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.

 

Why should the rich pay more taxes?

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by meticulous

Because it is still a form of TAX on the people.


It is a tax that provides a retirement system. Rather different than most other taxes....




So you just admitted that the TAX system is NOT for rich people.


Are you just trying to argue or do you want to talk about this....

SS system is not for the rich, BECAUSE they don't need it....the guy who makes up to 100k per year NEEDS it because he will fail to save anything his whole life. That is the way America is. I don't like SS at all, but our liberal friends felt the need to force people who don't make a lot of money to save in someway and this was their answer.

The rich guy could give a rats ass for the 2300 dollar he will get per month....




Originally posted by Xtrozero
The point was that the government has full control of all the money put into that system. The Rich do not contribute anything over 110k and get to keep the government from controlling that extra untaxed money.


So what is your point? Do you think a guy who makes billon should pay millions into it just so he gets millions out of it at age 66 instead of a couple of thousand? .. It's all liner... They put the same in and get the same out...why is that hard to understand?

If both put 400 dollars a month into a savings account and both did this for 35 years and drew out the same amount each month at age 66 why would there be any difference if the rich guy put in 10 times more and got 10 times more each month at age 66...its all liner.




So why was it fair that they get to opt out of the system at $110,100?


Why is it fair that a loaf of bread cost the same for a rich person as a poor person? Your basing this on they never draw off their SS and so the rich guy should pay on 100%. I don't have a problem with that, but it really is not the reason it was created, and if the guy is dead it really doesn't matter... The guy who makes 50k a year doesn't have savings not because of SS..he doesn't have saving because he does not have enough control to do it....

Some do but most do not and so SS was born...SS is a very liberal idea and I do not like most liberal ideas, I wish there was an opt out.

Taxes are all crazy when you try an apply any logic to it....I pay 28% after all said and done on a much larger amount of money where someone else pays 5% all said and done on a much smaller gross... This only makes sense in taxes....hehe



edit on 21-8-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Ahem. Here I thought we were having a friendly discussion.


I didn't ask in a bad way...just wanted to know...sorry if it came off brash.




Of course skills matter. I am over 50 years old, with an advanced degree in the Behavioral and Mental Health, am bilingual Spanish/English, know how to design/sew clothing, am an excellent cook, a gardener, was a child-care provider for many years, do minor to medium home DIY stuff, know quite a lot about basic construction and maintenance, and some other skills...

I live in a mixed working-class neighborhood, an 73-year old home, drove an old Honda (until it recently died), walk whenever I can, rarely eat out or go to the movies, NEVER go out clubbing or "shopping", and buy clothes second hand. My furniture is all second-hand or flea market stuff -- I choose to live this way rather than keeping up with the Joneses in the beige suburbs...

that said, my home is comfortable, and we get by. My husband saves as much as he can. I stayed at home with my two kids until they were school age, never put them in day-care (had a home child care business myself for those years)...


With your skills sets you would most likely work for the Government in some capacity or maybe a private hospital. I leaning towards Counseling of some kind. I know this type of work doesn't pay well, but can be rewarding...what is a good career path here? You are 50 plus what kind of career path did you intend to follow?



The people who are working 80 hours are the 20s and 30s who are in middle management, on salaries, and expected to be on-call and stay late....so they can get ahead.


The problem is cost...things cost too much and inflation is going too fast with a 15 trillion debt. I make over two times what I made 10 years ago, but my buying power is just slightly more.



I'd take a $10/hour stocking job. But no one will even give me an interview -- I'm too old, and overqualified. It sucks.


Ya, you fall into the category of it is better to hire a young person who is healthy and they can control...but the older person will most likely do more quality work and be more responsible.

Another problem is that it is hard for many to up and move to a job...that can be tough to do...and counseling/teaching are not good careers to be in right now...10 years ago I would have said they were some of the best...go figure

I'm sorry for your troubles...I really wish things would get better and pull people like you out of the hole that you are in...



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
"Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today," writes Bruce Bartlett. He's an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up."


“the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.”
thinkbynumbers.org...



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCoolKids
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Why not start taxing the 47% not paying income tax and ending the waste of the welfare system?

The tax cuts are only temporary because George Voinovich inserted the language as a poison pill back in 2001.

They should have always been permanent as Bush campaigned on.


The 47% not paying income tax don't have anything to pay, how can't you understand this? You think they wouldn't want to make more money so they in turn can pay into the system? Why don't the people on top balance out the wages a bit more so the 47% not paying could pay into the system if they hate them so much.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Taxes are all crazy when you try an apply any logic to it....


Looks like we finally agree



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Another problem is that it is hard for many to up and move to a job...that can be tough to do...and counseling/teaching are not good careers to be in right now...10 years ago I would have said they were some of the best...go figure

I'm sorry for your troubles...I really wish things would get better and pull people like you out of the hole that you are in...

Thanks.
I'm doin' all right........makin' it work.



new topics

top topics
 
10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join