Taxes on the rich already gone...

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by onalandline, Jan 31, 2013.

  1. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I wish you would speak in plain English.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Are the poor our job creators then?
     
  2. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Since when is a tax break for one group, an entitlement of another?
     
  3. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll call your nonsense and raise you http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/
     
  4. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is only one reason the rich move their money overseas. Draconian taxes here. If BWK wants to stop capital flight let him lobby the government to reduce taxes on those who would shift their funds overseas. But the fact is we live in a small world and capital will go where it can get a better line.
     
  5. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Details please?

    In addition to retirement, SSI is also paid out in survivor benefits and disability.

    Are you kidding?

    Payroll tax only brings in a bit more than SSI spends. No where enough to pay both SSI & Medicare (which is about the same as SSI, and growing much faster than SSI). Taxing the rich won't double the payroll tax income.

    Removing the cap on the rich only helps if means testing is used - in which case, the rich are taxed, and don't benefit - thus another tax for entitlement.
     
  6. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since the rich started taking it over there. While Bush told the people the reason to have the tax breaks to begin with was to give them to the job creators here,and not so the job creators could use them over there creating jobs. THAT'S WHY!
     
  7. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You still won't accept that the reason the job creators expanded overseas was because of high taxes and wages here. The government and the Unions did it to themselves.
     
  8. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if were talking such small numbers then there is no reason not to tax everyone equally for ssi, all of us pay the same ssi tax for every dollar we earn

    republicans just don't get it... ssi benefits society in general as well as our elderly and disabled, I have no problem paying the ssi tax, why should the rich? have we really become such a me me me society that we do not want to care for our disabled and elderly amoung us

    .
     
  9. onalandline

    onalandline Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    9,976
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So now, Obama's policies of tax more, regulate more are keeping them here?
     
  10. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think you will accept the fact that the job creators got a tax cut that still wasn't low enough for them here, while wages here for the middle class and poor were higher than they were over there. Barring the fact that the income disparity has been getting wider for decades here, and has placed a hardship on our middle class and poor with the growing rate of inflation. So, while the income disparity is getting wider here, it's even worse over there. That's good for the rich here, to go there. And since the government wasn't handing out enough tax breaks, and they saw more profit someplace else, they left. It's called human greed. People do it to themselves, not governments. And the people who were able to do it, did it. We're greedy! And you can't sugar coat it to blame some other factor.
     
  11. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    We could be simplifying our social safety net to subsidize the least efficient to not provide labor input to the economy, at the rock bottom cost of the equivalent to a minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

    We could be lowering our tax burden by drawing participants from more expensive, means tested welfare programs.
     
  12. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First of all, they're not getting taxed more. They just went back to what it was during Clinton, when there was kind of an economy. And without regulation, we go back to 2008 once again. A kid in a Candy store with no parents or supervision, goes in, grabs some candy, walks out, gets away with it, and then what? Where do you think he's going tomorrow? Humans are creatures of habit and opportunity. Adults are no different. The sooner we accept that the better. As far as keeping them here, I don't think Obama ever banked on that. I believe in his mind we need to start over with the people who plan on staying here, to build an economy here. Not to give tax breaks for people so they can take them overseas.
     
  13. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, we don't. SSI pays those that earned little a greater percentage of their income than it does those that paid the maximum.

    Disability pays pretty much the same, after working only 5 years.

    Why should society pay because some of the population didn't save for their own retirement? If disability was only for those that turely can't work, why do disability rolls go up when unemployment is high?

    You also have no problem being the me me me society that want others to pay for your retirement.

    You'll say "but I paid my payroll tax". Payroll tax needs to double to meet the current SSI and Medicare expense, and would need to go up even more when the baby boomers fully retire.

    Did you write a check for the difference? If not, you want someone else to pay for you.
     
  14. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That would create a race to the bottom as people work hard to prove they are inefficient enough to sit at home and collect a check.
     
  15. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not sure what you are referring to, under any form of capitalism. Why do you believe what you do, regarding a form of minimum wage that could subsidize the least efficient to not provide labor input to the economy? In any case, any "race to the bottom" would have a limit in our "minimum wage".
     
  16. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the government paid you $100K a year to not work, would you work?
     
  17. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I wouldn't, unless the private sector paid a multimillion dollar bonus, even if we apply for corporate welfare.
     
  18. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ?!? I have no idea what you are saying. You would stay home and collect $100K only if private industry paid bonuses?

    What percent of the population (average income of $50K) would stay home if government paid them $100K to do so?
     
  19. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it doesn't need to be double., we just need to stop giving the rich a tax break on the ssi tax, tax everyone equally
     
  20. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Why should society pay because some of the population didn't save for their own retirement? "

    as a society we all pitch in for a safety net for our seniors and disabled, it's a insurance plan, not all will need it or use it
     
  21. dnsmith

    dnsmith New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,761
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I disagree. Union costs and government taxes have forced people to move their capital to make sufficient return. You call it greed. The CEO of the company working for the share holders call it good business. Business is not in the business to raise salaries, they are here to make a profit. Seeking more profit for you stock holders is not greed.
     
  22. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the payroll tax doesn't double, there isn't enough money to pay SSI & Medicare.

    Tax everyone equally, and pay everyone based on their total contribution?
     
  23. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An insufficient return means either downsizing, or closure.
     
  24. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Government taxes have forced people to move their capital to make sufficient return". So what your telling me is, when Bush authorized giving tax cuts to the wealthy, it still wasn't enough compensation for them to keep their capital and tax cuts here to create jobs here. Even though this is what Bush claimed was supposed to be going on. And now we find out from you, that taking that money overseas according to the CEO of the company, called it good business. I think if you were to ask the American tax payer what he or she thinks, they might be calling that stealing. Because that was never the intended use of those tax breaks according to Bush. You want to have a profitable business? Fine! Have one! Just don't do it at the expense of the American tax payer by shifting that money overseas and leaving the rest of us high and dry. But, that is exactly what happened. Almost no job growth during that entire time he was in office.

    Congratulations on giving us the inside scoop on not only how the tax cuts get worked, but who benefits from these tax cuts. Not the American worker, but the stockholder; taking into account you can afford to be a stockholder to begin with.
     
  25. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He gave tax cuts to the wealthy, not the corporations.

    No, tax cuts are another form of stimulus, one that doesn't end up supporting special interests.

    It surprises you that getting the biggest bang for your business buck is called good business?

    What would they call it if the corporation increased it's prices to remain profitable?

    That is what I said above.

    No job growth, or no job growth only if you consider the housing crash.

    This is no surprise to those that understand business. And, why we are seeing little to no increase in employment.

    Personal income tax doesn't effect business....
     

Share This Page