It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Upper Income Taxpayers become John Galt

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I love how business owners and rich people always consider themselves smarter and harder working than the average joe. Could it not be that you have this business by a means of luck?

BTW I agree with this plan but I think that there should be more of a gap. A billion dollar business should have to pay more percentage of taxes than a million dollar business imo. A business can only grow so much before it just starts to become greedy.




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Another thing that should be taken into consideration when determining how much people should be taxed is where they live. $250,000 for a four person family living in Manhatten would not be much at all. Yet that same amount of money for someone living in a small town in the mid-west would be a substantial amount.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Who exactly does the money go to then? Lets take aside the military, parks and the terrible roads we drive on.

What government services do tax payers actually consume?

Everything you already pay for already has taxes loaded on top of them in addition to federal, state and local taxes.

Your phone service is taxed so that folks can get free phone.

Your cable TV is taxed so that other folks can get reduced rate cable.

You pay to park, which in most towns the fees go into the general fund and to other social services on the local level.

You pay for librarys, which are in many cases unsuitable for children due to the homeless folks who sit in there all day.

You pay for mass transit, which in most areas is about 30% utilized, poorly run and less efficient than driving.

I don't believe in class. I do believe that there are takers and givers in our society and that the givers are footing the bill and the takers are sucking the life out of the country.

When you consider that well over 50% of the federal budget goes to entitlements, of course those who don't work are getting the lionshare of the money. Where else is it going? If it was going to build more ships for the navy or double the pay of those in the armed services, I would not care, but it is not. It is going to, in way too many cases, folks who made very poor choices. That might be harsh, but so be it.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DCFusion
Another thing that should be taken into consideration when determining how much people should be taxed is where they live.


Do you see how insane and unmanageable that would become? The tax code has become a beast that nobody can understand or control.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow
I love how business owners and rich people always consider themselves smarter and harder working than the average joe. Could it not be that you have this business by a means of luck?

BTW I agree with this plan but I think that there should be more of a gap. A billion dollar business should have to pay more percentage of taxes than a million dollar business imo. A business can only grow so much before it just starts to become greedy.


Luck? Oh sir, you do show your ignorance. Go and talk to your dry cleaner, chemist or your gardener. They probably all have balance sheets in excess of this 250k mark.

Owning and running a small business isnt a job, its a lifestyle. Small business owners work longer and harder than anyone else.

Again, your belief that its "luck" shows how your brain is attempting to justify other people having more than you. Because it is hard to acknowledge that they have worked harder and are smarter than you, you call them lucky.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I pay road tax to be able to drive on the roads; and 60% fuel excise. £400 per year and 55 pence per litre of fuel in tax. I estimate that I pay over $3000 in tax each year to use roads which are sub-par. Our biggest national highway (the M1) has only 3 lanes in each direction! An expensive privilege...

Now go on. Explain the rest of the expenditure.... explain how that justifies the 40% income tax that I'm shafted with.

As far as I can tell my money is being directly funnelled into:

1. Benefits for the non-working class and chavs, teenage mothers etc
2. Inefficient socialized healthcare
3. Government bureaucrats' salaries
4. A sub-par secondary education system
5. Speed cameras
etc etc etc

The only way in which the government adds value to my life is:

1. Armed forces (keeps me safe)
2. University (world class and reasonable rates, though I still had to pay top up fees)
3. Police, law and order (barely)

Correct me if I'm wrong but that seems pathetic value for money. Income tax should not exceed 20% under any circumstances!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


I'm with you. Here is a thing to contemplate and something for the "hate the rich" crowd to contemplate.

At what level of income tax does the problem get solved? 50%, 60%, 90%? During the past 40 years the percentage of Americans (I don't know how this has evolved in the UK) who pay no tax has consistently grown larger. Now there are politicians who would argue that the poor do in fact pay tax - those taxes that are related to Social Security (another handout) and unemployment insurance (another handout), and then give them tax "cuts" to help defer those taxes.

When you have an increasingly small minority of folks paying for the government, who's army is it, really? Who's parks are they? The fact of the matter is that the current tax system does nothing but taken who would contribute to society and make them idle. A progressive tax of 15% flat, regardless of income (that is, by definition progressive) would mean that everyone had a stake in the functioning of government. The current system does nothing to incent 50% of the folks to care about anything but "what else is owed to me".

As Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged "I would no longer live my life in service of another man as I would ask another man to live in service of my own".


Enough already.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

Originally posted by Techsnow
I love how business owners and rich people always consider themselves smarter and harder working than the average joe. Could it not be that you have this business by a means of luck?

BTW I agree with this plan but I think that there should be more of a gap. A billion dollar business should have to pay more percentage of taxes than a million dollar business imo. A business can only grow so much before it just starts to become greedy.


Luck? Oh sir, you do show your ignorance. Go and talk to your dry cleaner, chemist or your gardener. They probably all have balance sheets in excess of this 250k mark.

Owning and running a small business isnt a job, its a lifestyle. Small business owners work longer and harder than anyone else.


Yes Luck!! And Oh sir you do show your own brand of ignorance. I am currently employed by a small business that was inherited by the owner who has seldom sets foot in the shop. The manager and the hired help do all the work. This is not an uncommon occurrence.

In fact my previous businesses were given to me by men that were just burned out. Luck certainly played a part in that wouldn't you agree in that I was an employee of these men. Before economic circumstances took their toll; I still payed these men a portion of the gross; Gladly, for I appreciated their confidence in me.

In my businesses I certainly appreciated the efforts of my employees but it has also been
my experience that there is an arrogance of the rich and business owners toward the employees and will take every advantage of them they can. After all it's about profit and the bottom line, regardless of it's effect on others. Especially in the current situation where people are desperate, jobs are being outsourced, benefits cut. Still people will work like slaves to feed their families.


In time I hope I can tell the owner of the shop to stick this job up his ....
I would do it immediately if I didn't need this job so desperately.



As Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged "I would no longer live my life in service of another man as I would ask another man to live in service of my own."


What hypocrisy! Ms Rand worked for others when she arrived from Russia and when she made it big; she had servants in New York.
I guess it was just literary license that didn't apply to her personally.
Yet people follow her with cult like adoration; just like Rush.





[edit on 3-3-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


You don't get the meaning of Ayn Rand. Working for someone or having someone work for you is not an issue as in both cases the people doing the work are operating under free will by doing so.

What Rand was dealing with was the obligation, placed upon people by government to work for others through taxes, regulations, etc. She also dealt directly with the fact that we are forced to conform by society and that conformance enforced by the government.

Rand is all about free will. Taxes, in a capitalist system directly reduce free will. The dollar I send to Washington is a dollar I can not choose to spend how I see fit. I might choose to spend it in the same fashion that the government would, but again, in the current system, I have no choice and that is the issue

She is celebrated because she was pure of thought and articulated the true nature of liberty better then anyone prior or since.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
Yes Luck!! And Oh sir you do show your own brand of ignorance. I am currently employed by a small business that was inherited by the owner who has seldom sets foot in the shop. The manager and the hired help do all the work. This is not an uncommon occurrence.

In fact my previous businesses were given to me by men that were just burned out. Luck certainly played a part in that wouldn't you agree in that I was an employee of these men. Before economic circumstances took their toll; I still payed these men a portion of the gross; Gladly, for I appreciated their confidence in me.


Stop extrapolating your experiences to everyone.

The majority of small business owners do not gain their business overnight. They think of an idea, cultivate knowledge and excellence in that niche and then work hard to build up an enterprise.

Just because you lucked out, doesn't mean everyone else does as well.

And again, your experience of small business managers is very limited in scope. A good manager will treat his employees well, because he knows that people are the basis of every single business endeavour (its the first goddamn line in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations").

The only people who work like slaves are the ones incapable of adding value to a job. A shelf stacker at a supermarket is a shelf stacker for a reason. Similarly a scientist who invents a new treatment for a disease is a scientist for a reason... its all based on their ability, their hard work and their choices (aka free will).

Every rich man is not a banker, lottery winner or lucky. Some are, but the majority are exceptionally talented, intelligent and hard working people who have siezed destiny to reach where they are.

As I've said in this thread, to say that the only path to riches is luck is intellectual defeatism. You cannot comprehend how a person who is superior to you in entrepreneurial ability can create a business from scratch, work 16 hour days and become a millionaire. Thus your lack of comprehension, ie ignorance, leads you to think that every rich man must have just struck lucky, and must therefore be penalised to bring some of his luck to you.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddymax
Where can I sign up to make $250K a year so I can bitch about having to pay taxes on it?...

They aren't complaining about paying taxes on it. They are complaining about paying TOO MANY taxes on it. They are over taxed and over burdened. They are expected to pay a much higher percentage then the rest of us just because they are more productive.

If you take away the incentive to produce .. they won't produce.

Like the woman in the article said - why make more money if the government is just going to take it away and give it to someone who isn't producing


Originally posted by Merigold
It is our responsibility to help each other,

Actually, that sentiment is just you pushing your morals on others.

The only responsibility we have is to help pay for what we use - the roads, the infrastructure, the national security, FDA, etc). We have NO RESPONSIBILITY to help anyone. That is an individual choice.


but that's not popular amongst you more conservative, all for me none for you crowd.

So freedom of choice isn't popular amongst you more liberal, give me all your money and leave none for yourself, crowd?

Don't push your anti-choice morals on the rest of us.



Enjoy working to death.

Stop and think ... if those who make the money say to hell with it .. if they say that they are tired of having their hard earned money stolen just to give to those who don't work .... then all the freeloaders and parasites will be up the creek without a paddle.

Enjoy starving to death.


Originally posted by whaaa
Then your ire should be directed at the previous administration

Part of it is directed that way.


I have my doubts that Obama can bring back a stable economy given the sack of economic **** he was given.

He was handed a difficult situation. But he's making it worse.


Originally posted by Techsnow
I love how business owners and rich people always consider themselves smarter and harder working than the average joe. Could it not be that you have this business by a means of luck?

It doesn't matter how they got the business. The fact is that the have it and it is theirs and no one has a right to take their money away simply because they make more than others. That's not fair. That's stealing.


Originally posted by dolphinfan
As Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged "I would no longer live my life in service of another man as I would ask another man to live in service of my own".




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Sales of "atlus shrugged" has TRIPLED this month.

I posted the article and 3 interviews of Ayn Rand here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'


[edit on 4-3-2009 by David9176]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Atlas Shrugged should be required reading in High School. It's amazing.
But the NEA would have a fit if that were to happen. It goes against
their 'principles'. (get it .. teachers union .. principles..
)

The Ayn Rand Institute is giving away free Ayn Rand books to teachers complete with a study course. Her books Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead are 'spicy'. I don't know how many schools would allow them. I will not allow 'fountainhead' to be read by my daughter.

My 12 year old daughter is reading 'We the living'.
It's an amazing piece of work.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I love it, the rich are screaming, "don't steal my money!" when they have been stealing money from poor people for years.


Really I don't have anything against people that earn an honest buck or two million. I have something against greed and avarice.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


First, they are screaming because it is their money and the government has no right to take it.

You've got no problem with folks making money, and even a lot of it. You do, however have a problem with greed.

What is greed and how do you define greedy? There in lies the question.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   



Picture of a sign taken at one of the Tea Party Protests.
It says it all. People who make money and have it taken away
are just going to stop making money.

WHY BOTHER?



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 



What is greed and how do you define greedy? There in lies the question.



Greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed


Part of the problems we are in today stem from greedy people. During the housing boom a few years ago, people flipped new homes on a regular basis getting quick and easy profits and escalating the price of a home far beyond what that home should have been worth. It priced many others out of the market.

Remember I said new homes. Flipping properties you buy and renovate isn't the same situation. If you buy a home in order to fix it up and sell it for a profit is not greedy it's smart investing. But to buy say an unfinished condo unit in a high rise in Sarasota Florida, just to sell that same unfinished condo for a profit within a month, is complete greed.

Say you set up a ponzi scheme where you take investments from one individual to pay off the dividends to another individual you previously took money from and have no intention to ever invest anyone's money but keep the majority of it for yourself, that is greed.

Now some in this thread tell us they are upset over their taxes being raised. For those who work hard 15 - 16 hours a day earning their money. I am completely with you on everything except one point.

You do not make up the bulk of the tax payments in this country, a majority of Americans do not make over $250,000 a year. Believe it or not, people that make crap money in this country over the table pay taxes. Yes we do get a refund, it's true, but we do not get the entire sum back, nor do we get any interest off of what essentially is an investment in the government.

Those that go into their businesses and work day in day out, get bout 4 hours of sleep a day, who worry and fret over what is their slice of the American dream, have plenty to be upset about with these new tax hikes. I completely agree with them. I think personaly those individuals should not pay one penny more than the ditch digger in percentage.

But say your a CEO of a major US bank, one say that got billions in TARP funds, and decide that it is in your and your companies best interest to give yourself a multi million dollar bonus? Even though your business has lost so much money you were "forced" to go to the government and expect corporate welfare. That person should be taxed to the nth degree.

Thats who I origionaly was talking about when I said "cry me a river".



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
[more

Those folks who were speculating on houses were taking part of a market system, we have just had a period of a wild mismatch between the demand for housing and the supply of it. Some folks who speculated made money and some got washed. It is a normal market cycle that is now correcting. I don't no that they were "greedy" just that they were taking advantage of market conditions. The government has tax code provisions which guard against this kind of behavior. If you want to call some of them greedy, I'm OK with that. I'd call many of them foolish as well.

The gent running the ponzi scheme is not greedy. He is a criminal, no diferent than somebody who robs a liquor store. You could make an argument that the folks who invested with him were greedy. These were very sophisticated investors and they knew that the returns they were getting was not realistic and that something had to be going on. Several years of investment returns and not one down or flat quarter? Give me a break. Madoff is a criminal, many of his investors are greedy.

On the tax deal, you are 100% incorrect and the numbers are easily obtained. The top 1% of income tax payers pay 40% of all income tax. The top 20% of income tax payers pay 60% of all income tax. Close to 50% of Americans pay NO income tax. The payroll taxes are a different story, but even then the rich are paying into a system that they will largely never tap into and the poor will take out of unemployment and social security then they ever put in.

There are two types of CEOs getting TARP funds. Those who needed it and those who were forced to take it. Those who needed the money to save their banks should have been fired as a term of receipt of the funds and that was a huge error in the original TARP scheme. It is nobody's business what the banks did with executive compensation when those banks were forced to take the money.

I think that in many of the threads on this topic, there is too much being argued about the folks who were the extreme examples, the guys making 8 figures and the left is using them as a poster child for the evils of the "rich". The fact of the matter is that in the grand scheme of things, as it relates to the tax code, these gents make up less than 1% of the folks affected. It is the family with a dry cleaner of florist who is taking it in the shorts. Its easy to complain about John Thain and his buds, but those are not the folks who are really harmed by this tax policy. Its the guy down the street who works his/her ass off in a small business.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
"Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"

That is not as true as it sounds. Taxes go to the gov't. They decide how to spend it. And they aren't exactly giving it away to the lower class.


amen JSO...

I appreciate the fact that you are willing to interject this vital point of consideration even when it does not help you frame your argument in the easiest way



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
OP, your comparison to Atlas Shrugged is not a good fit for the problems outlined in the article.

ONLY those persons whom are producing value within the system are the 'John Galts'. those people are in the minority of the wealthy class.

unfortunately, the means by which the vast majority of the wealthy class are generating their wealth puts them into the classification of "looters". there is no value generated by moving numbers from one computer to another computer....pushing papers around, bubble inflation and so on. because of this i say: go ahead and tax the hell out of the wealthy....it was never their money to begin with.

i do agree with the premise of your article, but i think your application is too broad and you're unwittingly labeling looters as Galts.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join