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.

 

When the Progressive Income Tax Rates were high were the Rich or the Wealthy people still Rich did t

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
They don't pay SS tax at that level, etc.




sure they do but it's capped. The reason for this is, if a person making a million a year paid social security on the total salary, they'd want, in return, a benefit commensurate with the amount they contributed. Social Security wouldn't be able to pay them a fair amount so they put a cap on the contribution amount and they effectively reduce the amount they would have had to pay them upon retirement.
The reason other retirement type benefits are capped, such as 401(k)s and SEPs is to avoid people contributing enough each year to eliminate their taxes. If a guy making $750,000 a year has more than enough money to live on, it would be in his best interest to put all of his current earnings into retirement accounts, eliminating the taxes in the current year. This was, for a while, a viable option and the IRS changed the tax code to avoid this issue.




posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism

Originally posted by armtx

Define wealth and I will get into a conversation with you on that matter, because I agree with some of what you are saying and disagree with other points.

I dont defend the wealthy because making 150k a year to me is not wealthy. Between my wife and myself we make 150k a year and we certainly do not struggle, but we are not wealthy either. In fact, we get taxed heavier than any other tax bracket when you consider we dont have any children. I would call my financial situation a comfortable one, but the missery I have to go through every day is not worth it for the amount of money I make.


I never said in my post that someone that makes 150K a year is wealthy. Although you are making more than a lot of people in this country. What exactly is it that you disagree with? The fact is most people are not making enough money anymore in the US when compared to inflation and cost of living. I dunno, that seems to be a big problem to me.

I believe that people that earn over 150K-250K on a single income have it extremely good compared to everyone else in this country. The current tax rate at that level does not effect them nearly as much as other tax rates effect other incomes. They don't pay SS tax at that level, etc.



I agree with you that we probably have it a lot better than people who dont make that kind of money and it is a dual income situation. My point is that many people wnat to make more money to buy more things or better things. I know we got trapped in that mentality for several years. New cars, not used ones. New Iphones, not just the run of the mill phones..etc and this is where my point comes into play.

People who dont make good money, spend like they do. I know there are a lot of people out there that dont, but the majority do, and why? ENVY, maybe. Lack of self esteem, possibly. I honestly dont know the reason people live way outside of their means, aside from the fact that they are trying to keep up with the Jone's.

We traded in the new cars, and bought cars that were 4 years old, dropped the smartphones and got PHONES.

We got taxed close to 40k last year, NO WRITE OFFS. Most people wouldnt shed a teer for us and I am certainly not saying living on 110K is a bad thing, but I was taxed more than some people make and when you work 250 hours a month, you can bet your ass that I EARN my money, yet people ask me to give more, because they feel it is my duty to give to charity because I have it better off than most. I just dont see it

I recently went through 10 years of pay stubs(Im34) because I wanted to see how many hours I have worked in the past decade...29,840 hours that averages out to 11.1 hours a day for a 5day work week.

I guess I sound conceited for complaing about taking home 100k a year as a family, but at the end of the day I have worked hard for what is mine and taxation just makes me think that I shouldnt work that hard because we would get along just fine on 100k a year...dunno



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by macman
Why does it matter?
To raise taxes is to take away from some to give to others.
If I go from say $150k a year, taxed at 40%, only to go to $300k a year and then taxed at 50%, then why move up in life? It is punishment.

Very plain and simple.





Because you cannot do math?

$150K - 40% = $90K
$300k - 50% = $150k

Why would you want almost double the money?
edit on 29-6-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)


Yes, I am and was aware of the difference.
But, those percentages were a ballpark and in all reality the tax rate for someone in the $300k would be more like 60%. But with that said, I still don't understand why you and others feel it neccesary that because someone makes more money, that they should pay more money.
By that standard, someone making $150k a year would pay $20k for a car, yet the person making $300k a year should pay $50k for the same car.

It comes down to basic envy of others. Stop worrying about what your neighbor has, and start worrying about yourself and how to improve your life, not tear down others.


Because an additional $ in income in a low income household is more likely to be spent, generating demand, wich in turn generates business opportunities and jobs.

On the other hand high income households are more likely to own businesses. High tax rates are an incentive to keep income low, encouraging reeinvestment (which in turn creates jobs, which in turn increases disposable income, which in turn increases demand, which in turn generates business opportunities and jobs)


So basically you or the Govt gets to decide that he who makes more, shall pay more to those that don't?
What an elitist mentality you have.
No, high tax rates discourage people from making more. That is why there are such marvelous tax loopholes that businesses can use.
Instead of the business owner taking home $200k, he takes home $100k. He will more then likely put that $100k difference back into HIS business as equipment or land. This does not exactly equal more jobs. It means a higher amount of liquid assets for the company.
Now if he were allowed to take home the $100k, that money could be used as personal consumption, a new house, college for kids or what ever.
The latter half provides more.
Your theory is not logical.

It is not your nor the Govt's money. What part of that is so hard to understand?
I know what is best in regards to my money and my family, not you or a Govt politician.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Do you dispute that more disposable income on the lower end of the tax brackets leads more directly to increased demand, while on the higher end, you have no way to tell where it ends up?

Also you can't just keep money in a company without spending it on *something* If you leave it in t he companys bank account ... guess what: it's income.
edit on 30-6-2011 by debunky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by macman
 


Do you dispute that more disposable income on the lower end of the tax brackets leads more directly to increased demand, while on the higher end, you have no way to tell where it ends up?


You have no way of knowing regardless, unless your crystal ball says so.

It is not your income or the Govt's income to play with.
Why is that so hard to comprehend??
Instead of taking from those that make more, why not encourage those that make less to mimic success and create their own, instead of taking from others?

Simple pure class envy.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Schkeptick
 


LOL yeah because they made their money through hard work... not by selling $%^& at the highest price they could manipulate people into paying. Everyone paints this picture of big buisness as some kind old man thats worked his fingers to the bone givining free medical care to children in uganda. When in reality those people made it to where they are by lying, stealing, and cheating at every concivable point. Big buisness is about raping you.. and leaving you dead in the street.

You could all be murdered tomarrow by giant robot snakes from outerspace and the only thing on your frachise owners mind is gonna be profitability loss.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
There seems to be a major misunderstanding about what Flat Tax is.

It's not a flat % taken from paychecks.

Under the Flat Tax there is no income tax, it's a single high sales tax (or VAT) that replaces the Income Tax.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


some folks feel that an appropriate tax is a tax on your income, no deductions allowed and the rate should be the same for all.



the vat, or value added tax, is a tax based on consumption. the more you spend, the more you pay as the VAT is added to your purchases. A VAT serves a better purpose if you want to hit the wealthiest folks as they tend to consume more and spend more on the things they consume.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Oh yes....the 'ol "I'm jealous others have more than me, so I feel they should pay more out than everyone else" argument


My family for generations back worked their arses off to obtain the wealth they had. They never depended on the system. They started and built up businesses, invested wisely and were extremely successful. They donated to charities and helped out those in need - of their own free will.

Yet......many out there feel they are entitled to receive handouts from them (and others like them) because they are more successful.

No. Absolutely not. People earn it, they should do what they want with it. And it is ridiculous and selfish to think that those who have more should dish it out to those who have less.

What is more ridiculous are all the generations after having to pay inheritance taxes on money THAT WAS ALREADY TAXED. That money gets re-taxed over and over and over - each time it is handed down. Yeah, that is fair



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 

You said it yourself, your family "worked their arses off" to become wealthy. Then you talk about the unfairness of inheritance taxes??? You really must help me understand how much of one's arse is worked off by a dead person giving you money that you didn't earn??? A "handout" is a "handout", if you have something against handouts, you should not accept any money that you didn't work for.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mikejohnson2006
 
I think everyone is missing the point. Why would you give someone more money to be responsible with when they dont know how to spend it right. You give your kid a credit card and say you can only spend 70 % of it the kid spends a hundred precent of it and tells you he made a mistake with how he spent it,and that he owes more then what you gave him to start with and he needs you to bail him out or Buba is gonna break his fingers. So you give him the money to save his fingers and once again he does the same thing except Buba is gonna break his whole body. You are starting to think your kid is a fool(government) but the kid isnt. Its you because you didnt let buba break his fingers. Which may have helped the kid learn about money but knoooow now we gotta save the kids (government) whole body from being broke. We keep being played like fools with all the rules and regulations and taxes. We have to force our government to live within its means or we ourselves are not going to have any means.Its not the rich nor the poor or the middle income peoples fault in this whole mess its the yahoos in governments fault so maybe as a people we can finally start seeing it for what it is.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

sure they do but it's capped. The reason for this is, if a person making a million a year paid social security on the total salary, they'd want, in return, a benefit commensurate with the amount they contributed. Social Security wouldn't be able to pay them a fair amount so they put a cap on the contribution amount and they effectively reduce the amount they would have had to pay them upon retirement.



But they don't pay SS past 106K, you can say it's capped and the reason for it, but it's still a fact that they don't have to worry about paying for it unlike anyone that makes less than that on the entirety of their paycheck. And with the rising costs of health care, and concerns over the future of SS, why is the cap set at only 106K at this point?

Here's an interesting letter/article that relates to this -

EDIT - I guess I can't post the link to that site?
edit on 30-6-2011 by origamiandurbanism because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by armtx
I guess I sound conceited for complaing about taking home 100k a year as a family, but at the end of the day I have worked hard for what is mine and taxation just makes me think that I shouldnt work that hard because we would get along just fine on 100k a year...dunno


I hear what you're saying and no I don't think you sound conceited at all. But if you and your wife were only making 100K it'd be a good bit less than the combined 150K that you currently make, wouldn't it? You'd still have to pay a comparable tax income on that amount.

I think it's great that you make that amount. I think that's a good livable wage. My problem is a lot of people's wages have remained stagnant while prices and overall cost of living continue to go up. I believe the average salary in America today is around 40K, while it should be around 70-70K (around what you earn) when adjusted for inflation.

It's like when people attack government employees for making what amounts to be just simply a livable wage (50K-70K) instead of wondering why they're not earning more.

In addition to the above my main problem is simply that the top tax rate isn't high enough, IMO. When more wealth is being accumulated by such a small portion of the population it puts a strain on everyone else. It creates problems like raising the cost of living for everyone else. If someone is earning such a high amount of money because they have the privilege of living and doing business in this country, then they also have a responsibility to pay some of it back for the good of the country.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 
Bravo! I feel every one should pay their fair share, but I am strongly oppossed to working "400 hours" for no wages, so the government can give it to people who won't get off their lazy butts and get a job, so they can pay their fair share.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
the buisness of the rich and ELITE will ALWAYS pass the buck on to you. so, if the rich get taxed, they pass that tax onto the products that they make and that gets passed on to you the consumer. SO, who cares. WE the LOWELY will always flip the bill. WE always have. I always loved to hear congress say they are raising taxes for the rich. The statement is so dumb. They are still taxing us poor. don't you sheeple get it.:



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 
Progressive income tax was one of the means by which Karl Marx thought would lead to a Communist or Socialist state.
Well welcome to the nanny state. Wilson started it, FDR built on the foundation, LBJ insituted the Great Society, and so it goes.
The only thing we can do is hope that the working people of this country can come to their senses and make sure the nanny state is defunded, then repealed.
We also have to convince the government that they must live like we do. They must not be able to spend more than they take in.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 
It's not partisan research. In fact, his figures may be low. Before you start calling names, do your on research. You might be surprised.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by gentledissident
 
Need to check the former USSR, and the current situation in Europe. People are rioting because their socialist entitlements are being taken away, and the poor slobs are going to have to go to work.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ctdannyd
 


If we begin to tax these corporations they WILL move their headquarters overseas. It's bad enough that the US economy is a heaping pile. All new business is now orientated towards India and China. Now you want to drive what little tax revenue we get from these companies overseas?

America is no longer the great country where you can have a 90% tax on corporations and the rich. If they were rich enough, they would just move overseas.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
My comment is to take all the patriotic millionaires and let them sweat blood in the stan for a year.
They'll be more than happy to pay whatever tax.
and as far as companies that send their jobs to China and India.
LOL just another target of oppritunity when the next big one hits.
And that ain't too far away folks!
Bunch a tax bitches if you ask me.




top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join