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.
originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: AlaskanDad
Tax the rich feed the poor till there no rich no more. What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Next time try reading the article you're commenting on, you will not look so foolish!
So you are saying that a person who makes 5 million pays about 4.3 million in taxes? You assume everyone has great years, every year. What you all are talking about is a cap on income...can't make too much, we will let you have a 500k lifestyle but that million dollar one is out of the question...
Pretty close. Top bracket is 400k +.
Currently:
Someone making 400k takes home 260,000
Someone making 1 mil takes home 622,400.
Someone making 2 mil takes home 1,222,800.
Someone making 10 mil takes home 6,626,400.
With 90% top bracket ...
Someone making 400k takes home 260,000
Someone making 1 mil takes home 320,000.
Someone making 2 mil takes home 420,000.
Someone making 10 mil takes home 1,220,000
Someone making $1 million now would need to increase their pay to $4 million to have the same lifestyle.
$2 million, you need $10 million.
Horrible idea.
originally posted by: diggindirt
I don't "repeatedly hear of people talk of their sceretarys paying higher taxes
originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: AlaskanDad
Tax the rich feed the poor till there no rich no more. What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Iamschist
I'm a 10%er. Ten percent across the board, no deductions, no exceptions. The rich would of course contribute more, due to the huge amount they have in assets. The more you profit, the more you pay, but never more than 10%. Seems fair and equatable to me and would increase tax revenue considerably.
agreed this is best. That way you still can have the American dream of becoming rich and you won't get it all taken away from you. What's the point of trying to get ahead in life if you get it all taxed from you? 10% for everyone...every corporation...everything. Then we start gutting the government. Starting with all of our secret spy agencies and alphabet agencies..and our military bases in foreign lands. Now we're getting somewhere! Oh.. but that makes too much sense! LOL
originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: diggindirt
I've never said I was against paying my taxes, nor have I ever bitched about them.
But one thing you do not understand; we live on a planet with enough resources for all to live, but some greedy folks think they can own Gods Gifts to all and restrict others use.
Don't worry Alaska's income tax is not long in coming, we allowed our oil income to be given away.
originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: AlaskanDad
Tax the rich feed the poor till there no rich no more. What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?
Someone making $1 million now would need to increase their pay to $4 million to have the same lifestyle. $2 million, you need $10 million.
originally posted by: FyreByrd
Today, we are supposed to hate paying taxes. They are our “tax burden.” We vote for politicians who will reduce our taxes, even if that means destroying the welfare state. Conservatives’ century-long war against taxes has paid off by convincing everyday Americans to think taxes are a horrible thing that pays for government waste.
Our ancestors knew this was not true. The income tax was the most popular economic justice movement of the late 19th and early 20th century. This truly grassroots movement forced politicians to act in order to stay in office, leading to the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. That’s right, the income tax was so popular that the nation passed a constitutional amendment so that the right-wing Supreme Court couldn’t overturn it.
You seem to be ignorant of how the income tax amendment was passed it was full of shenanigans just like the ACA was passed fooling the American public. Read the two volume work called the law that never was. It was not a popular amendment as you stated it was only to tax the very rich with I beleive a tax rate of under 5%. As you can see that tax the rich scheme developed into everyone being taxed.edit on 24-11-2014 by guitarplayer because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: AlaskanDad
originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: AlaskanDad
Tax the rich feed the poor till there no rich no more. What do you do when you run out of other peoples money?
According to OccamsRazor04 they will just make more to make up for the taxes!
Someone making $1 million now would need to increase their pay to $4 million to have the same lifestyle. $2 million, you need $10 million.
Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!
originally posted by: guitarplayer
In my opinion they will take their money get out of the game and leave the USA then what?
originally posted by: FyreByrd
originally posted by: diggindirt
I don't "repeatedly hear of people talk of their sceretarys paying higher taxes
Look harder. Bill Gates has said it and others. And it's a fact - that middle income people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes then the wealthy do. And that doesn't even touch on 'unearned' income. The dollar numbers aren't as high - but the dollar number mean nothing. What matters when speaking of fairness is the percentage of income paid in taxes (the effect tax rate) not the raw numbers.
The vast majority of the wealthy increase their wealth with unearned (meaning 'financialization') income not from earned income whereas normal folk have very little if any unearned income.
“Unearned income” is all income that is not earned. Some common types of unearned income are:
In-kind support and maintenance (food or shelter) given to an individual or received by an individual because someone else paid for it (see §§2140-2142);
Private pensions and annuities;
Periodic public payments such as Social Security benefits, Railroad Retirement benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs pension and compensation payments, civil service annuities, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, and payments based on need involving Federal funds;
Life insurance proceeds and other death benefits, to the extent that the total amount is more than the expenses of the deceased person's last illness and burial paid by the individual;
Gifts and inheritances;
Support and alimony payments in cash or in-kind;
Prizes and awards;
Dividends and interest;
Rents and royalties (except those royalties defined as earned income); and
Certain payments not considered wages for Social Security purposes:
In-kind payments to certain agricultural workers;
Tips under $20 per month;
Jury fees;
Money paid to individuals who are residents, but not employees, of institutions.
originally posted by: AlaskanDad
originally posted by: guitarplayer
In my opinion they will take their money get out of the game and leave the USA then what?
Could you tell me how often a multimillionaire adds value to you personally, and how they did so?
Lifes not fair so-
Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!
originally posted by: AlaskanDad
originally posted by: guitarplayer
In my opinion they will take their money get out of the game and leave the USA then what?
Could you tell me how often a multimillionaire adds value to you personally, and how they did so?
Lifes not fair so-
Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!
originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: diggindirt
Are you trying to imply that a persons personal financial ability has a definite effect on their personal financial position?
You can't possibly be serious...
The result has been an incremental exclusion of workers from revenue-generating and compensation-setting processes. Our analyses of U.S. non-finance industries since 1970, finds that dependence on financial income is associated with labor's declining share of the economy, skyrocketing executive compensation, and growing income inequality among employees, even when a other developments such as technological change, deunionization, and globalization are taken into account. Strikingly, our models indicate that the influence of financial income on growing income inequality is comparable to, and at time larger than, other more common explanations.
We conclude that the rise of finance is one of the driving forces behind growing income inequality and the concentration of income at the very top.
originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: diggindirt
The result has been an incremental exclusion of workers from revenue-generating and compensation-setting processes. Our analyses of U.S. non-finance industries since 1970, finds that dependence on financial income is associated with labor's declining share of the economy, skyrocketing executive compensation, and growing income inequality among employees, even when a other developments such as technological change, deunionization, and globalization are taken into account. Strikingly, our models indicate that the influence of financial income on growing income inequality is comparable to, and at time larger than, other more common explanations.
We conclude that the rise of finance is one of the driving forces behind growing income inequality and the concentration of income at the very top.
source
Lifes not fair so-
Tax the rich, they will not go hungry!