Rich Get Rich and Poor Get Poorer

[BlueDragon1981]

Is this the Republican way?

The house has just voted a large tax break for the wealthy people. To compensate for this cut they are cutting programs that offer assistance to people in the lower classes. They are also cutting financial aid for students for college and many more programs to help people...just so the rich can get more rich....if this is the Republican way i want no part of it.

President Bush and the republican congress are causing a deficit that future generations will have to pay back....since they will likely be dead or out of office they don't care about the future.

What are these tax cuts going to do....I garentee the excuse that it is going to place more money in the economy is bullcrap.

 

[Flying Crane]

well, keep in mind that the gang of thugs known as Bush & Co., are not really republicans. They are neo-conservatives disguised as republicans, and they have hijacked the republican party and are using it to further their agenda.

Their agenda was spelled out by Wolfowitz back in the 1980s. In a nutshell, their agenda includes the liberal and premeditated use of the US military around the globe to establish control over the resources of the world, which would be for the benefit of the US (in reality, the WEALTHY within the US). Essentially, they believe it is the role of the US to globally give orders, and other nations are to obey.

An invasion of Iraq was listed as part of this plan back in the 1980s. They only needed a reason they could use to justify the invasion to the public. One year before 911, their internal memos expressed that this would be a hard-sell to the US public, unless we had another "Pearl Harbor". One year later, we had 911, and these clowns were in business.

Yes, their plan is for the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer, and they do it thru committing atrocities around the world. This is why Bush's second term is such a tragedy, because all the signs were there but the general public refused to recognize them. They voted him in (well, he helped by stealing the election again, but enough people voted for him to make that possible), and now we are stuck with him again. Hopefull, he is becoming more and more a lame duck. But then, when his term is over, he and his henchmen will walk away with all their wealth, and they will never be held accountable for what they have done. Hopefully, the International community will declare them as war criminals, and may be able to do something to them if they ever leave the country. Probably wishful thinking. Welcome to the good old USA.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Is this the Republican way?

The house has just voted a large tax break for the wealthy people. To compensate for this cut they are cutting programs that offer assistance to people in the lower classes. They are also cutting financial aid for students for college and many more programs to help people...just so the rich can get more rich....if this is the Republican way i want no part of it.

President Bush and the republican congress are causing a deficit that future generations will have to pay back....since they will likely be dead or out of office they don't care about the future.

What are these tax cuts going to do....I garentee the excuse that it is going to place more money in the economy is bullcrap.

Do you have a link to somewhere that we can read the report or the bill?

 

[7starmantis]

Yes, while its always enjoyable to bash large groups of people, it would be nice to see some sources before we engage in bashing anyone.

7sm

 

[BlueDragon1981]

Well I can't really post a link to a CNN news reel and a radio conversation....but i will try to find a link for you.

Why do people deny what the Bush administration is doing? Deficit at all time high. Tax cuts have been mainly for the rich....why deny it.

 

[BlueDragon1981]

These have something to do with the cuts...not exactly what I'm looking for but they will do....

http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-04tax.htm

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=34039

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1031/p15s02-cogn.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/10/congress.taxes.ap/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-10-taxcuts_x.htm

 

[Phoenix44]

Flying Crane laid out an intelligent, cogent explanation of the factors underlying his feelings about the Bush White House. That isn't "bashing." That's an intelligent argument.

 

[7starmantis]

I simply asked for sources before joining the discussion. Calm down everybody.

7sm

 

[BlueDragon1981]

I was calm....found links. Sources on tv and radio are hard to justify i know, sorry for not researching it before i posted it. Should have realized not everybody hears or watches the same thing I do.

 

[BlueDragon1981]

Thanks for the anonmous point by the way....I would say that both republicans and democrats are making the whole system inefficient because the only thing they can agree on is not to agree and it is going over to the public.....I'm not buying the democratic items just I'm looking at issues that many Republicans (not all) refuse to see.

The deficit is increasing....records show the largest decrease is going to the rich...what is wrong about posting comments based off of those facts.

Back up how much money the "tax cuts" are actually putting into the economy. If you want to cut taxes cut it on your largest portion of people. The middle class...specifically the low middle class. They are a larger group and will spend more.

If I'm totally democratic like you think then you should know that I am for repealling the marriage tax...and other things they propose. I'm just saying if you are going to cut taxes...cut it say 5% across the board. Not 20% to the rich, 5% to the middle class, and 2% to poor (yes ... those are not real figures, just for illistrasion purposes.)

I'm not going to retaliate with a negative point just because you disagree or are arguing against me. (Yes I have a good hunch to who gave me the point)

 

[ginshun]

The more money you make the higher the percentage you pay in taxes, and the top 10% of people income wise pay 65% of total income tax revenues.

How exactly would you change the system?


I think it is safe to say that the rich are getting richer, but I don't see the poor getting poorer. Poor 50 years ago was not being able to eat. Poor now is that your family only has two TV's.

 

[7starmantis]

Lets leave out assumptions as to who or what people are and just argue the points listed. As to reputation points, this is not the place for that discussion. If you received a negative rep you think is abusive, contact one of our admin team and we can look into it, otherwise, lets leave that discussion out of this thread.

On topic, tax breaks dont necessarily equal getting richer or poorer. What would you propose aside from the current taxes? Giving a higher taxed bracket a tax break isn't making those in lower brackets poorer.

7sm

 

[Flying Crane]

How exactly would you change the system?

What I would do is tax the wealthy and the super-wealthy on a graduated rate, for income over certain amounts. for example:

income of 250,000 to 500,000, tax at 40%.
income of 500,001 to 1million, tax at 50%
income of 1million and 1 to 5 million, tax at 65%
income of 5million and 1 to 10 million, tax at 80%
income of 10million and 1 and over, tax at 90%

My numbers here are just sort of random numbers that I came up with in a hurry, but it captures the essence of my message.

I don't have a problem with wealth in the abstract, but I believe that the super-rich need to be willing to take a step back and recognize that they have enough. Money becomes a game for them. It is monopoly money and is meaningless. Yet many of them just keep on hoarding more and more. This is what I object to. So, I think that when you move into the realm of the super-wealthy, you should pay most of that back in taxes, and take some of the burden off the poor and midle class. When you make an annual income of tens of millions of dollars, paying a rate of 90% or so shouldn't really make much difference in your lifestyle, if you live a REASONABLE lifestyle (I know, REASONABLE is subject to interpretation, but these are my views I am expressing). By contrast, a poor family is affected much more directly and heavily by the taxes they pay, even tho the percentage is much smaller. 20% of a $20,000 annual income is a lot harder to swallow in concrete ramifications, than 80% of income earned between 5 and 10 million.

I work in the financial brokerage industry, so I do have exposure to this kind of thing on a daily basis. My opinion is based on what I see, working in this industry.

 

[Flying Crane]

here is another example: In the last couple of years, Bush has signed into law changes that affect the maximum contributions to tax-sheltered retirement funds. The annual maximum IRA contribution has increased from $2000 to $4000. The maximum annual 401K contribution has increased from 15% of your salary, to 50%, and I think the actual dollar ceiling was raised for 401K as well.

At first, this looks like a good thing. We all get to make a greater annual contribution to tax-sheltered retirement savings. But take a closer look at what this means. Who has the disposable income available to put 50% into a 401K, and $4000 into an IRA? Not the poor and middle class. They need most of their income just to make payments in life. The rent, or the mortgage, buying groceries, paying the utilities, paying for the needs of their children, etc. These expenses leave very little extra cash for the poor and middle class to invest in retirement savings, no matter how enticing it is because of the tax-shelter. If the money just isn't there, you can't save it. If the choice is buy food to feed the baby vs. tax-sheltered retirement savings, I think the baby wins out every time.

So who benefits from these changes? The wealthy. They are the ones who have the extra cash lying around to put into this kind of savings. But the real kicker is this: these are exactly the people who DON'T NEED IT! They are already wealthy. They don't need the special savings. they have PLENTY already.

This is also true of Social Security. The wealthy get to collect social security benefits just like the poor and middle class. But once again, THEY DON'T NEED IT! They are already wealthy. I think the wealthy should pay in to social security like everyone else, maybe even at a higher rate, but when they reach retirement age their assets should be scrutinized. If they have assets with a value greater than a certain amount, then they should be disqualified from receiving Social Security payments. Those funds should be available to people who need it, like the poor and middle class. People who are wealthy should never collect a penny of taxpayer's money. Ya don't see Bush making this suggestion as a fix for the Social Security problem.

 

[7starmantis]

Could you explain why one person should pay 90% of their hard earned money to the government while the next only has to pay 10%? Thats targeting minorites....aren't we against that here in america?

7sm

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I lived in Belgium for a spell. Flat tax at around 55-60% for all income levels. Everybody hates it till they retire, and find their living expenses paid for in full, with the dictum of the law that the state pay for the individual to maintain their standard of living. Middle class when you retire? Middle class when you die, etc. Cost of living goes up? No biggie...you stay at the lifestyle you worked to create for yourself.

Of course, there are upsides and down sides (socialized medicine, etc.), but I can't help but wonder why there is so much objection to a straight pecentage tax here in the U.S.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Flying Crane]

Could you explain why one person should pay 90% of their hard earned money to the government while the next only has to pay 10%? Thats targeting minorites....aren't we against that here in america?

7sm

because someone who makes $20 million per year can afford to pay 90% much much much much much much easier than someone who makes $20,000 can afford to pay 10%. People who make this kind of money usually have made it at the expense of lower-paid workers. Without those workers, he would not have made $20 million. He should shoulder a much greater share of the tax burden because he has reaped a much much much much much greater share of the profits. It is time for people to stop hoarding.

Keep in mind, by my plan, he would only pay 90% on the amount exceeding $10 million. The lesser amounts would be taxed at lower rates. His actual net income would be $4,149,998.80, not including the first $250,000 gross income that would be taxed at a lower rate. For the sake of argument, let's say this amount is taxed at 30%. This gives him a total net income of $4,324,998.80, if his annual gross income was $20 million. You don't think this is enough?

Now, the percentages that I threw out were pulled out of my butt in a hurry. They were used just to convey the idea. Maybe they would be adjusted, but this is the type of tax system that I think would be somewhat more just and fair. Someone making $20 million per year certainly qualifies to be counted among the super-wealthy, and I think he should shoulder the burden.

 

[Flying Crane]

I lived in Belgium for a spell. Flat tax at around 55-60% for all income levels. Everybody hates it till they retire, and find their living expenses paid for in full, with the dictum of the law that the state pay for the individual to maintain their standard of living. Middle class when you retire? Middle class when you die, etc. Cost of living goes up? No biggie...you stay at the lifestyle you worked to create for yourself.

Of course, there are upsides and down sides (socialized medicine, etc.), but I can't help but wonder why there is so much objection to a straight pecentage tax here in the U.S.

Regards,

Dave

Well, if I was taxed at that rate, I could not even pay the basics of life, like the rent and groceries. Of course, I also live in San Francisco, one of the most expensive places to live on the planet...

 

[mrhnau]

because someone who makes $20 million per year can afford to pay 90% much much much much much much easier than someone who makes $20,000 can afford to pay 10%. People who make this kind of money usually have made it at the expense of lower-paid workers. Without those workers, he would not have made $20 million. He should shoulder a much greater share of the tax burden because he has reaped a much much much much much greater share of the profits. It is time for people to stop hoarding.

first, why did he make that money? more than likely its not been "given" to him and he worked his butt off to get into that situation. Those "lower paid workers" are likely to include many readers on this board. You tax 90% of the empolyee, guess who is going to feel the crunch? the employees. Can't hire as much as a business owner.

What does this guy do with his cash? reinvest it in his business? thats great for the business and he can hire more employees. Buy a yatch? not likely, but if he does, who made that yatch? how many people did he indirectly employ to build it? does it have a crew? aren't those employees? Buy a mansion? Who built it? Those things don't just magically appear. I imagine a broker made a nice penny off of the sale too. Buy nice cars? Good for GM, which employs a large amount of people.

so, the "hoarding" you refer to is not hoarding at all... do people stick it in the bank? I doubt it, but even so, its employing people at the bank. stocks/bonds? he is supporting government/business.

I've got a mental game for you to play... imagine everyone in the world has -exactly- the same amount of money. you give everyone 1 million dollars! Now, go down the road 5 years and tell me where the money is. Its going to be back in the hands of the people who had it in the first place! Its the people who have the guts to take the risks, the people who have the knowledge that they need an education and the people with the drive and hard-work attitude that are going to do good and get it all back.

This is part of what made our country great... I would despise seeing something like this 90% tax you propose, it would strangle many of those "horrible" people and companies that made this country as great as it is. On the other hand, they might just spend more on tax attorneys to figure out a way around it LOL

btw, I'm not rich, I'm pretty broke. However, I don't plan on staying that way my entire life. Neither does any small business owner. I don't care to crucify them for their success.

btw, they "rich" already shoulder the bourden, paying the lions share of the taxes. This is part of what I find funny when people complain about tax cuts for the rich. statistically, they are the ones paying most of the taxes! btw, the Bush cuts cut taxes on everyone, not just the rich.. we can argue that is you want... This is class warfare at its finest.

MrH

 

[mrhnau]

This is also true of Social Security. The wealthy get to collect social security benefits just like the poor and middle class. But once again, THEY DON'T NEED IT! They are already wealthy. I think the wealthy should pay in to social security like everyone else, maybe even at a higher rate, but when they reach retirement age their assets should be scrutinized. If they have assets with a value greater than a certain amount, then they should be disqualified from receiving Social Security payments. Those funds should be available to people who need it, like the poor and middle class. People who are wealthy should never collect a penny of taxpayer's money. Ya don't see Bush making this suggestion as a fix for the Social Security problem.

I'd be in favor of allowing the rich to opt out of SS with a drastic reduction in the amount they pay. Say cut it 50% or 75%. They still put in a heck of alot, just agree to never take out. Those with money can do a heck of alot better than the 2% from SS. Heck, anyone can. stick the money in some CD's. Long term CD's are better than the crappy 2% SS gives you.

I'd also be in favor of total privitization of SS. The less money in DC the better. a 4% CD would do so much better... or a nice 401k if you have access to one and want a small risk for better return.

heck, I'd like a waiver to stop SS withdrawls. I'd sign it... or for complete privitization, make a test for people, maybe a little class, so you can educate people on how to save for retirement. let them decide how to save their money. People who don't pass the test or don't want private investments get your lovely 2% SS checks when they retire. Works well for all. The only problem would be the transition years. That would reek... financing that is going to be a bear anyways, regardless of the plans that are made.

MrH