GOP Congressman Makes $400,000, Whines About Tax Hikes

You must live in opposite land.... It is the right wingers who complain about paying taxes... What does TEA stand for in tea party... taxed enough already.... These are the people who want to contribute so much?

Seriously, do you think allowing corporations to pollute the land, air and water is best for the country? Do you think concentrating the wealth of the nation in the hands of a few is best for the country..

I mean, you are correct that the right wingers are not voting in their own best interest. But the reason why is that they have had large and influential corporations convince them that someone somewhere is getting a handout from their tax dollars and the only way to fight people stealing from them is to let the wealthy keep more and more of the nations wealth while their own share diminishes.

 

I know, right??

What kinda (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) thinks he can keep the money he earned???

What a dumbass...

 

As do you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans
http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/

 

See above post.
////

 

The burden on ME is greater than it is on them. My wife and I combine for about $90k a year. We have no debt except for her Masters degree loan and our very reasonable 15 year mortgage. However, if you think that the leftover "loose" income I have after paying 25% of mine in taxes is just as easy to get by on as someone making 400k and only paying 17%, then you are flat out stupid. They have 10's of thousands left over in that 8% wiggle room that would be FAR more valuable from a consumer stand point in the pockets of me and others in my income bracket. I mean, you've got less than 1% of the population in or above that income level, and a good 30-40% in my income level. So what would stir the economy more? $3000 extra dollars in each of the hands of 40 million individuals with bare minimum consumption needs to fill or 20k extra in the hands of 500,000 individuals with already large investment accounts and a desire to stockpile their wealth rather than spend it frivolously? I thought you trickle down morons believed that the richest few would drive economic growth more than my middle class. So which is it? Which two beliefs is the lie?

Do you realize that you're argument in this thread lacks complete credibility because you are both arguing FOR and AGAINST your own belief? In one breath you're stating that its unfair for the richest few to pay a higher tax percentage than the poorest 50% because they should have an equal percentage burden and the poorest should have their rates increased to match the burden put on the rich. And then in the next breathe you're stating that I should shut up and eat my meat because I think the rich should be paying at least the same fair percentage that I am and they should have their rates increased to match my burden. Again, what do you really believe? I'd be glad to do either. Raise the rates on the poor and in turn raise the rates on the rich to match mine, or don't, but offer me the same loopholes that the wealthy get (and then watch our country burn to the ground and become 15-16 mini countries in no time from the lack of revenues). Please, enlighten me, because all I've seen from you so far are ignorant Fox News talking points and non-sensible drivel.

 

Wrong. The nation was built on the people, not the government.

Patriotism doesn't' equate to paying more taxes. No wonder you guys are known as the anti-american party.

If you want to talk about taxation to provide for roads, bridges, the military fine. We can do that.

However your talking about taxation so you can have the government spend the money on people who have no earned it and don't do anything to improve society.

 

No it is not. You have only been told that it is.
Ask you wife to explain it to you.

 

And this is why we will never stand side by side holding hands and singing Kum Bah Ya.

 

Con, its not 1810 anymore. Our DEMOCRATIC society elected officials, long before your or I breathed a breath on this Earth, with specific instructions to spend money on those that could not earn it themselves or were oppressed by others (whether for cultural, social, or corporate reasons). Our nation swung open the doors to the world and invited (or sometimes dragged kicking and screaming) other cultures and societies to join our nation and participate in our wealth. And then we did the RIGHT thing. We supported those people after we acknowledged that we didn't give them a fair shake once they were here (reparations, equal rights amendments, union protections, etc).

I'll tell you this right now. Every single person in this nation deserves to go to hell if we remain the richest country, a free country, and a democracy, and we don't take care (and that means without condition) of the least of us. Isn't the right supposed to be the party of Jesus? Why don't you fools act like it EVER?

 

WHo said anything about not taking care of the poor and weak?

I am just sick of government waste, abuse, spending money on things we don't need or don't want etc.

How much do you think do you think the rich should pay? 50%? 75%?

 

We're a Republic.

 

More than 17%. I don't think it should be 75%, but there IS a healthy middle ground somewhere in between.

Here are two things I know. Our nation has NEVER had lower tax rates in its history, especially amongst the wealthy. We've also NEVER strained as much as a government and nation short of civil war or its initial inception. Despite low taxes, our economy is in the tank, despite a record number of tax incentives, we're losing jobs and the "wealth gap" is growing. Despite the highest GDP in history, we can't generate enough revenues to pay for decades old programs we never had trouble paying for before. Every indicator shows us that rates on everyone are too low. There IS a sweetspot, and the Bush levels are NOT EVEN CLOSE to that sweet spot. Its not socialism to raise the rates. Its not Fascism, or Communism either. Its common sense and self preservation. If we want to be a strong nation, its time to abandon the failed Bush policies entirely. That starts with erasing his tax cuts and resetting to 1999 levels. Get us there first, and once we're there, if there's room to make mild cuts and adjustments, maybe we'll find the rates that work best. Its clear we're not there right now, and we sure as hell can't go lower, as some of the dangerous idiots running for office right now want to do.

When you tax the rich more, it takes away their frivolity. When you tax the poor more, it makes them choose between heating their house or making a car payment that allows them to drive to work. The right is the party of jerk offs and heartless idiots.

 

So why not tax everyone 17%, rich and poor included? The problem is, its not just federal income tax. There are state taxes, property taxes, taxes on thing you buy, payroll taxes for business owners, sin taxes, use taxes etc.

either that, or have a fair tax, where its only a tax on good your purchase. Since the poor can't afford to buy goods, than they won't be paying taxes anyway.

 

You do realise that was AFTER the housing bubble?

 

The court case was in 1994.

 

Government earns it's money by providing a safe, secure, and prosperous area to do business.

 

I go to one of his Subway stores all the time.

If I made $6.3 million in a year and only had $400,000, to show for it, I would be pissed too.

But of course you got the envious out there telling him what to do with HIS money. Butthey aren't socialists, no not at all.....lol.

 

Is that really the point? Who are you to say what someone should live on? Why is it up to ANYONE else but that individual? So you are mad that he thinks he should be taking home more than $400,000? Why? Why aren't you saying.."yea, that's bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?" Like I am? Why? I will tell you why...it's because you don't make that kind of money, and with an attitude like yours you never will. You need him to pay as much in taxes as possible. I don't. I would like to see him keep his money, create new jobs, send his kids to college, buy a new boat, car, house, go on vacation...why? Because HE EARNED IT! You just can't stand to see that, can you? There is absolutely no other reason why someone would actually WANT to see other people with less...it's because that person is an underachiever. If the world were full of people like you...this entire world would have ended long ago. So, thank God there is only a minority of "class envy" corrupt people in our society.

There is a difference between "I deserve" and "I earned"....you figure it out. It will make you a better person.

 

Did you pay more? $6.3 million gross, brought home $400,000.

How much did you make and how much did you actually bring home?

Do both in percentages.

 

The point is that anybody can feed their kids and themselves on $400,000. This guy is just a whiner and when you have people that genuinely have trouble deciding whether to feed themselves or pay the bills, he comes off as a tremendous (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag, and rightly so. This has nothing to do with "class envy," but with class. This gentleman clearly has none.

 

Governments job is not to earn money.

 

Because those tax levels would be absolutely unsustainable and our country would go the way of the Soviet Union. Unless you want full privatization of road work, power companies, water works, and everything else you can think of. Gee, I can't wait to pay a toll fee every time I drive into a nearby town to go shopping, or simply pass through. I'd just love three competing water companies in my neighborhood jacking up prices and making me choose between taking a shower this week or having my lights on at supper time. And of course, which private militia am I going to personally fund so that I can ensure the best protection from foreign enemies? That shouldn't be too expensive paid out my own pocket, especially with reasonable private healthcare costs as an example of just how nice and helpful private, for profit industry is to social services.

17% across the board is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. No one has EVER gone bankrupt over federal income taxes (unless they haven't paid them and got audited later). If you have a tax rate, its adjusted to amounts you should be able to reasonably pay because of income you've earned to that point. It can't take more than a certain percentage away, and it DOES (historically, not under Bush level rates however) guarantee certain services and subsidies that make life more livable. You clearly want to see people pay such a lower rate of tax that they can't benefit in the SLIGHTEST from any program that low revenue could pay for. At that point, whats the point of taxation at all? Why not just live in the society I described above and avoid having any government? Thats really the alternative in your scenario.

 

No it wouldn't. you have nothing to back up your claim and are just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up now.

your long boring posts are killing this thread.

 

Fleming embodies conservative dissociation from reality and from what most Americans are enduring in the wake of the Bush Recession.

Only a conservative would whine about having to pay taxes on $400K. Most normal people would get down on their knees and bless the country that allowed such wealth to be made.

 

So discussion about taxes and income are no grounds to call people douchbags? Why is that? Baas he whining or was he providing a real world example of just how much money gets taken from people through taxes and business costs?

The story is not about how much he makes. The story is on why after making $6.3 million does he end up losing $5.9 million? That is a 6 % profit.