# Taxing the rich...yeah, that works...



## billc (Jul 18, 2012)

The wealthy in France are leaving.  I guess a 75% tax on millionaires isn't too appealing to...well...millionaires.  I guess the next step is to set up a special police force at the border to take the rich into custody so they can be made to comply...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...llande-Wants-The-Rich-to-Pay-Their-Fair-Share



> [h=2] And although he didn't use Obama's exact words, his intent was clear: it's time for the rich to pay their fair share. The rich got the message and have begun an exodus from France.[/h]Some of the proposed tax hikes include a 75% tax rate on all earnings over one million euros, 45% (up from 41%) on all incomes over 72,000 euros, and higher taxes on second homes as well. In essence, Hollande is planning to squeeze even more money out of the producers in his country so that he can use that money to fund his government and feed the masses that have grown accustomed to cradle-to-grave social services.



Yes, the "Nanny State," is a slow death for liberty.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 18, 2012)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

you are always good for a laugh.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 18, 2012)

Nearly 100,000 U.S. millionaires pay lower tax rates than middle class

Perhaps we aren't France after all? 

  Political rhetoric (be it conservative or liberal) reveals alot about a person.


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 18, 2012)

Wait, I can agree with something Billi said, we shouldn't be taxing our rich at %75.  However, I think they should pay a bit more than those who aren't as wealthy.  Since we do not tax our wealthy at %75, the OP seems to be a waste of time AND a failed attack attempt.


----------



## K-man (Jul 18, 2012)

So how 'rich' do you have to be until you pay no tax? If the rich don't pay their fair share, then the country from which they created their wealth can't be maintained.  Then you have 'quantitative easing' or printing money which leads to inflation and further increases the gap between rich and poor.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 18, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Wait, I can agree with something Billi said, we shouldn't be taxing our rich at %75.  However, I think they should pay a bit more than those who aren't as wealthy.  Since we do not tax our wealthy at %75, the OP seems to be a waste of time AND a failed attack attempt.



So, we're going to ignore that the rich pay the lion's share of taxes already and punish them for being successful?


----------



## billc (Jul 18, 2012)

That's the plan...


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 18, 2012)

> So, we're going to ignore that the rich pay the lion's share of taxes already and punish them for being successful?


  So, you figure that asking them to pay the same tax rate that I do is punishing them? Are you saying that because they make more money than me, we should give them a lower rate as a reward? That's what we've been doing to this point. Personally, I think our current tax system is incredibly stupid. However, if they're going to keep it they should at least apply it fairly, and not give extra tax breaks to those that don't need them. Perhaps you should try actually reading what I linked to. 

Nearly 100,000 U.S. millionaires pay lower tax rates than middle class


----------



## Big Don (Jul 18, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> So, you figure that asking them to pay the same tax rate that I do is punishing them? Are you saying that because they make more money than me, we should give them a lower rate as a reward? That's what we've been doing to this point. Personally, I think our current tax system is incredibly stupid. However, if they're going to keep it they should at least apply it fairly, and not give extra tax breaks to those that don't need them. Perhaps you should try actually reading what I linked to.
> 
> Nearly 100,000 U.S. millionaires pay lower tax rates than middle class



You understand, don't you that 20% of $5,000,000 is a whole lot more than 25% of $50,000 don't you?


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 18, 2012)

Big Don said:


> So, we're going to ignore that the rich pay the lion's share of taxes already and punish them for being successful?



Yet again someone must explain how mathmatics work.  If you make more money that everybody else then you will pay more taxes than everybody else even if your tax rate is lower than everybody else's.  That does not mean you are paying the same or greater percentage than anyone else.  It means you make a lot more money than everyone else.  So it is easier to see, Mr Blue makes $10,000 and is taxed 20% on it.  That means he pays $2000 in taxes.  Mr Red makes $100,000 and is taxed 10%, so he pays $10,000 in taxes.  Mr Red pays more in taxes than Mr Blue, but Mr Blue has a lot more taken out of his income as taxes.  That is how our taxes work right now.  Understand?

In my opinion, the EFFECTIVE tax rate on the rich should at least be the same as the poor and middle class pay. Case in point, Mr Romney paid 15% of his income in taxes.  Is that more or less than the percentage that you paid of your income?  Most likely it was less.  Why is that acceptable?  By the way, I am only using Mr Romney's taxes as an example because his effective tax rate is easily verifiable for 2010.


----------



## billc (Jul 18, 2012)

Here is Mitt Romney's net worth from wikipedia...



> *Personal wealth*
> 
> As a result of his business career, by 2007, Romney and his wife had a net worth of between $190 and $250 million, most of it held in blind trustssince 2003.[SUP][87][/SUP] In 2012, it was estimated that he had amassed twice the net worth of the last eight presidents combined,[SUP][88][/SUP] and would rank among the four richest in American history if elected.[SUP][88][/SUP][SUP][89][/SUP]
> An additional blind trust existed in the name of the Romneys' children and grandchildren that was valued at between $70 and $100 million as of 2007.[SUP][90][/SUP] The couple's net worth remained in the same range as of 2011, and was still held in blind trusts.[SUP][91][/SUP] In 2010, Romney and his wife received $21.7 million in income, almost all of it from investments, of which about $3 million went to federal income taxes (a rate of 13.9 percent, based upon the beneficial rate accorded investment income by the U.S. tax code) and almost $3 million to charity, including $1.5 million to the LDS Church.[SUP][92][/SUP]Romney has always tithed to the church, including stock from Bain Capital holdings.[SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][93][/SUP][SUP][94][/SUP] In 2010, the Romney family's Tyler Charitable Foundation gave out about $650,000, with some of it going to organizations that fight specific diseases such as cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis.[SUP][95][/SUP]



Soooo...



> The couple's net worth remained in the same range as of 2011, and was still held in blind trusts.[SUP][91][/SUP] In 2010, Romney and his wife received $21.7 million in income, almost all of it from investments, of which about $3 million went to federal income taxes (a rate of 13.9 percent, based upon the beneficial rate accorded investment income by the U.S. tax code)



I think 3 million dollars is too much for any one citizen to pay in taxes, whatever the rate.  That someone could look at someone who pays 3 million dollars, in just taxes, and say, "He didn't pay enough," is someone who needs a better moral compass.  Just because he has a lot of money doesn't mean any one else is entitled to it.

And as to the greedy rich, Romney, and his wife gave huge amounts of their income to charity, after taking the 3 million dollar hit in taxes.



> almost $3 million to charity, including $1.5 million to the LDS Church.[SUP][92][/SUP]Romney has always tithed to the church, including stock from Bain Capital holdings.[SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][93][/SUP][SUP][94][/SUP] In 2010, the Romney family's Tyler Charitable Foundation gave out about $650,000, with some of it going to organizations that fight specific diseases such as cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis.[SUP][95][/SUP]



So tell me how Romney is a bad guy with this kind of contribution to society.  Has anyone here on martial talk given even close to 3 million dollars to charity plus another 650,000 to other specific charities.  I'll tell you what, show me in your charitable giving that you gave close to that much, after paying 3 million dollars in taxes, and I'll take  your points more seriously.


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 19, 2012)

$3 million dollars to charity is a notable thing.  However, that is 1 to 1.5 % of what he has made.  I gave 10% last year to charity.  I am sure Mr Romney also wrote that off his taxes, which is allowed by law and not a bad thing, but dims the claim he donated to charity through purely altruistic reasons.  For many people it is about the not rich playing by one set of rules and the rich playing by another.  Why shouldn't they pay the same tax percentages as everyone else?  What is so special about the rich that they should get lower tax rates?  That they pay more in total money as a reason is pure hogwash.  They also have much more money left after taxes.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 19, 2012)

Big Don said:


> You understand, don't you that 20% of $5,000,000 is a whole lot more than 25% of $50,000 don't you?



By this mendacious argument, a tax rate of 100% on a $10,000 income is exactly equivalent to a 1% tax rate on a $1,000,000 income.  Good luck with that.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 19, 2012)

On the one hand, it's pretty clear that our current tax structure is unfair to the middle class.

On the other hand, it's pretty unfair that when the tax rates change next year, and Rita-that's the wife-and I are in that lovely, nearly 40% bracket, my annual salary-which pretty much *is* 40% of our combined salaries (which were a matter of public record, once, so I don't really care)-will *all* go to income taxes.....chaps my butt bigtime, it does.

On the other hand, it's also pretty unfair that my income from Walmart stock dividends this year-which is on track to exceed my salary by a little less than $10k-is only taxed at 15%-the nearly 40% next year is also unfair, though.....

The way our government taxes us is just a mess-and few people really comprehend the relationship between taxation and the economy at all. That includes you billi-the U.S. has a much lower tax rate on the wealthy than a lot of countries, but it's worth pointing out that our tax rates on the highest income were at their highest when the country's economy was at it's strongest-that's actually been pretty consistently true. 

I think some kind of sliding flat tax on all income-regardless of whether it's salary or from investments-would probably work best. By sliding I mean some sort of exclusion for those below "lower middle class," and some sort of slight increase for those who earn more than $1,000.000/yr. 

With no deductions at all for charitable giving.

And, yeah, billi, we may not have given as much as Romney did to charity, but my family gave a little more than 10% of our annual income, as we do every year.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 19, 2012)

[h=1]Most Americans say tax rich to balance budget: poll[/h]





> Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll showed.
> The next most popular way -- chosen by 20 percent -- was to cut defense spending.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 19, 2012)

I'd rather see everyone pay something. Then the rich pay more.  My sister is a dead beat single mom of three by three different looser guys two are in prison right now and the last one just got out like 3 months ago.  She works a job making like 11 bucks an hour.  Last year she got back every penny she paid in taxes plus 2200 more in tax refund then she actually paid.  I know this because my wife helped her file.   She has a negative tax rate and actually makes a profit off of her taxes and a pretty nice return rate at that.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 19, 2012)

> I think 3 million dollars is too much for any one citizen to pay in taxes, whatever the rate. That someone could look at someone who pays 3 million dollars, in just taxes, and say, "He didn't pay enough," is someone who needs a better moral compass. Just because he has a lot of money doesn't mean any one else is entitled to it.


You don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. How can the actual amount that is paid make any difference at all? 27% of my income went to taxes last year. Another 13% went to various charities. The dollar amount is irrelevant. 27% percent of my income is still 27%, no matter if I made $10,000 or $10,000,000. If I am required to give up a certain percentage of my income to the government, why shouldn't someone who makes 10x what I do? You think that it's right and moral to punish me for not making enough money, and reward the rich for making more? It seems to me that you've got a real problem with *your* "moral compass", perhaps you should consider a career in politics?



> And as to the greedy rich, Romney, and his wife gave huge amounts of their income to charity, after taking the 3 million dollar hit in taxes.


Yes, they did. However, they did it as a way to reduce their taxes, whereas I did it because I believe that the causes I support do a lot of good in our troubled world. And I still paid more of my limited income to charity than they did.


----------



## Steve (Jul 19, 2012)

Hey I'm not going to comment on the percentage thing.  I think you guys know where I fall on that.

But the money Romney gave to the lds church was a tithe.   More like a tax than a donation.  Not voluntary.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

Instead of trying to take more from Romney, how about getting the greedy politicians to take less from you.  That would be a start in the right direction.  Giving them more from anyone is just dumb.  They spend it on themselves, increasing their power, so, vote for someone who will lower your taxes, not raising taxes on other people, especially on people who will avoid them anyway.

You know what, it makes a big difference what people actually pay.  3 million dollars is 3 million dollars.  If you didn't pay that much at your tax rate, you still didn't pay as much as Romney, he is just more successful, financially than you.  Don't hate him, go after the corrupt politicians.  You may pay a bigger chunk of your salary, but who do you vote for?   If you voted for anyone who said they want to raise taxes on anyone, you only have yourself to blame.    If you are unhappy with your tax rate, as I am, then vote for the greedy politicians who will at least say they are going to lower taxes.  If they don't, vote them out.  That's how the system works.

You know, isn't it about time we stopped these politicians from turning us against each other, getting us to hate those who are successful, just to help them gain more power.  Power that they will use against us, after they use us to attack the easy targets like Romney.  He didn't steal his money, like politicians.  He earned his money through hard work, the politicians earn their money from taking it from other people.  There are bad poor people and their are bad rich people, and there are greedy, corrupt politicians.  The ones who want to target the rich are some of the worst, because they won't stop at the rich.  The real money is in the middle class, and after they use the poor and middle class against the rich, who do you think they will attack next?


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/poll-americans-want-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-everyone.php



> A new poll by McClatchy/Marist finds that most Americans &#8212; including those on the low end of the income spectrum &#8212; favor keeping the Bush tax cuts in place for all Americans. According to the poll, 52 percent of registered voters say they want all of these tax cuts extended, including those for incomes above $250,000. 43 percent want the cuts extended just for incomes below that threshhold.
> The results are essentially the same for voters at the lower end of the income spectrum. Those making less than $50,000 per year supported tax cuts for all incomes by 53 percent to 41 percent.
> Whites and Hispanics both want to see the tax cuts for everyone, with Hispanics favoring this position more than whites. African-Americans were evenly divided.
> Perhaps the most striking result was among voters ages 18-29. They favor tax cuts for everyone by a margin of 69-29, the largest margin of any age group.
> Maybe there is hope for this country after all.



Fight to lower your own taxes, don't be a tool for greedy, corrupt politicians used to take other peoples money.


----------



## Steve (Jul 19, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Instead of trying to take more from Romney, how about getting the greedy politicians to take less from you.


Why can't we do both?


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

Because 3 million dollars is more than enough for anyone to pay, in a fair world.


----------



## Steve (Jul 19, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Because 3 million dollars is more than enough for anyone to pay, in a fair world.


Not if they make $30 million dollars.  Didn't you...  you know, I could swear that somewhere around here you went on record as being in support of a flat tax.  Am I remembering wrong?


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

Yes, since the world isn't going to be fair, then we could at least have everyone pay the same flat rate.  Would that mean that some millionaires would pay more?  Yes.  But that doesn't mean it isn't wrong.  It isn't fair to have some pay so much more than others, the same way it isn't right to have the really poor pay more than a very small token amount to at least be contributing something.  I don't want Pgsmith to pay so much, but that doesn't mean I want Romney to pay more either.  A flat tax gives the politicians less wiggle room to screw us over, and it isn't as immoral as hitting some innocent people with tax rates over 20 percent, be they rich, middle class or poor.


----------



## Steve (Jul 19, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yes, since the world isn't going to be fair, then we could at least have everyone pay the same flat rate.  Would that mean that some millionaires would pay more?  Yes.  But that doesn't mean it isn't wrong.  It isn't fair to have some pay so much more than others, the same way it isn't right to have the really poor pay more than a very small token amount to at least be contributing something.  I don't want Pgsmith to pay so much, but that doesn't mean I want Romney to pay more either.  A flat tax gives the politicians less wiggle room to screw us over, and it isn't as immoral as hitting some innocent people with tax rates over 20 percent, be they rich, middle class or poor.


Fair, by it's very definition, means something is equitable and just.  It seems pretty obvious to me that a flat rate on all income is about as fair as taxation can get.  Whether that rate is 0% or 20%, if it's the same for everyone, it's completely fair.  I'm not sure how you can suggest that a flat tax is anything other than exceedingly fair.

Once again, though, if a flat tax were advantageous to the upper 20%, we would already have it.  Money is power, and if a flat tax reduced the burden on the rich, it would have been rammed through Congress decades ago.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 19, 2012)

The problem is actually the same one that grants corporate CEOs incredibly exhorbitant salaries. In the case of CEOs, the board of directors decides their salaries, and the CEO helps to set the benefits for the board of directors, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Politicians and the rich are exactly the same. The rich give money to the politicians so the politicians can become one of them. In return, the politicians work to make sure the laws favor the rich, because they are now a part of that group and so helping themselves. It used to be that all of this wheeling and dealing was done in back rooms and under the table because people would be outraged if the newspapers discovered what was going on. However, it has become so commonplace today that none of the players have a problem with being seen as underhanded and greedy, and the newspapers only report what their company (and the political party said company is partners with) lets them.

  I don't know what the answer is. The rich (including the politicians) will continue to get richer since they are the only players in this game. The rest of us don't matter because we hold such a small stake in their power/money game. I just simply try to get by without compromising my morals and principles. I'll tell you what though, if I made 150 million a year, I'd be happy to pay 50 million in taxes. If I can't live in the best of style for 100 million a year with more than I can count left over, then something is seriously wrong with me.


----------



## granfire (Jul 19, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> The problem is actually the same one that grants corporate CEOs incredibly exhorbitant salaries. In the case of CEOs, the board of directors decides their salaries, and the CEO helps to set the benefits for the board of directors, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Politicians and the rich are exactly the same. The rich give money to the politicians so the politicians can become one of them. In return, the politicians work to make sure the laws favor the rich, because they are now a part of that group and so helping themselves. It used to be that all of this wheeling and dealing was done in back rooms and under the table because people would be outraged if the newspapers discovered what was going on. However, it has become so commonplace today that none of the players have a problem with being seen as underhanded and greedy, and the newspapers only report what their company (and the political party said company is partners with) lets them.
> 
> I don't know what the answer is. The rich (including the politicians) will continue to get richer since they are the only players in this game. The rest of us don't matter because we hold such a small stake in their power/money game. I just simply try to get by without compromising my morals and principles. I'll tell you what though, if I made 150 million a year, I'd be happy to pay 50 million in taxes. If I can't live in the best of style for 100 million a year with more than I can count left over, then something is seriously wrong with me.



But you forgot that there has been some fair amount of brain washing going on so that some dirt poor bastard keeps supporting and defending that sick game...without having the snowball's chance in hell of ever joining that club....


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

Well, I hope you get that rich pgsmith, and we'll see how readily you give 50 million dollars to greedy politicians who have done nothing to earn that money and use it for their purposes, rather than yours.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 19, 2012)

> Well, I hope you get that rich pgsmith, and we'll see how readily you give 50 million dollars to greedy politicians who have done nothing to earn that money and use it for their purposes, rather than yours.


  It'll never happen. I am tied too tightly to my principals, and had poor parents. ​


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

What principals would keep you from getting rich?   You don't like hard work or long hours?  I can understand that.  The people who get really rich are usually rich as a by product of their work.  If it wasn't a by product, they would stop working as soon as they were rich.  Most, Rush, Trump, Gates, Jobs, and the others work because they love what they do and fortunately for them, what they do pays really well.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 19, 2012)

billcihak said:


> The people who get really rich are usually rich as a by product of their work.



While I have no statistics, they'd be interesting.This is not necessarily true-most of the rich people I've met were born that way, rich as a byproduct of their father, grandfather, or even great-great grandfather's work.



billcihak said:


> If it wasn't a by product, they would stop working as soon as they were rich. Most, Rush, Trump, Gates, Jobs, and the others work because they love what they do and fortunately for them, what they do pays really well.



This is mostly true-a lot of people are raised to recognize the value of work beyond that of a paycheck-they don't necessarily "love what they do," but they _must_ do something-and, in trhe case of Gates and Jobs, they do have a passion for it. In the case of Gates and Jobs, they also had the support and backing of others.

In the case of Trump, daddy was rich. He just got richer.....

As for Mr. Smith's principles, well, they could vary widely. I can tell you that few people succeed to the extent of making what I call "Middle Finger," or FTW (for "**** the world") money without at least steppign on a few toes or bending a few rules. I know that was the case for me. For the Gates and Jobs of the world, it resulted in documented, lifelong enmity and several court cases-people still actually think of Bill Gates as 'evil."


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

On inherited wealth...

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/



> For the sake of brevity, I didnt cite the research behind the statement. But since many of you have asked, and we aim to please here at the Wealth Report, here are my three main data points:
> 1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nations richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)
> 2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of todays multi-millionaires cited inheritance as their source of wealth.
> 3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among todays millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.
> Each of these stats measures slightly different things, yet they all come to the same basic conclusion: _Inheritance is not the main driver of todays wealth._ The reason weve had a doubling in the number of millionaires and billionaires over the past decade (even adjusted for inflation) is that more of the non-wealthy have become wealthy.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 19, 2012)

billcihak said:


> On inherited wealth...
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/




The conclusion of your quote makes an illogical assumption-naturally, the children of the wealthy get richer if they do something with it-this is,after all, the real function of wealth: to make _more_ wealth. My net worth is quite a bit higher than my father's, and my family trust has grown as well, but I wouldn't have been able to achieve all I did in business if I hadn't had some money to start out with........now that my father's dead (25 years, now) I have "inherited wealth," but my personal net worth had already exceeded it because of what I did with money that came to me through my family trust. Of course, I wouldn't cite "inheritance" as my source of wealth, any more than Donald Trump would, but he wouldn't be "the Donald" without having started out in his father's business and taking it over.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 19, 2012)

> What principals would keep you from getting rich? You don't like hard work or long hours? I can understand that. The people who get really rich are usually rich as a by product of their work. If it wasn't a by product, they would stop working as soon as they were rich. Most, Rush, Trump, Gates, Jobs, and the others work because they love what they do and fortunately for them, what they do pays really well.


My principles keep me from employing the ruthlessness necessary to become very rich. I've had personal conversations with Ross Perot, who told me that it requires ruthless drive to amass great wealth, and he's made a great number of life-long enemies that were casualties of that ruthless drive. Bill Gates stole the original code for Windows from his partners. I was involved in the electronics industry back when that happened, and there was much discussion about it on certain Darpa net sites. 

When I bought the home that I'm in now, the fellow that sold it to me deliberately covered up dozens of problems, and then lied to me about it in order to make more money on the sale. When I sold my house to move into my present one, I walked the prospective buyer around and told him about the issues that I knew of with the house. Now I could have hidden some things and covered over some things, and made a bit more money on that sale. However, I just wouldn't feel right doing that. When I sold my house, I felt good about myself and it made the buyer happy knowing that there weren't any problems covered up and hidden away. Those are the sort of principles that have made sure that I never got rich. I have no problem with hard work or long hours. I've been working hard since my first job at age 13. However, it takes a lot more than hard work and long hours to become one of the very wealthy and I, luckily in my opinion, just don't have what it takes. ​


----------



## Steve (Jul 19, 2012)

For the record,  all of my wealth is a result of my own work and effort, and while it might not qualify as a fortune, I don't know why it's less important for me to keep it than someone who is rich.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

Who said that?


----------



## shinbushi (Jul 19, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> It'll never happen. I am tied too tightly to my principals, and had poor parents. ​


That is such CRAP I know Plenty of businessmen (I am in 2 business mastrer mind groups) that came from nothing and now make 7 figures. They are ethical *and *rich


----------



## billc (Jul 19, 2012)

One thing that always seems odd to me.  Pgsmith, you said if you made 150 million dollars you would be happy to pay 50 million in taxes?  Why?  You would be giving that 50 million dollars over to the control of what almost every post on politics here on the study admits is a group of corrupt, greedy, degenerates who became politicians.  They will use that 50 million dollars to line their own pockets, increase their own power and to get even more than that 50 million dollars from you.  What they don't steal, they will waste or allow to be taken in fraud, and then they will print money to cover the money needed to fund the programs they were supposed to be supporting with your 50 million dollars.  Wouldn't it make more sense for you to dole out that 50 million dollars to charities that you control?  Wouldn't you do a better job of helping the really poor get a leg up because of your 50 million dollars?  Why give it to politicians when you would handle it better and more efficiently?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 19, 2012)

shinbushi said:


> . They are ethical *and *rich




And they, at the very least, _pissed_ somebody off. More likely, though, they screwed somebody-ethically or not. One can play well within "the rules," and still **** somebody over. 

Back in the 80's, I started a lucrative business exporting cars to South and Central America-and sometimes Mexico-with a couple of pals. I had an in to insurance auctions, one friend had an auto shop, and another had an in to the Bolivian government, and the Peruvian consulate. We exported Pontiac Trans-Ams to South America. I got them for like, 4-7 thousand dollars, and sold them for three or four times as much-never mind other cars like Porsches, Bentleys, Rollses, Lambos, Ferraris, etc., etc., etc. We made a lot of money-me, I started making money on **** like Crazy Glue, because we had to pay for space volume as well as shipping weight, and I didn't want all that extra transportainer volume to go to waste-a car basically leaves a little more than its entire volume empty in a standard transportainer, so I filled that space up with crap like Crazy Glue, and make up. Made a fortune. Had to negotiate my way through various nation's import laws, and figure out what there was a market for in those places, but made a small fortune-made even more money helping other people navigate through what would sell where, and how to get it there, and started an export management company.

Did *not* let my "embassy contact" in on that little deal, and it took a loooong time to repair our friendship.Kit and I are cool now, but only because he's known me since I was 15 or so,and I was good friends with his younger brothers and his mom, and I bought a goddam Porsche from him for top-dollar. Otherwise, he really, really, hated the crap out of me, and he's one of those guys who was born with more money than goddam *God*, and really-to my mind-had no business in my new business. 

I didn't even think about offering him a piece-to this day, I think he was more pissed at my letting Tony get in on it than he was at my not offering it to him.

When I got around to selling the business, after I'd stood it up and started to make a really substantial profit, and become bored to **** with it-:lfao:- I bought Tony out of his share, so that I could maximize my profit from selling it and licensing my name-I _still_ make money off the business, but Tony hasn't made a dime-or talked to me in close to 20 years. To my mind, maybe rightly so: it was *my* business. It was *my* name. He made a *lot* of money-off of *me*. I miss my friend, but-and this is the difference-I'd easily miss the close to $200,000 a year I still get from that business, as well as the money from the sale, a lot more than I've missed Tony, who's fun, but just not that bright, when you get down to it, and should count himself lucky that he made any money from exporting Revlon products (Peter Revson went to the same boarding school as I did, and helped me out to help himself out....:lol and Crazy Glue at all because of me.

Tony named his first born "Aaron," _after *me*_. I stood up with him when he got married. Before that, his grandfather would set us up with packages in Las Vegas-hookers and everything.I kept him out of jail on more than one occasion, and he rescued me from a pretty dire situation in Puerto Rico on another. I was never as close to him as I was to the people I knew before college-the people I grew up with- but we _were _really close, and he _thinks_ I ****ed him over, and I _think_ I didn't, and I really, really, really *don't care*: Tony would have said-*always* said- that "money and family come before everything else" back then, and he was neither....except for posting this, I haven't given it much of a thought at all since 1986 when my daughter was born, or may 1987, when my dad died, and his grandfather sent flowers. 

Wanna get rich? Unless you're J.K. Rowling or have a "basic patent invention," be prepared to screw_ someone _over, or have them _think _you did, or just be very, very, *very*, ****ing _*luck*_y. 

And you will probably be-whether you know it or not-very, very ****ing lucky.

And that's just "rich," not very rich, or very, very rich-like Oprah or Trump rich.



> "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. -F. Scott Fitzgerald


----------



## billc (Jul 20, 2012)

The rich aren't different from us, they just have more money.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2012)

billcihak said:


> The rich aren't different from us, they just have more money.



Inasmuch as we are both going to die someday, we ate not different. Otherwise, one can see from our posts alone that we are vastly different, and, when you take into acount that the ajority of the mega wealthy-your Buffet or Gates-is saying that they should be taxed more, and is planning some sort of limit on how much of their wealth is inherited, in spite of your buying into and insisting upon the corporate generated proletarian meme of"trickle down" economics, one has to recognize that there are greater differences than just finances.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 20, 2012)

As evidenced in this thread as well as on a national scale, the current tax laws do nothing but breed dissent, animosity, and resentment. 

"We hold these truths to be self evident that ALL men are created equal...." except under the tax code. 

IMHO, there is only one way to handle tax and make it fair; only one way it would eliminate all the "hate", and that's a flat tax rate for everyone. Regardless of income, the same percent has to apply to everyone.

But it will never happen... because the government currently benefits from the dissent. It helps with their "class warfare" campaign. 

Real leadership would instead encourage people to rise above and improve themselves, not blame the successful for their woes.


----------



## Steve (Jul 20, 2012)

I'm still trying to wrap my head around billcihak's idea that a regressive tax structure is "fair."  If the rich are the same as the rest of us, and taxes should be fair, and we presume that I've earned my meager wealth as much as a rich person has earned his or her fortune, then I'd like to know why the rich person should be allowed to pay a smaller percentage in taxes.  

I'd love to hear a simple, rational explanation of the above, billcihak.  

I'd also like to know whether any of the other people who are very critical of the Democrats agrees.  Big Don? Celtic Crippler?  Anyone?


----------



## granfire (Jul 20, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Inasmuch as we are both going to die someday, we ate not different. Otherwise, one can see from our posts alone that we are vastly different, and, when you take into acount that the ajority of the mega wealthy-your Buffet or Gates-is saying that they should be taxed more, and is planning some sort of limit on how much of their wealth is inherited, in spite of your buying into and insisting upon the corporate generated proletarian meme of"trickle down" economics, one has to recognize that there are greater differences than just finances.



well, there was some trickling down...but it sure wasn't wealth....


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 20, 2012)

Steve said:


> I'm still trying to wrap my head around billcihak's idea that a regressive tax structure is "fair."  If the rich are the same as the rest of us, and taxes should be fair, and we presume that I've earned my meager wealth as much as a rich person has earned his or her fortune, then I'd like to know why the rich person should be allowed to pay a smaller percentage in taxes.



Because the wealthy own the Republican party, and the Republican party owns our friendly partisans.  Thus whatever the Republican party stands for at the moment will be justified and rationalized - even if that is opposite to what the Republican party stood for 10 years ago.  Or even 6 months ago.  This dynamic is also how we get thousands of self-described Christians promoting the most un-Christlike policy and behavior imaginable.

The history of how the Republican party became associated with the wealthy is quite interesting, and it's actually not a bad thing.  The Whigs and the Republicans they became were the main political force for abolition (except for a few, e.g. "cotton whigs") due to their ideology of "Free Soil and Free Labor".  Also as a consequence, they promoted business interests and business friendly improvements like the US Bank.  150 years later, they still promote business interests, thus also the wealthy.  How they also managed to pick up the forces of racism and reaction along the way is a sadder story.

Similarly, the current position of the Democrats can be traced back to Andrew Jackson and the opposition to the US Bank, internal improvements, free labor, and the like.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 20, 2012)

> Real leadership would instead encourage people to rise above and improve themselves, not blame the successful for their woes.


Excuse me, but what on earth would possibly make you put the phrase "real leadership" in a forum on politics? Today's politics have absolutely nothing to do with "leadership", and everything to do with money and power. 

Aaron, thanks for the insight! 



> One thing that always seems odd to me. Pgsmith, you said if you made 150 million dollars you would be happy to pay 50 million in taxes? Why? You would be giving that 50 million dollars over to the control of what almost every post on politics here on the study admits is a group of corrupt, greedy, degenerates who became politicians. They will use that 50 million dollars to line their own pockets, increase their own power and to get even more than that 50 million dollars from you. What they don't steal, they will waste or allow to be taken in fraud, and then they will print money to cover the money needed to fund the programs they were supposed to be supporting with your 50 million dollars. Wouldn't it make more sense for you to dole out that 50 million dollars to charities that you control? Wouldn't you do a better job of helping the really poor get a leg up because of your 50 million dollars? Why give it to politicians when you would handle it better and more efficiently?


  Because if I had that much money (through some unknown miracle  ) I would feel incredibly bad knowing that millions of people struggling to get by are having to pay more of their hard-earned wealth in taxes than me, when I can afford it so much easier than they can. It's something I don't have the necessary calluses to deal with, and I have no desire to develop them.


----------



## billc (Jul 20, 2012)

> Because if I had that much money (through some unknown miracle  ) I would feel incredibly bad knowing that millions of people struggling to get by are having to pay more of their hard-earned wealth in taxes than me, when I can afford it so much easier than they can. It's something I don't have the necessary calluses to deal with, and I have no desire to develop them.​



Yeah, still not getting why giving that money to politicians would help those people struggling.  You could take that 50 million dollars and send their kids to college, pay their medical bills, fix their homes, or pay off their mortgages.  You could do it in a way where people who actually needed it would get it, not  the political cronies of politicians who get it because they have powerful connections, or the politicians who would just use it to increase their power and election chances dolling out to those who could most help them get reelected.  The politicians who would steal and waste the money, and then increase the debt to pay for the programs that your money should have helped in the first place.  If you were that wealthy, you could actually oversee the use of "your" money, and make sure it wasn't wasted or stolen.  Wouldn't that be a better use of that 50 million dollars than giving it to a corrupt political governing class in the form of taxes?​


----------



## elder999 (Jul 23, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> Aaron, thanks for the insight!
> .




On the other hand, to be fair, Ben and Jerry have managed to remain friends-and the most ruthless thing they've ever done, business wise, that I know of, is take on Haagen Dasz together. Tom Clancy, Stephen King, JK Rowling, and a bunch of other writers and artists have managed to become industries unto themselves without screwing anyone over. Likewise, several major sports figures, rock bands and other musicians.

On the other hand-speaking of bands-there's _Creedence Clearwater Revival_, just for starters-a band breakup accompanied by financial stress and stress over intellectual property that was so acrimonious that John Fogerty wouldn't visit his own brother on his deathbed.

Money can screw up the best of relationships, if not handled correctly, and make monsters of the best of people-they can even be "the best of people" if money isn't involved, and only turn into monsters when they see $$$$. 

You don't get to be Mitt Romney, though, or Donald Trump, Warren Buffett, etc.-without gleefully stepping on a few necks-*hard.*


----------



## Steve (Jul 23, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yeah, still not getting why giving that money to politicians would help those people struggling.  You could take that 50 million dollars and send their kids to college, pay their medical bills, fix their homes, or pay off their mortgages.  You could do it in a way where people who actually needed it would get it, not  the political cronies of politicians who get it because they have powerful connections, or the politicians who would just use it to increase their power and election chances dolling out to those who could most help them get reelected.  The politicians who would steal and waste the money, and then increase the debt to pay for the programs that your money should have helped in the first place.  If you were that wealthy, you could actually oversee the use of "your" money, and make sure it wasn't wasted or stolen.  Wouldn't that be a better use of that 50 million dollars than giving it to a corrupt political governing class in the form of taxes?​



Yeah, still not getting why you won't explain why you believe rich people should pay a lower percentage than poor people in taxes.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2012)

Steve said:


> Yeah, still not getting why you won't explain why you believe rich people should pay a lower percentage than poor people in taxes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Poor people dont pay taxes. 
 Id rather see the same tax rate for everyone, rich, middle, and the poor.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 23, 2012)

elder999 said:


> On the other hand, to be fair, Ben and Jerry have managed to remain friends-and the most ruthless thing they've ever done, business wise, that I know of, is take on Haagen Dasz together.



Ofc. Daniel Faulkner's family may disagree with that


----------



## Steve (Jul 23, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Poor people dont pay taxes.
> Id rather see the same tax rate for everyone, rich, middle, and the poor.



Thanks, ballen.  But I was specifically asking billcihak to explain why he believes that rich people should pay less of a percentage than  every one else, including you and me.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Jul 23, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Poor people dont pay taxes.
> Id rather see the same tax rate for everyone, rich, middle, and the poor.



And would it surprise you to learn that there are a large number of people in the top 20% who pay zero income tax?  Weird, huh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Jul 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> And would it surprise you to learn that there are a large number of people in the top 20% who pay zero income tax?  Weird, huh?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yeah, if you don't have income, you don't pay income taxes, regardless of how much you have in the bank...


----------



## billc (Jul 24, 2012)

Because I look at the total paid by the individual.  3 million dollars paid by one person is enough for anyone to pay each year, and probably excessive.  If the poor or middle class are paying too much, in actual dollars, it should be reduced as well.


----------



## Steve (Jul 24, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, if you don't have income, you don't pay income taxes, regardless of how much you have in the bank...


Top 20% of EARNERS.  If you have enough money to shelter your income to avoid taxes, you don't pay income taxes. It's all on the IRS.gov website.  The statistical information and breakouts are right there.  I've posted them here in the past.  Do some research.

Look.  It seems to me that you guys have a real problem with poor people who pay zero taxes.  I'm just pointing out that you guys don't hold the very rich to the same standard.  Just highlights that your issue with the people getting a free ride is essentially just a bigotry toward people who don't make a lot of money.


----------



## Steve (Jul 24, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Because I look at the total paid by the individual.  3 million dollars paid by one person is enough for anyone to pay each year, and probably excessive.  If the poor or middle class are paying too much, in actual dollars, it should be reduced as well.


What's "too much?"  Could you define that please?  Is it, say, a percentage of one's income?  In actual dollars, what's too much for a middle class family with a total income of $60,000 per year?  If a family makes $100,000/year, what's "too much" for them?  You're waffling like crazy right now, using abstract terms that have no actual meaning.  "Too much, in actual dollar."  That's double speak.


----------



## billc (Jul 24, 2012)

Yes, we hate people who  pay zero taxes, you've nailed it and you have outed us.  No not really.  I'm willing to say 15% of any income stream to make it easier, but at some point there is a "too much," for any individual to pay to the government.  3 million dollars is too much.  I have been pretty clear as well, 35-40 grand that no one pays any taxes on and then 15-20 percent flat tax on any revenue stream...but, I also think that there should be a cap on what any one person can pay in taxes no matter how much they make.  I mean, if someone is giving 3 million dollars to the government in taxes, they should get a medal, not be the subject of hate.


----------



## Steve (Jul 24, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Yes, we hate people who  pay zero taxes, you've nailed it and you have outed us.


Never said that.  I've said that some here have gone on record as being vehemently opposed to the bottom 20% paying no taxes.  It's an observation, not a conclusion.  In other words, I'm only repeating what has been said.  Another observation is that Don and Ballen (and a few others) have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that someone in the upper 20% of earners who pays zero taxes doesn't bother them.  The conclusion is that it's not the idea of paying zero taxes that's an issue.  The real issue is *poor people* paying zero taxes.  





> No not really.


Kind of.  Pretty much.  Yeah.  Really. 





> I'm willing to say 15% of any income stream to make it easier, but at some point there is a "too much," for any individual to pay to the government.  3 million dollars is too much.


But... what about for the middle class family who makes $100,000 per year?  You said that they shouldn't pay "too much, in actual dollars."  What does that mean?  Could you be more specific?  Or are you saying $3 million is your cut off?  You've used that dollar amount several times.  Are you saying that $3,000,000 is okay, but $3,000,001 is too much?  Period?  If I make $8 Gazillion dollars per year, I've fulfilled my civic duty (in your opinion) by paying a lump sum of $3 million to the government.  After that, my income should be tax free?  





> I have been pretty clear as well, 35-40 grand that no one pays any taxes on and then 15-20 percent flat tax on any revenue stream...but, I also think that there should be a cap on what any one person can pay in taxes no matter how much they make.  I mean, if someone is giving 3 million dollars to the government in taxes, they should get a medal, not be the subject of hate.


Right.  So, there's that middle ground where at $100,000 /year up to about $10million per year, I'm paying a higher percentage than someone who makes $2 billion per year.  Because you're suggesting that we institute a regressive tax schedule.  

It's cool if you believe this.  It's your opinion.  Just don't pretend it's "fair."  It is in no way fair.  And also, this is a seperate discussion than the apparent bigotry toward the poor that ballen and Big Don are demonstrating.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> Top 20% of EARNERS.  If you have enough money to shelter your income to avoid taxes, you don't pay income taxes. It's all on the IRS.gov website.  The statistical information and breakouts are right there.  I've posted them here in the past.  Do some research.
> 
> Look.  It seems to me that you guys have a real problem with poor people who pay zero taxes.  I'm just pointing out that you guys don't hold the very rich to the same standard.  Just highlights that your issue with the people getting a free ride is essentially just a bigotry toward people who don't make a lot of money.



No I think everyone should pay the same amount regardless of income level. A nice flat tax rate of say 15%.  Then the give the govt the budget and say you can't borrow more you have X amount of money this year deal with it.


----------



## Steve (Jul 24, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> No I think everyone should pay the same amount regardless of income level. A nice flat tax rate of say 15%.  Then the give the govt the budget and say you can't borrow more you have X amount of money this year deal with it.


And I'm with you, completely.  But once again, a flat tax would not be advantageous to the rich.  If it was, we'd already have it.   Again, there is ample criticism of the poor, whom you yourself made a point of saying do not pay taxes.  But you continue to ignore the fact that there are thousands of people who earn in the top 20% who pay zero taxes, not even counting those who pay far, far less than their presumed tax rate.  

I think a flat tax is a terrific idea.  In addition to saving countless dollars in administration, reduce our need for a large federal agency in the form of the IRS, it would also be very, very fair.   Right, billcihak?


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 24, 2012)

Actually the poor do pay taxes, even if they fall below the threshhold to pay income tax.  A much larger portion of thier income goes to living expenses and much of that is taxed.  That is why a pure flat tax has been shown to effectthe poor more than anyone else.  Now there are ways to fix that, such as exzempting income up to a certain level from the flat tax, but then you will have people throwing a fit about the poor not paying income tax.


----------



## granfire (Jul 24, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Actually the poor do pay taxes, even if they fall below the threshhold to pay income tax.  A much larger portion of thier income goes to living expenses and much of that is taxed.  That is why a pure flat tax has been shown to effectthe poor more than anyone else.  Now there are ways to fix that, such as exzempting income up to a certain level from the flat tax, but then you will have people throwing a fit about the poor not paying income tax.



yeah, damn those people, why don't they earn more money so we can tax them fairly?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 24, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Actually the poor do pay taxes, even if they fall below the threshhold to pay income tax.  A much larger portion of thier income goes to living expenses and much of that is taxed.  That is why a pure flat tax has been shown to effectthe poor more than anyone else.  Now there are ways to fix that, such as exzempting income up to a certain level from the flat tax, but then you will have people throwing a fit about the poor not paying income tax.



Well actually they don't.  With things like earned income tax credits they get back all they paid in and in some cases like my sister get back more then they paid in.  So they may pay taxes from payroll but when you get it all back then in effect they pay nothing.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> And I'm with you, completely.  But once again, a flat tax would not be advantageous to the rich.  If it was, we'd already have it.   Again, there is ample criticism of the poor, whom you yourself made a point of saying do not pay taxes.  But you continue to ignore the fact that there are thousands of people who earn in the top 20% who pay zero taxes, not even counting those who pay far, far less than their presumed tax rate.
> 
> I think a flat tax is a terrific idea.  In addition to saving countless dollars in administration, reduce our need for a large federal agency in the form of the IRS, it would also be very, very fair.   Right, billcihak?



I'm not ignoring anything I've already said everyone should pay taxes including the rich and the poor. My personal preference is a federal sales tax so you get tax revenue from all illegal sources as well like drug  money


----------

