehead.gif)
-
If it was a troll then so be it - it certainly is your right to now say that it was a troll. However, I wont apologize because I responed correctly to that stement.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I met Grun, his head is straight on his shoulders. God forbid his opinions never change to yours or we might as well just fly a flag with a Hammar and Sickle.
Rip what dont you get? Im a capitalist . Ill say it again: I dont want anyone taxed to much.......... Or at all if that were possible.....:}
What opinions of mine in this thread (the troll doesnt count)are "communist,socialist ?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Rip what dont you get? Im a capitalist . Ill say it again: I dont want anyone taxed to much.......... Or at all if that were possible.....:}
What opinions of mine in this thread (the troll doesnt count)are "communist,socialist ?
.."those who benefit most from society have the largest obligation to give back"...
Don't you realize that they give back to society in the form of consumer spending (2/3's of our economy) and businesses (hiring of personel) ??
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Don't you realize that they give back to society in the form of consumer spending (2/3's of our economy) and businesses (hiring of personel) ??
Of course I do. When did I say otherwise? What is it you think I disagree with? Other than Gruns name calling?
You do realize that we ALL make this economy work? Not just the rich? :}
-
Originally posted by Silat
Of course I do. When did I say otherwise? What is it you think I disagree with? Other than Gruns name calling?
You do realize that we ALL make this economy work? Not just the rich? :}
the rich contribute more, give em a break! If anything, tax the little guys more as inspiration to do better, make something of themselves. :D (j/k about the latter) Besides, the Democrats consider anyone that makes more the $45K a year as "rich". :rolleyes:
Your posts sound like you pissed away your life making little money and now you're pissed about it and envious of anyone that earned their mansions. (shrugs)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
the rich contribute more, give em a break! If anything, tax the little guys more as inspiration to do better, make something of themselves. :D (j/k about the latter) Besides, the Democrats consider anyone that makes more the $45K a year as "rich". :rolleyes:
Your posts sound like you pissed away your life making little money and now you're pissed about it and envious of anyone that earned their mansions. (shrugs)
Not that its any of your business but Ive been retired for almost 10 years and 53.Raised 2 daughters (29 and 22) by myself . They are fine capitalists... I started wrkin at 13. First in a meat packing plant then I strted my own scrap metal business while in high school . Put myself thru college and served in the army. My scrap metal business did very well thankyou .:} I worked hard and was lucky. Treated my employees well. Im not angry about it:} You havent read my posts. I stated somewhere back there that Ive done very well indeed.In the top tax bracket . Being in that bracket is my reward for working hard. :} I have very little reason to be envious of anyone other than those that are taller and have hair:}
I said it before. I dont want anyone taxed more than another......How many times do I have to say it ? And please point out where ive been pissed about my success in life?
-
Originally posted by Silat
I've done very well indeed.In the top tax bracket .
Now I REALLY want you to send me all your... er... MY money!
You do have PayPal, don't you?
Thanks in advance!
-
Hey get in line Toad you rich white old man, I'm much more needy than you - I'm a poor college student dammit. :lol
-
Im with Grun on this one, havent read any of the above posts but its always smart to agree with him.
Now...whats this thread about?....in 3 lines please or pics, just the facts and what im agreeing to.
Thank you.
And yes, im bored
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Im with Grun on this one, havent read any of the above posts but its always smart to agree with him.
Now...whats this thread about?....in 3 lines please or pics, just the facts and what im agreeing to.
Thank you.
And yes, im bored
One down 6 billion to go! MUhhhhhhahhahwahhahahh!
LOL :rofl
-
Just wanted to throw my 2Cents in here. I may not like Pres. Bush absolutley but this summer I received a nice check of $800. With 2 kids and my income my tax returns are usually $2000-4000.
Whats that mean? I DONT PAY TAXES!
I make under 37 a year and have two children and with my nice check I purchased a New washing Machine and baught the kids some clothes and toys.
I figure I'm about average joe so others followed my lead.
I'm not rich and I got a tax cut!
just a thaught:)
-
I would like to point out, for anyone who hasn't noticed, almost every economic indicator has been rising rapidly during the last quarter.
If this keeps up, there will be one less campaigne issue for the Democrats to focus on during the election of 2004.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Just wanted to throw my 2Cents in here. I may not like Pres. Bush absolutley but this summer I received a nice check of $800. With 2 kids and my income my tax returns are usually $2000-4000.
Whats that mean? I DONT PAY TAXES!
I make under 37 a year and have two children and with my nice check I purchased a New washing Machine and baught the kids some clothes and toys.
I figure I'm about average joe so others followed my lead.
I'm not rich and I got a tax cut!
just a thaught:)
What, 37K a year? You robber baron you!!!! How many millions did you pay bush for that tax cut?
Oh yea just watch one of the lefties on this board come in and say $800 is insignificant... :eek:
-
Yea just rename me Rockefeller or what ever that guy's name was :lol
what I cant stand is that the lefties completly ignore the other tax incentives for business and the whole capital gains tax breaks. YEA, there's still alot of people out of work but I've never heard of an economy changing over night.
All I gots to say about Pres. Bush is I like him ALOT better than ALGORE!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm not rich and I got a tax cut!
How can that be? (LSB checks calendar. Nope, it's not April 1.) Next you're going to tell me that the earth is round and revolves around the sun!
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
How can that be? (LSB checks calendar. Nope, it's not April 1.) Next you're going to tell me that the earth is round and revolves around the sun!
BLASFEMER....THE EARTH IS FLAT :lol