Jump to content
spktruthinlove

Tax The Rich More? How Would That Help You?

Recommended Posts

The question is not about whether or not it is fair for the rich to pay more, or for everyone else to pay less. The question is about someone else paying more taxes will help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will depend on how the money gained from taxes are used, if the money is used to build infrastructure in our own country, overturn nafta and other rigged trade deals, and generally lift up the little people then it will help many, if it is used to give more to the richest, rig the markets in their favor, and create for profit police, prison systems and wars then it will cause great harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How it would help society in general is it would allow us to improve our infrastructure, health care for all and in general the economy. (i.e. promote the general welfare)

 

Our system is built on a progressive tax system, to all of a sudden do away with that means you will drastically change the society you have, is that what you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. By the top 1% paying more taxes, we can reduce taxes on the productive part of society (the working class), so they can pay more and invest in small business, increasing revenue even more.

 

2. Most economic dysfunction derives from the investment habits of the superrich, who drive wild speculation, bubbles and other economic pathology. The less money they have, the more economic stability we have since normal people invest in the real economy.

 

3. Most money held by rich is wasted in low productivity investments like hedgefunds. Taxing it and then putting it into infrastruture increases productivity and hence wealth for everybody.

 

That was easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is not about whether or not it is fair for the rich to pay more, or for everyone else to pay less. The question is about someone else paying more taxes will help you.

 

simple...the more they pay, the less I have to pay.

 

I work for a living so I get raped in taxes...period. I cant afford it, they can

 

they are not the job creators as is spewed, the millions of middle class are...making money buying the cars ,the creamed corn, the flat-screen Tv's and the doughnuts.

 

thats where the tax breaks need to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is not about whether or not it is fair for the rich to pay more, or for everyone else to pay less. The question is about someone else paying more taxes will help you.

 

 

Why tax the rich at all? In feudal societies, there was no taxes on landowners that I know of. Serfdom worked great for centuries, we should just return to that system, amiright?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxing the rich more... sounds good because the little guy pays less taxes, but it is not that simple. We need to tax them higher on investment money and give them cuts for hiring more employees. Even that sounds to simple, but you get the gist of it. Most of the 1% (O, how I hate that term!!!) doesn't actually earn money by working, they invest the money they already earned, through working hard before becoming rich, to make money off money they already have. Everyone has the right to play the tax codes like "them", we just need to make it harder. The message her is to invest your money wisely and you to can become rich. Maybe if enough people get a job and invest that money correctly, we can turn that 1% into a 5%. (I pulled 5% out of thin air because the 5 button and the persent button are on the same key)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont view it as I want them to pay more than me...or how will I benefit if they pay more. I view it as a matter of fairness.

I paid a higher percentage of Federal taxs than Mitt Romney did on hundreds of millions >13.7%> Thats absurd, the rich and the teaparty

whine incessantly the rich pay to much, yet the top 10 corporations paid ZERO in Federal taxs in 2010 and theres lots of mitt romneys running

around that pay LESS a percentage than cops and teachers.

The rich are not paying their fair share...all the talking points that they pay most of the taxs are simply because they are making all

the money at the expense of everyone else.

Heres an interesting read for anyone that cheerleads for the teaparty and the rich whining they need more tax cuts

 

 

http://100planet.com/taxpayers-would-pay-426-to-make-up-for-tax-haven-abuse-small-businesses-2116/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is not about whether or not it is fair for the rich to pay more, or for everyone else to pay less. The question is about someone else paying more taxes will help you.

 

 

It is not the objective to tax the rich kulaks; only to hang them high and sieze their belongings for the people! Capitalist swine, I crush you! Workers of the world unite!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simple...the more they pay, the less I have to pay.

 

I work for a living so I get raped in taxes...period. I cant afford it, they can

 

they are not the job creators as is spewed, the millions of middle class are...making money buying the cars ,the creamed corn, the flat-screen Tv's and the doughnuts.

 

thats where the tax breaks need to be

 

Right, Republicans continue to ignore the fact that high income individuals are often corporate executives athletes and entertainers. major college sports coaches often make over a million a year. The rich are more likely to give their money to rip off artists like BErnie Madoff or use it to bid up stock prices than to actually use it to create jobs. A person who makes a million a year makes as much as 20 families who have an average family income of $50,000 per year or 40 families who have an average family income of $25,000 per year.

 

Government needs to raise taxes on those who get most of the money to insure that the money remains in circulation among the entire population instead of changing hands from one stock speculator to another.

The rich don't understand that for them taxes are an investment in the social, economic, fiscal and political stability that protects the value of their money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. By the top 1% paying more taxes, we can reduce taxes on the productive part of society (the working class), so they can pay more and invest in small business, increasing revenue even more.

 

2. Most economic dysfunction derives from the investment habits of the superrich, who drive wild speculation, bubbles and other economic pathology. The less money they have, the more economic stability we have since normal people invest in the real economy.

 

3. Most money held by rich is wasted in low productivity investments like hedgefunds. Taxing it and then putting it into infrastruture increases productivity and hence wealth for everybody.

 

That was easy.

 

Good point. Prior to 2008 they were having so much trouble finding anything to put their money in that they invested in something called mortgage derivatives that don't seem to have had any real value. Most of them bet on stocks like they were betting on football. What is important isn't how much a company is actually worth, but whether or not the company can beat the "point spread". Last fall Apple had one of its best quarters ever, but the Wall Street gamblers sold their stock because the gamblers had thought the company would make even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney paid 13.7% taxes after everything was added up (quoted from this post). 50% of Americans pay 0% taxes after everything is added up after tax season. If it is all about paying our fair share then shouldn't that 50% start paying something into taxes instead just getting the benefits from the system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senate GOP blocks Buffett Rule bill

 

What's more, Democrats said, the money the measure would raise -- an estimated $47 billion over 10 years if the Bush tax cuts expire, or $162 billion if the tax cuts are extended -- could be used to reduce deficits or make smart investments in the country's economy.

 

Why fight over such a small amount of "taxes" on the rich? It boggles my mind that Obama and the Democratic Party would become invested in this issue when the deficit this year 1.3 trillion dollars. Times that by 10 and the deficit over the next 10 years will be 13 trillion dollars. 13 trillion minus 146 billion = 12.8 trillion more in cuts or additional revenue to be found over the next decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is not about whether or not it is fair for the rich to pay more, or for everyone else to pay less. The question is about someone else paying more taxes will help you.

 

SpkTruthInLove, I’m opposed to special strokes for special folks.

 

If we tax net annual incomes, than all net incomes of equal amounts should be taxed equally regardless of the manner in which that income was earned.

 

Refer to the No Holds Barred forum’s “Capital gains & income averaging”,

posted 28 January 2012 - 03:35 PM

 

Respectfully, Supposn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Investments are taxed differently because that money has already been taxed several times over. The initial investment is taxed at whatever your tax rate is because the investor had to earn the money to be invested first. Then when they are paid their dividen at the end of the year it is first taxed 35% by the federal government (corporate tax) and then additional 15% when it hits the investor's bank account. Quite ridiculous on the face of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Investments are taxed differently because that money has already been taxed several times over. The initial investment is taxed at whatever your tax rate is because the investor had to earn the money to be invested first. Then when they are paid their dividen at the end of the year it is first taxed 35% by the federal government (corporate tax) and then additional 15% when it hits the investor's bank account. Quite ridiculous on the face of it.

 

Magnus, a capital gain is the profit due from the sale of an asset.

 

You cannot sell what you do not own and/or control. It is illegal to sell to sell the same item twice unless the seller regained ownership or control after the prior sale.

 

No taxes are ever levied upon a capital gain until there’s a sales transaction that created the capital gain. Capital gains are not income that was previously taxed.

 

The government should not be choosing between favoring one or another business model. The entrepreneurs that strive and reinvest their earnings into their own enterprises should not be taxed at a greater rate than the speculators or entrepreneurs that sell portions or their entire enterprises that they own. If we are to continue taxing net incomes, the same amounts of incomes should be taxed at the same rates regardless of the manner those incomes were earned.

 

(I.e. individuals’ incomes are incomes regardless of their sources or the manners that those incomes were earned).

To argue otherwise is quite ridiculous on the face of it.

 

 

Refer to the No Holds Barred forum’s “Capital gains & income averaging”,

posted 28 January 2012 - 03:35 PM

 

Respectfully, Supposn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm okay with taxing the rich because then we win PLUS the rich STILL win. It's a win-win. That's clear, right? Hey, if we have a standard by which to define "winning", and it's defined as "A state of good personal health, good personal finances, and good personal comfort- physically and socially" then we would all be somewhere within the spectrum of this standard. We would all be within the winner's range. So why not see everyone win? I like to see EVERYONE succeed.

 

Of course, the rich may tend to be misinformed about how high the standard needs to be in order for them to percieve their own success, but that is to be expected as this would be only a symptom of their overdependance on their wealth. Wealth is like a drug, and some people just need help to break the addiction. Once they get over the initial shock of loosing some percentage of their extreme wealth at the hands of those they thought were working for them...the government...they'll come back around and rejoin life even happier and more clear thinking than before. They will heal from their pain and feel a hundred times better than they ever have before.

 

Of course, they could just grow really bitter, in which case they will fall ill because of self-inflicted stress. Then their illness will hold too much of their attention for them to even remember their long gone taxes. Then they will go ZEN on everyone and we'll never hear from them again. Follow my plan and everyone will win. :)

 

:)Now, just to convince the government...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple math. If 1% of the population pays 3% more in taxes, the entire 99% of the rest of the population would each pay 2% less. This is because at the moment the 1% account for 40% of tax revenue and the 99% for the remaining 60%. So a modest 3% increase for 3 million wealthy Americans (who would barely notice it) would mean a significant 2% decrease in the tax owed by the other 300 million Americans, amounting to hundreds of dollars apiece. So an increase in the top tax rate would help YOU personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple math. If 1% of the population pays 3% more in taxes, the entire 99% of the rest of the population would each pay 2% less. This is because at the moment the 1% account for 40% of tax revenue and the 99% for the remaining 60%. So a modest 3% increase for 3 million wealthy Americans (who would barely notice it) would mean a significant 2% decrease in the tax owed by the other 300 million Americans, amounting to hundreds of dollars apiece. So an increase in the top tax rate would help YOU personally.

 

Will Rockwell, first we must determine if you’re writing of increasing the top 1% of income tax payers’ tax rates by 3% or increasing their taxes paid by 3%?

There is a difference due to that determination.

 

If (as you wrote) the top 1% of taxpayers account for 40% of personal income tax revenues:

Increasing their taxes paid by 3% would increase government’s personal income total revenues by (0.40)(.03) = 0.012.

 

Thus we would remain revenue neutral if we increased the total taxes paid by the top 1% by 3% and reduced the taxes paid by the remaining 99% by 20%of their total taxes.

 

(.4)(.03) = .012, [.012 / .6] =.2

(0.40) + (0.60) = 1 = (.4)(1.03) + (.6)(1 - .2) = .52 + .48

 

////////////////////////////

 

The percentage of revenue increase due to increasing the TAX RATE of the top 1% of taxpayers by 3% would be dependent upon the effective tax rates of those taxpayers.

[You recall that Buffett was reported to pay an 18% effective rate and Romney was reported to pay no more than 15%].

 

Using the 15% as an average effective rate for that tax bracket, increasing their effective tax rate by 3% would increase the proportion of tax revenue they pay from (0.40) to (.4)(.15 +.03)/(.15) = (.4)(6/5) = 48%.

 

If the taxes derived were to be kept revenue neutral, the revenue derived from the remaining 99% 0f taxpayers could be reduced from 60% to 52%; (i.e. a tax reduction of more than 13%.

 

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

Using the 18% as an average effective rate for that tax bracket, increasing their effective tax rate by 3% would increase the proportion of tax revenue they pay from (0.40) to (.4)(.18 +.03)/(.18) = (.4)(7/6) = .46666…666 .

 

If the taxes derived were to be kept revenue neutral, the revenue derived from the remaining 99% 0f taxpayers would be reduced from 60% to 5333…333%; (i.e. a tax reduction of more than 10%.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50% of American already pay effectly no taxes. They make back more than they pay in. Why should anyone be on the hook for more when the Government (both Democrats and Republicans) cannot even come up with a viable budget with in their means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50% of American already pay effectly no taxes. They make back more than they pay in. Why should anyone be on the hook for more when the Government (both Democrats and Republicans) cannot even come up with a viable budget with in their means?

oreilly/hannity/fox talking point #197

 

what would you geniuses do without your right wing hate machines telling you what to puke out every day

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't get that from Foxs. I got that from my own income tax return. I make 40 something K this year, paid in 7.7k total federal taxes, and received back 9.5k. I didn't have any deductions but 3 kids. There is other evidence from family who reported the same thing. I'm not making this shit up, bud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will Rockwell, first we must determine if you’re writing of increasing the top 1% of income tax payers’ tax rates by 3% or increasing their taxes paid by 3%?

There is a difference due to that determination.

 

If (as you wrote) the top 1% of taxpayers account for 40% of personal income tax revenues:

Increasing their taxes paid by 3% would increase government’s personal income total revenues by (0.40)(.03) = 0.012.

 

Thus we would remain revenue neutral if we increased the total taxes paid by the top 1% by 3% and reduced the taxes paid by the remaining 99% by 20%of their total taxes.

 

(.4)(.03) = .012, [.012 / .6] =.2

(0.40) + (0.60) = 1 = (.4)(1.03) + (.6)(1 - .2) = .52 + .48

 

////////////////////////////

 

The percentage of revenue increase due to increasing the TAX RATE of the top 1% of taxpayers by 3% would be dependent upon the effective tax rates of those taxpayers.

[You recall that Buffett was reported to pay an 18% effective rate and Romney was reported to pay no more than 15%].

 

Using the 15% as an average effective rate for that tax bracket, increasing their effective tax rate by 3% would increase the proportion of tax revenue they pay from (0.40) to (.4)(.15 +.03)/(.15) = (.4)(6/5) = 48%.

 

If the taxes derived were to be kept revenue neutral, the revenue derived from the remaining 99% 0f taxpayers could be reduced from 60% to 52%; (i.e. a tax reduction of more than 13%.

 

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

Using the 18% as an average effective rate for that tax bracket, increasing their effective tax rate by 3% would increase the proportion of tax revenue they pay from (0.40) to (.4)(.18 +.03)/(.18) = (.4)(7/6) = .46666…666 .

 

If the taxes derived were to be kept revenue neutral, the revenue derived from the remaining 99% 0f taxpayers would be reduced from 60% to 5333…333%; (i.e. a tax reduction of more than 10%.

 

Respectfully, Supposn

 

I tip my hat to your expertise, you obviously had an easier time in Math than I did. Suffice to say, a small increase in what the rich pay would make a big difference to 99% of the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney paid 13.7% taxes after everything was added up (quoted from this post). 50% of Americans pay 0% taxes after everything is added up after tax season. If it is all about paying our fair share then shouldn't that 50% start paying something into taxes instead just getting the benefits from the system?

 

What? Uh, if you make minimum wage and you have to pay for - rent, food, car payments, gasoline, clothes, ??? - how can you possibly afford health insurance AND pay taxes? The difference here clueless is that there is NO MONEY left after their basic living expenses. Rich folks do not have this issue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney paid 13.7% taxes after everything was added up (quoted from this post). 50% of Americans pay 0% taxes after everything is added up after tax season. If it is all about paying our fair share then shouldn't that 50% start paying something into taxes instead just getting the benefits from the system?

 

Why are these talking points here? They belong on some tea bagger thread on the NHB forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...