The rich SHOULD pay a higher tax rate!!

It is realistic, it doesn't feel good, and it reflects both economic reality and christian morality!! The share of the total tax burden is the most worthless statistic imaginable. All it reflects is the fact that the wealthy have an enormous amount of the wealth in this country, it says NOTHING about the tax system what so ever!! However, when one actually analyzes the tax system, they find that the very wealthy often pay lower marginal tax rates than people in the middle and upper middle class. Is that really something you find to be morally acceptable?

 

The brainwashing done by elite propaganda outlets really is strong!! The very wealthy are only very wealthy because of government. If government were to collapse tomorrow, the wealth of the very rich would collapse as well. Government protects their investments, protects their property(both physical and intellectual), they give them government contracts, subsidies, bailouts, etc, etc, etc. They also intervene in the market to impede competition, and allow large companies to crush competition. The very wealthy are not the benefactors of government. You could claim it is a symbiotic relationship, or that at least it should be, but over the last 30 years the very wealthy have tried to maintain all the benefits, while attempting to stop paying for those benefits. That is absurd, and should not be accepted by anyone.

 

????? WTF is unearned income??????

I really think there is something wrong with your people's brains!!

He earned it first before he invested it....now it is new INVESTMENT income!

If you had ever earned any money, and had actually INVESTED it, maybe you would UNDERSTAND what exactly INVESTMENT INCOME IS!

He made great investments with the income he earned! GOOD FOR HIM! Now he doesn't have to work as hard....WAY TO GO!

It's people like you with this ILLOGICAL EMOTIONAL agruements that bring this country down.

Here is a suggestion for you.....

Go earn some money, pay the taxes at the current income tax rate. Than, take that money and invest it into something...than if it's a GOOD INVESTMENT you will start making INVESTMENT income that the government will now take 15% on. And perhaps than and only than will you understand that you are now being taxed twice. Once when you earned the money working, and now when you have invested that money (instead of spending it)! Capeesh? Do it, I dare you!

 

Oh and please tell us where he got the money to make the investment? Where did it come from????? Thin air, dropped from the sky? Where?

 

This is so dopey almost,Draconian.The Rich already pay the vast majority of
Federal Taxes.If just 1/2 of 1% of the Rich decided to move to Europe
and therefore no need to pay any Federal Income tax,this country would
fall so fast no even yer head would have time to spin.
The Poor {yes many who are overweight schlubs } need to pay something.
Maybe just $ 5 dollars per $100 just for living here.
Many of those who get off scott free form paying ANY Federal Income
tax { 47-49% of ALL those in this Country } seem to have no problem
with buying cigarettes and Beer/pop and tons of junk food.
Not to mention Lotto tickets.None of which does them a lick of good.
Being Poor should not be stigmatized but being Poor and ungratefull
and insisting on Government Freebies is detestable.L.B.J.'s
Great Society started this mindset.
If the Rich have a responsibility to our Poor,then those Poor have
a responsibility to be somewhat thankful,not thogoughly ungrateful
with a bigger paw out for more free stuff.Which is exactly what Obama
and Pelosi think is a winning strategy to garner { pander } a majority
of votes.

 

This is idiocy beyond my ability to comprehend!! I sometimes wonder how the country could have ever gotten to the point we are in now, and I realize it is because people lap up propaganda so easily!! The idea that the only people who are middle class and working class, are that way because they choose to be, is idiotic beyond imagination. The system very much depends on the fact that there be some rich people, some poor people, and a lot of workers in between. It would not be possible to have 300,000,000 millionaires!! First of all, it would be incredibly inflationary. If everyone had millions, it would mean a million dollars would stop meaning very much. Not only that, but if everyone were capitalists, there would be no one left to do the actual work. You know the worthless stuff like actually making things, actually providing the services, etc. Stuff most people don't really value, as opposed to rich people sitting in a room around a desk talking, which is invaluable to society!!


Just for a second do a little mental game. Imagine that tomorrow, all the wealthy people stayed home. Imagine Rand's idiotic books comes true, but just for one day, and imagine the outcome. However, imagine that all the workers still went to work. How productive would the world be? Pretty productive!! All the things would still be built, the roads would still be open, the street lights would still work, the toll operators would still be there, the workers at the electrical plant would be there, the worker at the gas station would be there, the worker at the water plant would still be there, and on and on and on. Now imagine the opposite occurred, and all those valuable rich people went to work, but none of the workers did!! What would be the outcome? A complete collapse of society. With no one to run the plants, your electricity and running water would shut off. The street light would be out, so while driving would certainly be possible, it would be difficult. The elevators would be out, so if the rich fellows worked on the 56th floor, they would have to walk up. The gas station attendants would be gone, so there would be only enough driving that could be done on the tank that was currently in place. Basically everything would stop working.


Of course in your world, the rich would all don their super hero capes, and save everything on their own, but in reality society would be just fine without the very wealthy for a while. After a few weeks it might be noticeable that no big decisions have been made, and some one would need to make those, but without the workers society would instantly stop functioning. So could all those workers stop being workers? Would that really work, do you think? I suppose in 100 years that may be possible, if everything becomes automated, and just have a few workers around to maintain the automated machines. However, at the moment society could not function without workers. Our system therefore naturally demands that there be a small group of very wealthy people who do little of the work, but claim all the credit because they have all the capital. A very large section of the population who does all the work, but they receive little credit because they don't have the capital, and a small section of very poor people. That is the natural outcome of a capitalist system. You can deny reality, and pretend everyone could be a millionaire if they just wanted it bad enough, but people in touch with reality, realize how idiotic and false that notion really is!!

 

So my argument is logical, yours isn't, and yet mine is the one driven by emotion??


The rich have not paid taxes on that income, that is a fact. You are lying and distorting reality, to support your nonsensical political agenda.


Last up, unearned income is what it is called. If you have never heard it called that before, that isn't my fault. Anyone with the slightest education understands the term!!

 

He was taxed on old income, now he has made new income. So it is taxed again. This is quite simple stuff. What is confusing you about this?

 

.. and you are illustrating that by repeating the propaganda.

 

This is really Philosophically simple.The people who benefit the most
within a society should be the ones who Put the most in and
thereby stand to Risk the greatest.Which is exactly what the Rich do.
The poor on the other hand,put in the least,if any,and still get
some reward in Society.They can go to State Parks and travel the same
roads and use the Libraries.Take for example a big city Hall.I went to
one last week to pay off a speeding citation.The place was crowded
almost packed with Poor.Those looking for government services or
trying to get out of whatever trouble they got themself in.
I doubt many were productive members of society.They were feeding
off of Society.Gaming the system.Why should the Rich let themself
be considered the problem,when the problem is right before our eyes.
We have too many Slackers in Society who Pay No Taxes and
do not contribute.
What would all those Poor slackers do w/o their freebies.
Many learn what it means to have a job,keep a job and not be feeding
off the government trough,made possible by those who pay the majority
of taxes,including Property Owners.

 

There is not a single media outlet that says the things I say. Why would those media outlets, which are all owned by large corporations, promote an agenda that would lead to them paying higher taxes? Of course they wouldn't. So they trot out this debate, but never actually make the convincing arguments for why my side is right, and your side has nothing more than meaningless slogans and propaganda!!

 

You are the one vomiting out the propaganda. Of course we can't have 300 million millionaires. Not everyone has the ability. Just as we don't have 300 M all pro QB's in football. But everyone with the drive and determination can do better to much better. Liberalism wants to make everyone mediocre at best.

The FACT that people move up and down through all 5 groups tells a rational person that liberalism is hogwash.

Of the top quintile, 80% were NOT rich 10 years ago, and a sizable portion of them WON'T be rich 10 years from now.

 

No your argument makes zero logical sense.

No, it is not a fact. Unless the money came from inheritence (unearned income)....tell me where the money came from if he hadn't earned it?

Oh so typical a response...

Have I ever heard the term "unearned income?" Are you serious? Yes, of course I have....did I ask you what it was? Yes, I do believe I did.

I will also ask you if you know what passive income is?

Passive income is an income received on a regular basis, with little effort required to maintain it.

The American Internal Revenue Service categorizes income into three broad types, active (earned) income, passive income, and portfolio income. It defines passive income as income from "trade or business activities in which you do not materially participate."[1] Other financial and government institutions also recognize it as an income obtained as a result of capital growth or in relation to negative gearing. Passive income is usually taxable.

Some examples of passive income are:

Earnings from a business that does not require direct involvement from the owner or merchant;
Rent from property;
Royalties from publishing a book or from licensing a patent or other form of intellectual property, such as computer software product;
Earnings from internet advertisements on websites;[2]
Dividend and interest income from owning securities, such as stocks and bonds, is usually referred to as portfolio income, which may or may not be considered a form of passive income. In the United States, portfolio income is considered a different type of income than passive income;
Pensions.[3]
The IRS has a specific definition of passive income that excludes some of the incomes listed above. Royalties, for example, are, according to the Service guide, generally non-passive in nature. Additionally, interest, dividends, annuities, and gains from stocks and bonds, lottery winnings, salaries, wages, commissions, retirement income, guaranteed payments for services are considered by the IRS to be non-passive.

wiki/passive income

 

Theoretically a Society is at it's best when the notion that
ALL can make it is lauded.That in any Land of Milk & Honey
freedom of Opportunity has to be at it's zenith.Which is the
meaning behind the American Dream.The reason certain Industrialist
Like Andrew Carnegie came into being.Growing up Poor he worked
hard to overcome and perservered.He was also monumentlly generous,
declaring he would never take above a certain amount as his salary,
needing enough to live in a fashion afforded his station in Life.
He lived up to that declaration.A quite modest salary given his huge
wealth and status.Libraries and learning Institutions were built
with his wealth and contributed to the benefit of all in those areas.
Today,there is a movement to literally wipe out the theory behind
what Great Industrialists like Carnegie believed to be a Right.The
right to make it in Society with no bounds.The Sky is the limit.
Nowadays that is being thought of as confined selfishness.Yet I just
proved how it wasn''t the case with Andrew Carnegie.Left to his own
device,he choose to be a great and affectionate Philantropist.
There will be No Great Philantropists if Pelsoi and Obama have their way.
Which should send chills of irony courseing thru the veins of citizens.
Given the way Pelosi enriched herself by an increase of 62% to her
net worth as Speaker.And a President Living High on the Hog,well
over any comparable living standard of an average President.

 

Clearly it isn't for someone such as yourself. That made no sense once again. I already said it was taxed twice, you disagreed....now you are telling me it is taxed twice.

So, there is nothing confusing about it to me.

 

Once more, just so maybe you can understand. A guy made income. He was taxed on that income. Then he made more income, and was taxed on that income. In your world, being taxed on different income at different times is double taxation? In reality, it is taxing 2 different sets of income at 2 different times. Clearly this is all a bit too confusing for you!!

 

So in other words you didn't know what unearned income was, and you googled it. No problem, we all have to google terms from time to time. I just suggest that next time you google the term, before criticizing some one else for using it!! It avoids the future silliness where we have to contort and spin to try and pretend like we weren't uninformed!!

 

The only issue is, Did Romney pay what he was legally obligated to pay in taxes?

Yes he did. Same as you, unless you live off the nanny state.

Who wants to raise the tax rate on the rich, LEAVING all deductions, write offs, and exemptions in place? DEMOCRATS! What will that accomplish? Nothing but political rhetoric. THIS IS PROPAGANDA!

Who wants to throw out the present tax code and RAISE all rates and eliminate all the deductions, write offs and exemptions? REPUBLICANS. What will that accomplish? It will increase Federal Revenue, and combined with real, actual, spending cuts, return some sanity to our govt.
THIS IS RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT!

 

Republicans want NO SUCH THING!! In fact, Democrats don't want what you say they want either. Democrats were free to raise taxes for an entire year on the very wealthy, when they had a senatorial super majority. They didn't, because despite your misunderstandings, they are just as much in the pockets of the wealthy as Republicans. Republicans don't want any of those things you are saying either. By that I mean establishment Republicans in government. There are currently of course some members of the Republican party who want that. I personally want to lower every tax bracket, by 3-5%. Then add about 5-7 new tax brackets above the current highest bracket. So that the people currently in the upper middle class stop getting raked over the coals, while the wealthy avoid large amounts of taxation.

PS. I never claimed Romney was doing anything illegal, and I am not the one who brought him up either. Romney is not a bad guy for taking advantage of a broken system, it is the broken system that needs to be fixed!! We need to get rid of Bush's idiotic capital gains tax cut, and start taxing the capital gains at the proper income level.

 

Made income? Made income? HAHA...you just don't want to say EARNED INCOME now do you? Ohhh this is craking me up!

Go back and read everything you said, than read everything I said. You tell me, if you are now going against everything you orginally said, and now saying what I have been all along.

You said he didn't earn it, and you said he wasn't taxed! LOL....omg.

 

It is called unearned income you brilliant fellow!! I referenced the term used to describe a certain type of income. A person makes that income(which isn't the same as earned or unearned, I really can't imagine where you got your dictionary/thesaurus), after that you are just babbling!! You haven't made a coherent argument yet to support your position, which is that it is somehow double taxation, even though different income is being taxed at a different time. Care to explain that magical process if you please!!

 

That simply would not work out.Because the Rich are the Employers and
the ones who sign the paychecks.Miss a paycheck or 2 and a worker
will either Quit,Strike or be lazy on the job.Look what Happenned to
American irlines.The Workers { unionized } listened to their Union
officials who refused to compromise with corporate even though Corporate
was running in the red and could no longer operate at a loss.
Union Bosses refused to compromise with American Airlines front office
or corporate and American Airlines filed for bankrupcy letting go many
of it's workforce.What did that Work force do,they decided to Picket.
Gee that was really brilliant.Instead of working with AA and compromising they decided to follow blindly with the Union Boses and now are out of work.

Workers are a dime a dozen but the Rich are few and far between,nothing like what the Occupy Wall Street crowd and Dimocrat Politicians want you
to believe.I bet for every Millionaire made in the Country,there is a
Bankrupt Millionaire busted broke.However under Obama the Middle
Class is shrinking,unlike under Bush, and the Poor and those in Poverty
has expanded.Small Business owners are the ones most effected.
The only reason for higher taxes is to support a bigger,more
spendthrift Government.Eventually Bigger Government becomes a
White Elephant.Too bloated and inefficient to manage it's own
excess.

 

Um, no they don't!! At least not at corporations where the very wealthy work. At small businesses, the owner would likely make out the checks. At corporations with very wealthy executives and board members, those people have absolutely NOTHING to do with the payment process. Payroll handles that stuff, and then they have a stamp of the signature of the person who is meant to be giving out the check. Even more so nowadays, there is direct deposit as well, which means that stamp isn't even necessary. So in other words, that usually(almost always) isn't accurate.

 

Because it gives him an incentive to "Invest" it. Without that "investment" there would be no capital to start new or expand existing businesses. If we charge him more Taxes, he will take his money to some other Country that charges far less and invest it there.

Do you not understand that Rich people have many alternatives as to what to do with their "riches"? Would you like them to take it somewhere else so some other Nation can benefit from their investing there?

Are Liberals really this stupid, or do they just play idiots on the Web?