Tax Cuts...... For the Wealthy

[Number Six]

Don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

By the way, as I understand it a flat tax could be made regressive or progressive depending on the rate and the line at which people start paying taxes so why are you talking like it would be bad for poor people? What if, for example, taxes started on the first dollar over 100 K and the tax rate was 40%? (BTW, I don't know if that would generate too much or too little money.) The people in the 100-200 K range would be getting relatively screwed but the people under 100 K (ie, most people) would pay nothing.

 

[corplinx]

I mean the problem is already obviously out of control, yet still over the half the contry is cheering the thieves on, talk about blind stupidity.

During the tech boom, I was paying hideous amounts in taxes. I had no house, no 401k, no dependents, and I was paying an upper rate. The result is, I payed 33k in taxes one year and got pissed off as hell. Don't tell me I'm brainwashed. "Equal protection" means just that fignuts. Its none of the governements business how much you make, how many kids you have, if you own a home, if you have gambing losses, if you put money in a 401k, if you gave money to charity, or if you made/lost money on sales of stock. The government has a mandate to treat me the same as others. It also has a mandate to respect my privacy. The current income tax fails both.

The sad thing is, its yahoos like you who will be talking about how the evil republicans want to invade your privacy.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Like most Polls, these options are made to get a expected result. Hence most people who read it will not vote.

 

[specious_reasons]

Would someone please define "rich"

Hi Ed,

You've never gotten a good answer for this, have you?

Me, personally, I would define "rich" as having one or both of:

1. A sufficiently high income (taxable or otherwise). I would be comfortable with saying everyone in the top 5% of household income.

2. Owning equity of sufficiently high value. This is a lot more fuzzy, I would be comfortable with saying a multimillionaire, but finding some exclusion for farmers and small business owners.

Now, what "wealthy" means, that's a whole other story....

 

[Number Six]

I think #2 is more relevant. I don't think income means all that much. I was in school for a long time, making nothing, and I finally finished and suddenly I had a high salary (I don't mean real high, I mean like 70 K, which seems like a lot to someone making 30-40 K) and I noticed that people and the media and the tax code were telling me I was rich. But first of all I had gone through a lot of years living low to get to that stage and secondly not only was I living low during those years but also I wasn't saving anything at all for retirement.

My living standard changed little when I went from grad student to worker because I tried to save a lot so that would be able to retire some day. Net worth seems a lot more important to me than annual income.

 

[Malachi151]

I had no house

Your own fault, anyone can buy a house and deduct the interest from their income taxes.

no 401k

Your own fault, anyone can open a retirement account, at least an IRA, as a tax shelter.

no dependents

I don't think there should be tax breaks for dependants anyway.

and I was paying an upper rate. The result is, I payed 33k in taxes one year

Did YOU cause the tech boom? Why were you getting paid highly? Well, for one thing due to a deceptive media campaign about the tech industry. For another because fo falsified reporteing my the country's biggest companies causing a stock market bubble. Were you responsible for those things? No, but you get paid because of them didn't you. If there was no American society you would not even have a job. Because people are safge and educated and reasonably happy, and buying computers, etc, you had a job that paid good money. Part of that money has to go back to pay to maintain those things that allow our economy to grow.

Not only that, but under "my" tax plan you would have gotten a tax cut, because you made under $500,000 a year, so you would be paying much less taxes under a "real" progressive system.

Its none of the governements business how much you make, how many kids you have, if you own a home, if you have gambing losses, if you put money in a 401k, if you gave money to charity, or if you made/lost money on sales of stock. The government has a mandate to treat me the same as others. It also has a mandate to respect my privacy.

So you want anarchy then.

The sad thing is, its yahoos like you who will be talking about how the evil republicans want to invade your privacy.

Here ya go:

http://www.darpa.mil/iao/TIASystems.htm

Stright from the Bush administration, Total Informaiton Awareness. No, the fascist govt will know much more then just those bits of information about you. They will be compliing databses on all your purchases, income, location at all times, what you buy, how much it costs, profiling your personality, etc. Forget privacy, it went out the door 50 years ago, and to be honest the government is not the major one here its private industry that does most of the snooping.

One of the largest growing industries today is the private database and analysis industry where everyone is profiled and tracked for marketing purposes. If you think not then just do your own research. There is no privacy, unless you get paid in cash, have no accounts, buy in cash, and never make big purchases.

Who is defending your privacy? Certianly not private industry, they want no privacy at all. Certianly not the Republicans they want 'Total Information Awareness." Try the Greeen Party, and consumer advocates like Ralph Nader.

 

[jj]

The fact that dividends get a cut rate, but selling of real property doesn't shows, I think, the clear intent to benefit only the very rich.

Or has the news got this one wrong?

Do tell, "American", do tell me, why are the ways that the lower and middle classes can invest effectively not getting tax relief?

The answer is simple: They're the slaves, they're not supposed to get a tax cut.

The people who you elected count on your own massive anti-intellectual prejudice to keep them going, too.

So, why are you hurting yourself? Do you enjoy it?

 

[RichardR]

You might want to add the company that sold you your alarm clock to your list of worst company's because your still dreaming! Bush won the election and would've won even with the two proposed recounts.

I'm not sure I totally accept that.

 

[Cain]

I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything other than a flat tax rate since we are to be equally treated.

Okay, let's say we have one person making 100,000 dollars a year and nine people making 10,000. Everyone pays a flat rate of 10% on their income.

$10,000
+$9000
$19,000

Notice that the top 1% pays more than 50% of the taxes. What does that do for equality? Well, who cares, right? At least everyone pays the same percentage to the federal government in taxation.

But what about in the market place? The poorer people pay a higher percentage of their income on necessities like food and rent. Or what about car payments.

The whole purpose behind a progressive tax is to make the burden -- the ability to pay -- more equal. If you have an ultra-high income, then you can afford to pay more. This takes some of the load off the poorest people, who can probably afford to give only a very little.

I'm f*cking sick n' tired of hearing how rough the richest one percent have it. In the fifties the highest marginal tax bracket was 91%. (And we should remember that there are brackets. During Clinton's term no one paid 39% on all their income; only 39% after a certain point -- that is, assuming they didn't take advantage of any loopholes in the code, and we know rich people never do).

 

[Malachi151]

I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything other than a flat tax rate since we are to be equally treated.

Being treated equally would mean that a child born in the ghetto has the same economic oppertunities as the son of Bill Gates. Hwo do you plan to make that equal, or do you say that it does not matter?

Secondly, why should everyone be forced into a situation where they are constantly tryign to be rich, or else settling for a lame struggling existance? We need everyone from garbage men to CEOs to make the country work, every job there is is important to making the country work. They don't all pay the same though.

So, we can have equal taxation when we all have equal income, oh wait, that's communism.

Why should someone who decided to be a school teacher face life making $35,000 a year, while a basketball player makes $5 million a year, plus endorcements. The teacher is really more important to society. We can do without basketball players, not without teachers.

What about when a new technology is developed by a scientist who is paid $50,000 a year to work for a company who uses his invention to make millions of dollars, and then many companies take that invention that the scientist came up with and they use it to increase effencieny in their factory, and they are able to fire 5,000 workers, so the CEOs fire 5,000 people and take half thier income as a bonus of $20 million dollars, and they use the other half to increase marketing, etc.

Hmm.. really the scientist is the one responsible for all that, but he didnt' get paid much, why are the CEOs entitled to millions of dollars just bcuase they implement technology advances made by others? And why are the workers penalized, its not their fault that they became obsolete. They woke up the day they got fired just like any other, ready to go to work to make somethng and earn money, but they were no longer needed. They did nothing wrong, they worked hard, they tried hard they did what they were supposed to do.

Dont' think it can happen only to factory workers, computerization is eleminating jobs in the service industry too. I've put people out of work. I write software for doctor's clinics. We increase effencieny, so that doctors can fire people and save money and make more money. In the captalist system we have no choice. I'm against this kind of thing, but due to the ay our system works we all have to do what we can to do be successful. I can program, so I do it to make money, I make money my killing jobs.

Most of the people that lose their jobs due to our software are probably lower middle class working mothers trying to pay bills.

So, tell me more about the fairness of this system that we have.

 

[Ed]

I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything other than a flat tax rate since we are to be equally treated.

Being treated equally would mean that a child born in the ghetto has the same economic oppertunities as the son of Bill Gates. Hwo do you plan to make that equal, or do you say that it does not matter?

Secondly, why should everyone be forced into a situation where they are constantly tryign to be rich, or else settling for a lame struggling existance? We need everyone from garbage men to CEOs to make the country work, every job there is is important to making the country work. They don't all pay the same though.

So, we can have equal taxation when we all have equal income, oh wait, that's communism.

Why should someone who decided to be a school teacher face life making $35,000 a year, while a basketball player makes $5 million a year, plus endorcements. The teacher is really more important to society. We can do without basketball players, not without teachers.

What about when a new technology is developed by a scientist who is paid $50,000 a year to work for a company who uses his invention to make millions of dollars, and then many companies take that invention that the scientist came up with and they use it to increase effencieny in their factory, and they are able to fire 5,000 workers, so the CEOs fire 5,000 people and take half thier income as a bonus of $20 million dollars, and they use the other half to increase marketing, etc.

Hmm.. really the scientist is the one responsible for all that, but he didnt' get paid much, why are the CEOs entitled to millions of dollars just bcuase they implement technology advances made by others? And why are the workers penalized, its not their fault that they became obsolete. They woke up the day they got fired just like any other, ready to go to work to make somethng and earn money, but they were no longer needed. They did nothing wrong, they worked hard, they tried hard they did what they were supposed to do.

Dont' think it can happen only to factory workers, computerization is eleminating jobs in the service industry too. I've put people out of work. I write software for doctor's clinics. We increase effencieny, so that doctors can fire people and save money and make more money. In the captalist system we have no choice. I'm against this kind of thing, but due to the ay our system works we all have to do what we can to do be successful. I can program, so I do it to make money, I make money my killing jobs.

Most of the people that lose their jobs due to our software are probably lower middle class working mothers trying to pay bills.

So, tell me more about the fairness of this system that we have.

Life is not fair, get over it

 

[Gregor]

Wow. Malachi's posts caused my woo-woo detector to explode.

Malachi - you do know that communism and socialism were proven to be failed experiments, don't you?

So, let me ask the question of you that everyone is wondering . . . How is Elvis, and have you spoken to him lately?

 

[Malachi151]

Life is not fair, get over it

Exactyl my points, which is why I said that in reply to the comment:

I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything other than a flat tax rate since we are to be equally treated.

 

[Gregor]

Equal treatment? Sales tax on everything but housing, medical care, utilities, and food.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

corplinx

I guess that whole equal treatment thing means nothing? Mind you, we live far from that perfection. Rich people can afford better lawyers and circumvent justice in some cases. However, jsut because the system isn't always equal doesn't mean we have to be unequal in taxation.

I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything other than a flat tax rate since we are to be equally treated.

Very easily. Progressive tax is more economically efficient, it creates more social good than flat or regressive tax. The rich derive benefit from healthy, educated populace -- it takes myopic lack of vision to not understand how even the rich benefit by having progressively taxed welfare state.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Ed

Life is not fair, get over it

Funny how people yelling 'life's not fair, get over it" decry progressive taxation as being 'unfair" to the rich...

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

Malachi - you do know that communism and socialism were proven to be failed experiments, don't you?

Ah, I smell another ignoramus who has no clue about what "socialism" and "communism" are...

 

[Gregor]

How's this for a counter-point.

The poor are disproportionate users of governments services by an extraordinary margin. Thus, even at our present tax structure they win twice.

 

[Gregor]

Ah
I smell an ad hominem attack as the sole defense of a failed socioeconomic plan.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

I smell an ad hominem attack as the sole defense of a failed socioeconomic plan.

Dude, if you think communism is a "failed socioeconomic plan" and a "failed experiment", then you are fscking clueless about what communism is.

Communism has never been tried, dude. And you clearly have no clue about what communism is (based upon which, I can assume with some certainty that you don't know what socialism is either).

if only ignorance was painful...