Why should the rich pay more taxes?

Originally posted by TheCoolKids
reply to post by watcher3339

 

If you pay state sales tax, then you get the right to vote for state reps and Governor.

If you pay local property tax, you can vote for city council and school board.

If you pay fed income tax you can vote for the president elector slate and for Senators and Reps.

47% don't pay net fed income tax, what they "pay" is payroll tax which is supposed to be a mandatory savings account not a tax.

I don't think unless people pay fed tax they can vote in fed elections. The basis of representation is taxation, nothing else.

Rule of Law?

You must be joking here, Obama just granted executive amnesty and unilaterally attacked Libya.

I am against the misuse of executive orders by any President. I have issues with a blind eye toward illegal immigration and believe it is most unfair to those waiting their legal turn in their country of origin, and those who have already arrived here legally.

You are advocating a tiered system of rights. It is simply abhorrent. No matter what historical precedent you may reach for or how you may try to justify it to yourself it remains abhorrent. And I say that as someone who pays Federal Income Tax. Everyone deserves to vote. To restrict a man from having a real say in his leadership is to relegate him as "less than". That is what your idea proposes and their is no acceptable way to sell it because it is unacceptable.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Why does everyone think that all in the top brackets make their money from the stock market? That is such a far left (successful) talking point that is truly far from the truth.
Talking about investments...so let's say you have 100k to invest and you might end up with 50k at the end of the year or you might end up with 150K at the end of the year... if it the 50K was taxed at 50% would you ever even risk you money in the first place... I wouldn't.

I would like to hear more about your pov.

To answer your question.....
I think that those in the top brackets are making their money from the stock markets either as bigwigs in "publicly-held" businesses (which are more interested in their share-holders' dividends -- and subsequent reinvestment -- than their employees' well-being). EDIT:....or as investors....using monopoly money in the form of 1s and 0s to build a digital number that means, actually,....well... Nothing.

So, you say it's a far left (successful) talking point....yet you say it is far from the truth....

can you please explain?

Also, if you are in the top 5%, that makes you 5th; not 0.1%, which is 1st.
what is the difference between the bottom of the 5% and the top of the toppest bracketest??

I don't mean to be flippant, at all. I'd like to hear your position and reasoning. (I was talking to my daughter the other day about how firms say "One of the Top 20 Forbes Companies" or "Named Among the Top 50 Medical Facilities"...

so....you're 20th? 50th? Just saying. It's kinda funny. )

reply to post by watcher3339


Either everyone pays a flat tax/national sales tax OR since only some pay taxes only some may vote.

If you vote you MUST pay income tax. The basis of the government and its authority is tax dollars not your existence.

In the fed gov 47% are not paying net income tax. They are at no risk from voting for representatives who will only tax others.

reply to post by TheCoolKids

Now I do believe the wars were fought with poor strategy, but the cause wasn't wrong. A stable, democratic Middle East will secure the oil supply and with it the century's economic growth.

So, a war with "good" strategy is fine?

How about we let the Middle East arrange for being "stable [and], democratic" on their own?
Or use the money spent forcing it on them (first by bombing and killing them, then by giving them jobs and money to rebuild what we destroyed) to improve our own infrastructure?

reply to post by Hefficide


SCOTUS has never recognized an absolute right to vote, that is why it is restricted on age.

This poll tax would not be racist, which was the reason it was banned.

Why do you think people who don't pay net taxes should be allowed to vote to increase the taxes of others?

The system we have the reason for the mess we are in.

It is reckless to have 47% of the population able to vote for members of Congress who will increase the taxes on the 53% that does pay net fed income tax, and more importantly that a minority the fabled 1% are being blamed as having corrupted a system despite their lack of voting power.

Socialism fails.

reply to post by wildtimes


Gaza elected Hamas.
Egypt elected the Brotherhood.

Just because a government is elected doesn't make it better, but it can increase the chance of being better.

reply to post by TheCoolKids


I was just wondering, TheCoolKids...what made you sign up today? Is your name Mitt? Or Paul?
Gosh. Came in guns-ablazin'!! Are you a long-time GOP lurker?

Just wondering.

Originally posted by TheCoolKids
reply to post by watcher3339

 

Hogwash, the development of China and India saved the steel industry here among many others. If East Asia did not develop at the rate it did many jobs in export driven industries would never have existed.

Why do you want them to remain poor? Keep them dependent on foreign aid, you neocolonialist?

Most of our wars are to support foreign governments, the Saudis being the most notable and powerful.

Our oil compaines never did that well in the Iraq contracts and it will be years before the Afghan minerals get developed even if we win there, with the Chinese likely winning the contracts.

Profiteering is a sad reality of war, but I question why exactly Saddam should have been left in power and the same with the Taliban.

Now I do believe the wars were fought with poor strategy, but the cause wasn't wrong. A stable, democratic Middle East will secure the oil supply and with it the century's economic growth.

*cough* Halliburton and all of their subsidiaries. Enough said.
We are the largest single consumer economy in the world. Close the loop and there are goods and jobs a plenty to go around. During the bailouts our international trade agreements disallowed us from requiring that steel purchased with the bailout funds be American Steel. The long game of globalism does not end well for the average Joe in this country. It just doesn't.

I don't want China, India, or anyone else to remain poor. I also don't think it is my government's responsibility to lift them out of poverty. They have a government, let them give it a go.

I would pay more for American made goods.
The culture of the Middle East does not embrace democracy as you envision it. They will largely vote for a theocracy which will then make rules we find terrible. But, it will have been their choice. We need to stop wasting the time and lives of our soldiers and the material resources of this country elsewhere. We should break our dependence on foreign oil. We should not transfer our wealth by buying it and building up oppressive regimes which then allow/encourage their people to blame the west for the fact that life for the majority of the people there is hard.

"The dome of the Amir's palace is made of solid gold but the people have never even seen a refrigerator"
Ishtar (terrible movie, a couple of great lines)

The Saudi's aren't our friends. Nor should we even want to pretend they are given the way their country is run, the home of the 9/11 hijackers, and of course, Prince Osama. But, as long as we need foreign oil.......

The best rationale for going into Iraq would actually have been the fact that there were extremist groups setting up training camps in his country. He was a paper tiger as we rather quickly showed and it was better for us to take him down than to allow the extremists to do it and then have access to his oil resources. But, nobody ever saw fit to give that good reason to the public. Therefore, the reasons we went weren't good enough in my opinion. I feel differently about Afghanistan but since it was our money that set up their training camps back when Afghanistan was a Soviet sore spot...when will we ever learn.

Hear all the rumors about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt the last few days?
They'll run right over most of the Arab Spring territories.

My money and the time and lives of our soldiers doesn't need to be there. We can't fix the Middle East. It breaks every power that tries.

reply to post by watcher3339


You advocate near autarky, only one country in the world does that, North Korea.

I think we can change the Middle East not mainly through military power but also cultural power and economic pressure. Can't isn't really an option anymore. The survival of the world economy depends on the free flow of oil.

Of course if Europe, Russia and China actually were responsible rather than sniping at us maybe it would be better.

better to fight them over there than over here. You can't keep the boot off the throat when dealing with Islamists.

reply to post by watcher3339

My money and the time and lives of our soldiers doesn't need to be there. We can't fix the Middle East. It breaks every power that tries.

Yep.

Glad that you have decided to speak out, watcher. The USA needs to butt out and pull out (not just military but global conglomerate businesses as well) and just mind our own household. It's disgraceful what poor shape our home country is in yet we have umpteen thousands of troops deployed elsewhere.....

whose brains have been tampered with (beyond repair) and lives have been hijacked....

I stand behind our troops, but I am (sadly) fully aware of what happens to basic-training graduates in their late teens....they are "twisted" by military training. It's heartbreaking.

I'm livin' the fallout, every day.....
~wild

Originally posted by wildtimes

So, you say it's a far left (successful) talking point....yet you say it is far from the truth....

can you please explain?

Originally posted by wildtimes

So, you say it's a far left (successful) talking point....yet you say it is far from the truth....

Success does not = truth

It's a numbers game for votes and they want about 65 mil votes and are going after lower 50% income by creating the evil rich and offering a large amount of Government subsidies...

The problem is its not the .01 percent that will only be affected....The top 25% will also be affected...

Also, if you are in the top 5%, that makes you 5th; not 0.1%, which is 1st.
what is the difference between the bottom of the 5% and the top of the toppest bracketest??

I'm not sure your question... I paid about 40k in fed income taxes last year...

reply to post by Xtrozero

I'm not sure your question... I paid about 40k in fed income taxes last year...

That doesn't mean anything unless you can put it at a percentage.....I think you said 28%, right?
So, you were taxed, and heavily.

The diff is that the top toppiest toppers are paying NOTHING, because they have off-shore accounts, foreign "income" bases, and numerous other "non-taxed" things like (if I remember correctly from NPR) capital gains.

I realize it's a complicated (TOO complicated) tax code; and even for all my huff-puffing at TheCoolKids, a flat tax would be my choice as well......

what bothers me is the "hedging" and "shorts and longs" and playing around with other people's money and trust.....

while neglecting the dignity and standard of living of the people actually doing the work, and producing the profits. Why are they not entitled to a respectable and healthy share of the profits, but the "stock-holders" are??

reply to post by TheCoolKids


I do agree that it is better to fight them over there than here.
But I think it even better not to fight them at all.
They don't even agree with each other. By continuing to buy oil which creates an overclass which funds madrassas (or at least did, my best guess is that post 9/11 the rhetoric has toned down in Saudi Arabia) which preach hate toward the West and America as a tool of deflection to keep their people from recognizing that the royal family, the real 1 Percenters, is the cause of their misery, and then by fighting them we cause them to put aside their very real religious differences to fight us. Let them either learn peace or fight each other, which, if we got out of the way, would happen.

I am not against trade completely. But I don't like the strangle hold of international trade agreements. You are seem fond of historical precedent remember "entangling alliances"? We should be free to trade with nations when it works for us. And they would be free to do so if it worked for them. However, must sell Chinese tires at crazy cheap prices?? Huh? Why? Because somebody signed a trade agreement that said we would have no barriers. We need barriers. Our countries are run differently. We have all sorts of products coming in that are benefiting from what amounts to government subsidies (plus the cost of living differential as their comparative advantage) and our companies can't compete. When a company that is based here goes under or cuts back, my neighbor loses a job. When 7 of my neighbors have lost jobs my neighborhood isn't what it used to be.
It is good for all of us to keep Americans gainfully employed. If they are good at their job and work hard there is no reason for an American to be out of work other than outsourcing and cheap foreign imports. We buy so much stuff, couldn't we arrange it so that we buy security along with our new cell phone, ipad, flip flop? At the very least we should have the right as a country to say, too bad, we are putting a tariff on that, or too bad, the bail out funds are only for American Steel. Our trade agreements are starting to feel far too much like a supranational organization and I am just a little too fond of sovereignty to accept that.

reply to post by wildtimes


Much of that income is earned like this

$1 invested in overseas stock
investment increases to $10
Stock sold for $10, taxed in UK
If the money is repatriated to the US, it will be taxed again once it is over 78K in income

Now why exactly does the US government claim a right to tax something that did not occur within its jurisdiction?

Arrogance, that's why

reply to post by TheCoolKids

Originally posted by TheCoolKids

SCOTUS has never recognized an absolute right to vote, that is why it is restricted on age.

The Supreme Court upheld the Nineteenth Amendment - giving women the right to vote. Why would they go out of their way to uphold a right for women if it did not, already, exist for men?

Originally posted by TheCoolKids

This poll tax would not be racist, which was the reason it was banned.

It would be racist, sexist, and outright classism in its most naked and raw form. Making rights only available to those who can pay goes against everything that every American patriot has died for over the past 230+ years.

Ever hear a kid going off to war, saying "I'm going to risk my life so that my kid might, one day, be rich enough to have rights?"

Originally posted by TheCoolKids

Why do you think people who don't pay net taxes should be allowed to vote to increase the taxes of others?

Because it is the law of the land. Because it is ingrained in the spirit of the Constitution - The Declaration - and what makes American great.

Because it is my preference to live in a Republic and not an Oligarchy.

Originally posted by TheCoolKids

The system we have the reason for the mess we are in.

Abuse of the system is the reason for our woes. Fiscal irresponsibility for the past eleven and a half years, war without end, over extended tax cuts on the rich, overgrown Government... and yes - a percentage of people who take advantage of the system. Some of them on purpose - others because they have no other choice or opportunity...

And before you fire back across my bow here... I'll just say "Thank God I was born healthy and with all of my limbs and my intellect - so that extremists wouldn't point at me and tell me that I don't deserve to eat because it isn't fair to them."

Originally posted by TheCoolKids

It is reckless to have 47% of the population able to vote for members of Congress who will increase the taxes on the 53% that does pay net fed income tax, and more importantly that a minority the fabled 1% are being blamed as having corrupted a system despite their lack of voting power.

That is a unique way of looking at it. My opinion is that big business bought Congress quite awhile back and continue to do so today. Want reform? Ban the lobbying of Congress. I bet this would get a lot more done than blaming the poorest and least able to defend themselves.

Originally posted by TheCoolKids

Socialism fails.

Well - China seems to contradict that. But, more important - social programs do not equal socialism.

We live in a Democratic Republic and the whole purpose of that type of government is for the many to have a voice equal to the few - and to prevent the few from taking over.

IMO, BTW, I think we're failing on that - as the rich most certainly control this country and the folks who run it.


ETA: And all of this deflection still sidesteps the issue - these are not tax hikes, they are simply previous, temporary tax cuts being allowed to expire.
~Heff

Anyone who didn't send off his Manufacturing off to the Slaves in China, went out of Business. Beautiful hot young chinese women provided unimaginable delights to the men whose jobs it was to facilitate the transfer of jobs and manufacturing to China. The products now being made by slaves, and able to ingnore enviornmental laws, increased profits dramatically. Unbridled Greed became the word of the day, where no Executive Compensation Package could be considered too large. All made off of the US unemployed workers and the Beaten Communist Work Slaves. The Golden Palaces and Private Jets became the status symbols of the Super Elite, working in secret for their real masters the Globalist Illuminati.,
Solution: Cap their salaries to 1 million dollars a year, use the rest of the profit to pay for the Beer and Weed of the lower social strata to help make their misrable lives tolerable, in a world where all has been taken from them.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Success does not = truth

So sorry, still not following. No, success does not equal truth.....
I must be reading your statement incorrectly.

"The far left (successful) talking point"....to me, reads: the successful talking point of the far left. I think, though, that you mean something else.

reply to post by watcher3339


Islamists will continue to fight us as long as we exist, it is direct from the teachings of Muhammad. The thing that changes that paradigm is when fighting becomes morally wrong (unlikely) or too expensive (very likely), Usuli 12er Shia Islam throws this whole thing out because it is more messianic than Sunni Islam.

While hate of the west that protects them is taught by the ruling ME governments, that only happens because they can go to Russia/China for weapons and protection. I'd prefer our hegemony over theirs.

If the Chinese dump tires below cost here then their government will be losing money over it to the detriment of its long term competitiveness as a country.

Tariffs don't work: see bastiat and the negative railroad.

Comparative advatage people

reply to post by O11Snapper


Slavery is highly rare in China and most Chinese on the street rather like the improved standards of living that global trade has brought.

Executive compensation is a relatively small corporate expense, and approved by shareholder elected BODs, if you think a CEO is overpaid or should be sacked, then buy stock if you don't already and cast a vote there.

If you don't then screw off and stop trying to feed the government beast with more tax revenue.

Originally posted by TheCoolKids
reply to post by watcher3339

 

Islamists will continue to fight us as long as we exist, it is direct from the teachings of Muhammad. The thing that changes that paradigm is when fighting becomes morally wrong (unlikely) or too expensive (very likely), Usuli 12er Shia Islam throws this whole thing out because it is more messianic than Sunni Islam.

While hate of the west that protects them is taught by the ruling ME governments, that only happens because they can go to Russia/China for weapons and protection. I'd prefer our hegemony over theirs.

If the Chinese dump tires below cost here then their government will be losing money over it to the detriment of its long term competitiveness as a country.

Tariffs don't work: see bastiat and the negative railroad.

Comparative advatage people

It's really not in their teachings to fight us. At least on the surface most western countries are still identified as "christian" (though not in the way that they once were) which means that they are "People of the Book" and exempt from the convert or die rules. Let China have them! See how well that goes for them. This part of the world is bad for business in every way. We just need to get out.