Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I figured out why Boehner and the republicans do not want to tax the wealthy.

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


correct me if i am wrong but that is not a tax hike if it just went back to the levels it was before. similar to the payroll deductions that were temporary yet people think obama added them as a new tax hike. what i am talking about is the sequester and how boehner and company refused to accept any further tax hikes.




posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I think in the simplistic view, Government owning/running a company is a surefire way to lose money. I am not wealthy nor will i ever be, but i do think people with a lot of money that only invest in sure things that turn a profit, thus sustaining the economy is a much better bet than government picking winners out of a hat.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


The Bush tax cuts were extended for the middle class. Not the wealthy. The wealthy got a tax increase.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


i guess we can agree to disagree. like i said in my op, i am not lazy, i am not a communist, i work, i provide for my family, i am currently in the proccess of improving my life and my wages so i can make more to have a better quality of life for my family. yet the scary part is as i continue to make more money the prices of everyday staples such as gas, and food continue to skyrocket. if you are content eating ramen noodles (i.e cake) then by all means continue to do so. i will not sit hear and be told to suck it up and eat cake. i will continue to voice my opinion and i certainly hope more americans will too.
edit on 2-3-2013 by conspiracy nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by Hopechest
 


i guess we can agree to disagree. like i said in my op, i am not lazy, i am not a communist, i work, i provide for my family, i am currently in the proccess of improving my life and my wages so i can make more to have abetter quality of life for my family. yet the scary part is as i continue to make more money the prices of everyday staples such as gas, and food continue to skyrocket. if you are content eating ramen noodles (i.e cake) then by all means continue to do so. i will not sit hear and be told to suck it up and eat cake. i will continue to voice my opinion and i certainly hope more americans will too.


Apologies, that statement was not directed at you but was said in a general sense. And no, I don't think your lazy or a communist, just a person who sounds frustrated as you should be.

I eat and live poorly so that one day I don't have to but I can imagine that if you have decided to have a family that it must be tough times although I'm sure many people feel its worth it and its not my place to dictate how others should live. I was only disagreeing that companies should be held responsible for the decisions people make in their own lives.

I'm massively in debt from school but I don't feel that the big oil companies should be responsible for me making my monthly payments when they hit just because they earn record profits. They didn't force me to go to school for all this time.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
First off, they're going to call you communist/marxist/socialist/lazy/etc. regardless of how irrational it makes them look in the process. They aren't exactly the type that operates on logic and reason. It's not much different from the people who call your racist for disagreeing with Obama's policies. If only people read the dictionary as often as they do political blogs, they might not sound so stupid but I digress.

Great article OP. It's not only the fact that they're rich though as mentioned before-just look at who's backing them. May also explain why they're so out of touch with the poor-calling them lazy, drug addicts, and so on. Don't know what their supporters excuses for doing the same are, considering that most of them aren't rich (in fact, some are even poor). Personally, I think it would be better if there was no income tax, but if it has to exist, then it isn't unreasonable to ask everyone to pay their fair share.
edit on 2-3-2013 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


if your tax rate goes up by 4.6%, are you paying more in tax?

yes.


is that an increase?

yes

is it a hike?

yes


they can call it whatever they want, when you pay an additional $20k in taxes, it's an increase.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
The reality is that everybody got a tax increase. If you buy pretty much anything you pay more because of a tax increase. Either directly or indirectly. Tax corporations? Pay more for goods. Tax gasoline? Pay more for gasoline. Tax farmers? Pay more for food. If only the world were simple. We live in a universe of cause and effect. That can not be changed. Every action has a consequence.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Taxing the wealthy serves no purpose. The basic incentive to earn more gets lost at higher tax rates, as exemplified by the recent fleeing of France's wealthy. Those with the capacity to earn will simply cease production or move to where they can keep more of their earnings.

Furthermore, there are examined economic principles that have modeled this out. Namely, Hauser's Law and the Laffer Curve.

The existing problem is the discontinuity between a government that serves the people efficiently and the government that people pay for.

One method to circumvent this would be to put Congress on an allowance. That would mean allow the people to allot what their taxes go for when they file their taxes. That is we check boxes what we want our tax dollars to go for (e.g. Defense, Health and Human Services, Welfare, Homeland Security, NASA, etc.). So if everybody checks the box for defense, and only 5% check the box for welfare then funding for defense would increase and welfare funding would contract.

Such a scheme would involve Congress ceding their power of the purse, but given that the Senate was floating the idea of putting budget cuts into the hands of the President, I ask -why not?



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   


Who are you to determine how much anyone can earn? Why not earn some yourself?
reply to post by TheWrightWing
 


Really, why would you say this, think about this for a momement, Politicians are getting their money from a system that we pay for and that they control, they give themselfs raises, who would not vote for there own raise. How many of them leave congress and join elete groups that lobby just for money. What do first term senators and congressman do their first year in office? they go out and promote there party to raise funds.

Why is it that most politicians when they enter politices are worth less than the average income in the US, but when they leave they are millionaires.

This is the problem we need to limit there wages to performance, they don't performe well they don't make much, be like the private sector, the better you perform the better you are paid.




posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Ok, let's put this whole "let them eat cake" phrase to bed once and for all.

It was referring to a French bread law that existed at the time (it probably wasn't even Antoinette that said it). The law stated that if a baker (doesn't matter what kind of baker) had to sell a certain amount of bread at a fixed price. Once they ran out of that bread they had to sell other, more fancy breads, at the same price. So even fancy cake makers had an amount of bread they made every day.



In reality, the phrase predates the reign of Marie Antoinette. Jean-Jaques Rousseau, a philosopher who paved the way for democracy and socialism, wrote of a "princess" who said, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," when she heard that the peasants had no bread. While brioche is not quite as extravagant as cake, the phrase basically has the same meaning. The story told by Rousseau served to illustrate the vast gap between the rich and the poor of his time, but it was written when Marie Antoinette was only a child and not yet Queen of France.

No one knows the real origin of the phrase "let them eat cake," but it may have been a rally against the exploitation of the poor, rather than a flippant comment revealing the speaker's ignorance. In 18th century France, bakers were required by law to sell brioche and other fancy breads at the same price as regular bread if the latter was out of stock. Therefore, the original statement may have meant "do not let the poor starve if plain bread is not available."


Source



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


They are making out that those who earn 200 thou a year are the rich when in fact companies like ge pay virtually no tax. The people who earn in the higher income bracket are the business owners who create jobs but the super rich get off scott free. This is why americas population will end up consuming iyself in blame soon, and the super wealthy puppet masters will be laughing their heads off at the gullible sheeple.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilky
 


The super rich generally make money from interest on money they already made and were taxed on already. Capital gains. Everybody pays capital gains tax. Your savings account earns money and the money you earn on the interest they pay you is considered capital gains.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
It is a well established fact that when the super rich pay higher taxes, the country and the econnomy do better.

Goods and services sold by corporations should include the cost of government to keep those corporations in business. That huge military expense to keep slave labor going, so that US jobs can be sent overseas, where they work children to the point of disfiguration.

The super rich did not create the technology that made us more efficient, they only worked the system to rob the people of rewards we should be receiving for our contributions.

It's pathetic how media has programmed enough people to buy into the lies and vote against their own best interests.

It is the same people voting for the rights of the super rich to commit crimes, who also vote for the regulation of the individual, more police, judges, jails, and military, yet complain about big government. It is ignorance at its most refined state.

Unless you conduct business across state lines, and national borders, you pay too much fed taxes at the gas pump.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

It is a well established fact that when the super rich pay higher taxes, the country and the econnomy do better.



What's going on in France today says otherwise.
edit on 2-3-2013 by GreenGlassDoor because: fixing



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


Not at all. The situation in France is very different.

Germany is making things work quite well.

As far as the US is concerned, high taxes on the rich and corporations, and solid regulations of corporations is the formula for success.

Put in place strict laws on immigration, and we would be doing
much better here in the states.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
The wealthy are already taxed. The following figures are directly from the IRS for 2010.

100%: 139,960,580 returns paid taxes of $1,031,512mil for 100% AGI for 100% of taxes
Top 1%: 1,399,606 returns paid $392,149mil for 20.70% AGI for 38.02% of taxes
Top 5%: 6,998,029 returns paid $213,569mil for 34.73% AGI for 58.72% share
Top 10%: 13,996,068 returns paid $721,421mil for 45.77% AGI for 69.94% of taxes
Top 25%: 34,990,145 returns paid $890,614mil for 67.38% AGI for 86.34% of taxes
Top 50%: 69,980,290 returns paid $1,003,639mil for 87.25% AGI for 97.30% of taxes
Bottom 50%: 69,980,290 returns paid $27,783 mil for 12.75% AGI for 2.59% of taxes.

AGI = Adjusted Gross Income. So to put this in story problem form:

The top 1% earned 20.70% of the income, but paid 38.02% of all income taxes.
The top 5% earned 34.73% of the income, but paid 58.72% of all income taxes.
The top 10% earned 45.77% of the income, but paid 69.94% of all income taxes.
The top 25% earned 67.38% of the income, but paid 86.34% of all income taxes.
The top 50% earned 87.25% of the income, but paid 97.30% of all income taxes.
The bottom 50% earned 12.75% of the income, but paid 2.59% of all income taxes

Now let’s put that in perspective.

The top 1% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $380,354.
The top 5% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $159,619.
The top 10% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $113,799.
The top 25% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $67,280.
The top 50% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $33,048.
The bottom 50% means your adjusted gross income is below $33,048.

Now let's compare:

Top 1%: paid $392,149 million in taxes
Bottom 47%: $0.00 in taxes

Please don't pretend that the top 1% are not taxed or not taxed enough. They pay way more than anyone else already. They just provide a convenient whipping boy for envious "progressives," most of which are getting a free ride already.




You forgot to include tax shelters. Besides there is only so much money to go around. Why should those who have much more than they need be made richer? When those who struggle get next to nothing.. The game is rigged as George Carlin would say. People who are rich and like to flaunt it are hard on resources and make things more expensive for the rest of us. I'll give you an example a rich person with a 10 bedroom house with only 2 kids. Why all the extra space why not a 3 bedroom house. Heating a large house is expensive and puts a strain on resources such as heating and cooling. My point is the rich take from the poor by being greedy beyond there needs consuming lots more resources than they should. All people should pay the exact same or the rich should pay more since they are the ones destroying the planet and giving us the scraps.

take care enament.
PS you must be well off to be defending the rich you sir are the anti robin hood.
edit on 2-3-2013 by enament because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I know of a certain junior congressman who, was elected and went to DC for his first time, had to live in his office and shower at the gym. Now he is doing really good because of lobbyists.
Lobbyists are running this country!!!!
Get them out of DC....



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
The median personal wealth for members of Congress grew to $911,510 in 2009, up from $785,515 in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Nearly half of the members of Congress are millionaires.


usgovinfo.about.com...



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
It's clear that we must take money out of politics. Use the European model where media time is equally divided among candidates rather than whoever gets most lobbyist money. Cap politician & govt salaries to 2-3 times the medium income (no politician/govt employee should make more than $150K/yr)

As for taxes - the stats are already in this thread. Everybody should pay according to their percentage of wealth earned, no matter where the income is coming from. Normal individuals can live on 50k or less per year, maybe 100K if they have special needs (disability, chronic diseases) so there shouldn't be any taxes up to that level. Tax income above what's needed for a decent life.

If someone makes enough money they can obviously live as richly as they want to but they shouldn't be crying about being taxed more than someone who must have a roommate to afford a roof above their heads.

And yes, I'm paying my fair share of taxes. I don't mind contributing to society as long as those in the top 1% will also have to pay accordingly but instead their rates are much lower than mine after all their deductions (welfare).






top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join