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.

 

69% of America: Rescind Bush tax cuts on rich

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
So I make 200k and some guy who makes 40k and pays no taxes is complaining about some tax cuts I get...geez. Tax cuts means I do pay taxes in the first place.

I think anyone who pays less than 10% in taxes should not have a say in anything dealing with what others pay in taxes or what tax cuts they get.

When you bust your butt and pay 30% in taxes instead of 40% because of tax cuts it kind of makes you angry when others pay little or none and complain about how much that person pays.




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I don't understand this belief that poor people don't pay taxes, as if that amount deducted from their paycheck doesn't count for anything.

'A poor man never gave me a job!' Well, have you been paying attention the last few weeks? Rich people aren't giving you a job either. This is happening right now:

Profits are up.
Productivity is up.
Joblessness is up.

This is all corporatist, capitalist greed!

Step 1: Fire Bob.
Step 2: Threaten Joe with firing, Joe works harder.
Step 3: Profit.

Optional step 4, go on TV and explain you had to fire Bob because liberals are going to tax you more and that keeps you from rehiring Bob...irregardless of your profit margin.

If you make more than $250k/year I want to ask you something and I want you answer me honestly.

Do you realize you make up only 2% of the total population of the nation?

It's true, 98% of the population (that's more than 300,000,000 men, woman and children) make anywhere between $0 and $249,999. Ninety-eight percent! If you make that minimum $250k you're still making five times more than the national average for an individual.

It never ceases to amaze me how someone so obscenely wealthy can not fathom making anything less when nearly everyone else does it every single day. Yet there are still people in that 98% that defend the other 2% tooth and nail...



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   
MM well i dont know semper fi..i wasnt born i the 50's and 60's..but id o remember my grandmother and father telling me over time, how it was back then..food was cheap, not so many taxes, life was simpler,a nd even it seeme, the verage paychecker could actually afford at least a cheap apartment, without having to dig into thier lifes savings...nowadays, yuor 401 k, social security, is all tinkered with* along with the rising cost of living and taxes taxes taxes.
as for the Kennedys whom i do repsect..i have no idea. maybe they played the stok market and were jsut lucky all the time* i dunno



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Maybe they pockets the leftover campaigne money i dunno lol



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


You could reduce the tax rate for the richest 2% of Americans to 0 and that would not guarantee that they would create job 1. Fact of the matter is, it would promote less business because the rich would not have to make as much in order to keep it. On the other hand if you increase the tax rate, the rich would have to earn more to keep more. (Which means they would have to sell more to make more.)

The rich do not get that way by writing a lot of checks.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 





Seems like every proposal wants to tax the rich more. At what point will the rich revolt and take their money/business elsewhere?


They already are. The only ones who really can't are small businesses. Large corporations sold us out to slave labor long ago. They do whatever they can to avoid paying any tax.

Before Reagan, the wealthiest Americans (top 1 percent) were paying 70 percent in taxes. It had steadily gone down since Eisenhower was President in the 50's when it was over 90 percent.

Despite all the naysayers on this website...that is when the middle class was the strongest. We also had STRONG trade policies back then and we actually protected our industries. Only ONE PARENT had to work to support a family.





[edit on 23-8-2010 by David9176]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:55 AM
link   
the lower incomes spend the money they make at the local grocery store, pay it to landlords, or their mortgage companies, maybe at a resturant or bowling alley, ect.....
the rich might do some of those things, but the majority of money they have I would venture ends up at the walls street casino, where bubbles are inflated, and then pop, and well, that seems to lead to less spending by the lower incomes who have found themselves without jobs and such....

the trickle down seems to stop at the casino called wall street.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Why do you think that just because somebody makes more money they should need to pay in a higher percentage of taxes? Why shouldn't it be a flat percentage or taxed on what you spend, not what you make?

I'm in a higher tax bracket and don't have any kids yet I pay in taxes what some people make in a year. Those same people might have kids and get a tax break because they use up more resources and cost more in the system. Why should I be forced to pay more money because I'm responsible and know how to use birth control? Why do I need to help your kids go to school more then you do?

I would feel better about paying insane amounts of money in taxes if I didn't see a bunch of lazy people milking unemployment or driving nicer cars then me who make less money then I do.

If I'm responsible and don't spend my money crazy and you are irresponsible and spend more money on stuff per year, why do I need to pay into the system more then you? It's your choice to be reckless with your money.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR
reply to post by links234
 


Why do you think that just because somebody makes more money they should need to pay in a higher percentage of taxes?


To level the playing field. I have a real problem with the wealth stratification in this country. Based on the most recent estimates, there's one homeless person for every two people that make more than $250k/year.


Why shouldn't it be a flat percentage or taxed on what you spend, not what you make?


A flat tax would be 'fair', but there are still people that would have a problem with that...namely, those that have reached the highest possible tax. I'd also like a VAT style system, but I'm in the minority on that.

People are taxed on what they spend, it's called sales tax. Having been 'poor' growing up, I never knew people driving around in cadillac's and luxury cars. Being middle class now, I still know very few people that drive luxury cars. I do hear all sorts of stories of various people who appear to make very little money but have an assortment of expensive looking things...I've never met or seen any, personally.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


In fact the big money is shipping more jobs overseas than ever before in the quest for even bigger profits than investing in America and American jobs.


Your thread is premised on PERSONAL income taxes.

They have nothing to do with CORPORATE taxes (which are ultimately passed on to consumers through higher prices, anyway.)

So is your rant about corporations or people? Or do you even care?

My guess is this is just another liberal rant about not being able to re-distribute the income of higher-earning individuals.

You just throw in the "outsourcing" because it fits the liberal talking points.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Of course you are forgetting that the wealthy also invest. Now part of these tax cuts are capital gains tax cuts are they not? Well, dividends on those investments do not make jobs. Although Newt Gingrich would like the capital gains tax reduced to 0 it still won't guarantee any jobs created by the wealthy.

I would still prefer to let these tax cuts expire, and instead, give businesses tax incentives to hire. Giving businesses a break on taxes might actually spur them to hire people which would actually do some good for the economy.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 

Here's the point. You and I do not create jobs. However, a business does, my earlier post also makes more sense, instead of income taxes being cut for upper income people, how about lowering business taxes?

Businesses create jobs. Individuals while helping businesses do not directly create jobs. Cutting business taxes makes more sense for job creation because a business owner who pays less in business taxes may be more likely to add a new employee or two to their business. Thus giving me and my "lazy" and "worthless to society" ilk the opportunity to work more, gain more income and to the conservative mind be worth more to society.


You overlook the fact that MOST "businesses" are subchapter-S corporations, partnerships and sole proprietorships. They are taxed to the INDIVIDUAL owner, not the entity that does "business."

Until you understand the reality of the economy and taxation, you should let the grownups post these types of threads.

"Individuals" are the core of business creation. There is no such thing as "business" tax. There is a "corporate" tax, but most corporations report very little profit. Just look at GM, AIG, Chrysler, and the other "big money" corporations that went out of business, had to be bailed out or were absorbed by the competition. How much "profit" did they generate in 2008, or 2009.

Quarterly reported "earnings" are BEFORE taxes, charges and adjustments. Even the largest oil companies receive SUBSIDIES (i.e., government distortion of the 'market').

As for your own tax liabilities, try cutting your withholding to put more money in your pocket. Tax avoidance is not unethical; paying more than you have to is just ignorant.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Of course you are forgetting that the wealthy also invest. Now part of these tax cuts are capital gains tax cuts are they not? Well, dividends on those investments do not make jobs. Although Newt Gingrich would like the capital gains tax reduced to 0 it still won't guarantee any jobs created by the wealthy.


Wrong!

Capital gains only occur if an investment is "profitable." That means that the underlying investment produced income and thus, an opportunity for business expansion; which usually equals MORE JOBS.

Capital gains are exactly why people start businesses. They want to saee their capital grow through more business profits. Take away their gains, and you take away the incentive to be in business in the first place!

Until you understand you have little to contribute here.

Want proof? Ask your boss today why he is in business. Ask him how long he will stay in business if he does not make any "capital gains" (i.e., PROFIT).

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297


Capital gains are exactly why people start businesses. They want to saee their capital grow through more business profits. Take away their gains, and you take away the incentive to be in business in the first place!

Until you understand you have little to contribute here.


jw


Wrong....

I currently own and operate three LLC's and capital gains were the furthermost thing from my mind when I filed my articles for incorporation.
Some of us want to provide a needed service, our incentive, and profit is only an afterthought. Also working at something we enjoy was a prime motivating factor in our entrepreneurial spirit, as with most all of my contemporaries in small business.

Until you understand you have little to contribute here!

[edit on 24-8-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Wow, from reading through here, I have come to the conclusion that there are a few of you around here that have NO IDEA what Capitalism is. You keep making it synonymous with Corporatism and that's just not true. Stop. Seriously. Just stop. Pick up an Economics book (that is other than one written by that loony Krugman) and get with it.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Yes some but not much, we all got something no only the rich and famous and for that you are right, but now also with the expiration of the taxes for the "rich" we all will be paying also as we also got some relieve with them.

So either way without tax group targeting we all pay along the way, and we should not forget that the Obama care needs funding also and that has to come from tax payer be rich or just the working force.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
"soak the rich" "soak the rich" The shrill mantra marches on...and on...and on. I'm curious to know when this silliness began that making a quarter of a million dollars a year made one "rich"? Yes, one is rather well off...but rich? Not so much. ...and why, pray, shouldn't they be allowed to keep it? Most, the vast majority, worked their collective asses off to make it. ...and no, I don't make anything even vaguely resembling a quarter of a mil. a year. Would that I did...
. Oddly enough, I'd want to keep it, if'n I did.

You want govt. to have access to even more money to waste? Why? What lovely boondoggles will they come up with to spend it on? Govt. needs to learn to live within its means. Spend only, notice the word "only"... Spend only what it brings in. If in the process it has to cut spending? So be it.



[edit on 8/24/2010 by seagull]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Personally I cant support anybody paying an increase in taxes period. I know that I wouldnt want my taxes to increase and I make about 40k a year (yes, I do pay taxes as I dont get back jack compared to what gets taken out). If I ever get to the point when I'm making over 200k I sure as hell would like to keep as much money as I got because I would have earned it. It should be my choice if I want to give to charity or not. It should be my choice if I want to help out my neighbor. It should be my choice if I wanted to invest in a company with a family member. It should be my choice if I wanted to help somebody out in buying them food. Not the governments.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Well didn't you know that now the Democrats are advocating with cutting pensions and benefits for the rich and wealthy? you know like SS, because they have not need for that.

It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, if you pay on taxes and you pay on entitlement programs with your money you should have the right to what is due to you. Plain and simple.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 



if you are making 250,000 or so a year, chances are good that you have been through college....
doctors who make that much a year, could possibly be poorer than I am, after you take out their payments on all those student loans that they've made to get the degree to be a doctor......

many of the new teachers don't go into their field of choice (teaching) because well, they've had to borrow so much, that the salary that they are making (although alot to me!!), won't provide them with a suitable lifestyle once they pay on that debt...

our economy has just been so screwed up over the past few decades, there is no easy answers! and taxing those who make more money is just another easy answer......it's just gonna screw things up more....
we need to track all that money down, find out who's pockets it is ending up in, and tax them!!!..... ya know, like the tuition for a secondary education is outrageous, but then well, where is that money going?? I would venture to say, it isn't going to many of those who are teaching the students...no, it's going to the managers of the university, same in healthcare, ect...
or just recreate the system so that those few who are reaping the bounty can't reap it anymore!



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join