RNC

[CoeburnCane]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You do understand that taxes paid by 'the wealthy' means less money entering the economy?</div></div>

Supply-side economic thought at it's best/worst. Trickle-down economics doesn't work. That's why the middle class is "middle class", and those that own big business are the upper 10%. If money goes to the top, it doesn't "trickle-down" with any great affect on the lives of those it gets to. For example--a 10% raise given to a mid-level employee pales in comparison to the amount of money made on one stock deal by the corporation they work for. Why give big money the tax breaks when none of the money they save eventually helps the overall economic situation of the country out? What good is extra "money in the economy" when the richest can afford to stockpile it away in their bank/stock of choice? Personal income taxes, on a percentage and income-impact basis, are much more unfair on the middle class than the upper class. $100,000 in taxes is nothing to a guy making millions a year compared to $8-9K in taxes making $50K a year (just a generic example, I'm sure those #'s aren't 100% accurate).

And yes--I understand the argument that taxes are the cost of the goverment's course of business--but that just means to me that the government's getting too much nowadays from the wrong people. Make things manageable for those who need it a bit easier, and make things fair for those who can afford it. An extra $50-100K in taxes on millionaires/year wouldn't phase those guys in the long run--and by decreasing tax burden on the middle class, you neutralize the problem of "less money entering the economy" because the middle class is more likely to spend money within the course of their day than the upper class is. They'll be able to save more due to more economic freedom, but they'll also buy more due to being more economically stable.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you also understand that businesses pay no taxes? Business taxes are a cost of doing business and thusly are passed on to the consumer. </div></div>

Does this mean I need to run and tell my bosses that roof bolts and plates are free? And that we should stock up on continuous miners because there's no cost? I work for a relatively big corporation--and they have to pay corporate taxes to states and the Fed--and they still have overhead to do business--which are all costs based against how much money they can make in the marketplace. Some stuff is able to be written off as "cost of business", but the rest isn't. Reminds me of Kramer from Seinfeld saying that it's OK for him to make the USPS pay for Jerry's stereo because "it's a write-off".

Jerry: So, we're going to make the post office pay for my new stereo now?
Kramer: It's a write-off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write-off?
Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: Write it off what?
Kramer: Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything.
Jerry: You don't even know what a write-off is.
Kramer: Do you?
Jerry: No, I don't!
Kramer: But they do. And they're the ones writing it off.
Jerry: I wish I had the last twenty seconds of my life back.

Simplified thinking for something that's far more complicated than some believe. The "tax increases" are percentage points on big dollars, not 10% per take-home check that someone's making at a mid-level $50K a year job. That's the misconception that the supply-side economists on the right want you to beleive.

[NotSoSilentBob]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoeburnCane</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

And yes--I understand the argument that taxes are the cost of the goverment's course of business--but that just means to me that the government's getting too much nowadays from the wrong people. Make things manageable for those who need it a bit easier, and make things fair for those who can afford it. An extra $50-100K in taxes on millionaires/year wouldn't phase those guys in the long run--and by decreasing tax burden on the middle class, you neutralize the problem of "less money entering the economy" because the middle class is more likely to spend money within the course of their day than the upper class is. They'll be able to save more due to more economic freedom, but they'll also buy more due to being more economically stable.
</div></div>

Ah, yes, class warfare at it's finest.

'They're rich, they can afford it!'

[CoeburnCane]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NotSoSilentBob</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoeburnCane</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

And yes--I understand the argument that taxes are the cost of the goverment's course of business--but that just means to me that the government's getting too much nowadays from the wrong people. Make things manageable for those who need it a bit easier, and make things fair for those who can afford it. An extra $50-100K in taxes on millionaires/year wouldn't phase those guys in the long run--and by decreasing tax burden on the middle class, you neutralize the problem of "less money entering the economy" because the middle class is more likely to spend money within the course of their day than the upper class is. They'll be able to save more due to more economic freedom, but they'll also buy more due to being more economically stable.
</div></div>

Ah, yes, class warfare at it's finest.

'They're rich, they can afford it!'</div></div>

Tell me I'm wrong from an economic standpoint.

$100-200K/year on about $5 million in earnings is a 2-4% tax, leaving after tax income at 4.9-4.8 million (96-98% of earnings). Not too shabby.

$8-9K/year on $50K of earnings is a 16-18% tax, leaving $42-41K in after tax income (86-84% of earnings).

In the words of Rodney Carrington, "Somebody's gettin screwed, I think it's daddy!!!"

[NotSoSilentBob]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoeburnCane</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Tell me I'm wrong from an economic standpoint.

$100-200K/year on about $5 million in earnings is a 2-4% tax, leaving after tax income at 4.9-4.8 million (96-98% of earnings). Not too shabby.

$8-9K/year on $50K of earnings is a 16-18% tax, leaving $42-41K in after tax income (86-84% of earnings).

In the words of Rodney Carrington, "Somebody's gettin screwed, I think it's daddy!!!" </div></div>

Wow, so 'the rich' only pay 2-4% in income taxes?

[CoeburnCane]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NotSoSilentBob</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoeburnCane</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Tell me I'm wrong from an economic standpoint.

$100-200K/year on about $5 million in earnings is a 2-4% tax, leaving after tax income at 4.9-4.8 million (96-98% of earnings). Not too shabby.

$8-9K/year on $50K of earnings is a 16-18% tax, leaving $42-41K in after tax income (86-84% of earnings).

In the words of Rodney Carrington, "Somebody's gettin screwed, I think it's daddy!!!" </div></div>

Wow, so 'the rich' only pay 2-4% in income taxes? </div></div>

In that example--yes they do. And I said:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> (just a generic example, I'm sure those #'s aren't 100% accurate). </div></div>

So--I'm not saying that's EXACTLY how it is--I didn't characterize it that way, so don't try to say I did.

I'm saying that's how the system seems to be, due to the economic footprint of this nation. Something's got to be done one way or another. Either tax the middle class to death and make us slaves for the richest of the rich (even more than we are already), or make those rich guys who can pull a bit more tax weight do so instead of sitting it in a bank/mutual fund and making more in a year off of the interest than a lot will see in a lifetime. Either way, at least we'll all know where we stand in the eyes of the government.

[1inStripes]

Why not have everyone pay the same percentages of tax ?

[NotSoSilentBob]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoeburnCane</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NotSoSilentBob</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoeburnCane</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Tell me I'm wrong from an economic standpoint.

$100-200K/year on about $5 million in earnings is a 2-4% tax, leaving after tax income at 4.9-4.8 million (96-98% of earnings). Not too shabby.

$8-9K/year on $50K of earnings is a 16-18% tax, leaving $42-41K in after tax income (86-84% of earnings).

In the words of Rodney Carrington, "Somebody's gettin screwed, I think it's daddy!!!" </div></div>

Wow, so 'the rich' only pay 2-4% in income taxes? </div></div>

In that example--yes they do. And I said:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> (just a generic example, I'm sure those #'s aren't 100% accurate). </div></div>

So--I'm not saying that's EXACTLY how it is--I didn't characterize it that way, so don't try to say I did.

I'm saying that's how the system seems to be, due to the economic footprint of this nation. Something's got to be done one way or another. Either tax the middle class to death and make us slaves for the richest of the rich (even more than we are already), or make those rich guys who can pull a bit more tax weight do so instead of sitting it in a bank/mutual fund and making more in a year off of the interest than a lot will see in a lifetime. Either way, at least we'll all know where we stand in the eyes of the government.
</div></div>

That is exactly how the US tax system ISN'T.

While I may be paying approximately 22% to the fed.gov, someone making over $1 million would be paying approximately 35-40% of their income just to the fed.gov, never mind sales taxes and hidden taxes.

That you think it is right for the government to take 40-50% of someone's money is sickening.

But hey, they're rich, they can afford it.

I wish Atlas would go ahead and shrug.

[CoeburnCane]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While I may be paying approximately 22% to the fed.gov, someone making over $1 million would be paying approximately 35-40% of their income just to the fed.gov, never mind sales taxes and hidden taxes.</div></div>

OK--let's take that example w/the same $$$ I used:

$350,000-$400,000 on 1 million is 35-40% taxation, leaving after tax income of anywhere from $600,000-650,000.

22% on whatever you make (for shts & giggles, let's say you're still middle class, but doing pretty well--around $80K), is $17,600, leaving you with after tax income of $62,400.

I think $600K-650K is something that someone w/after tax income of $62.4K would kill for.

Now, if we lessened your tax burden by 6%, you'd be keeping $4,800/year. Not a bad chunk of change for someone in the middle class, and that could help them all pay down on their own personal debts and even give them some money to invest in retirement and make work for them.

If we up the tax burden on the millionaire just 1%, that would take another $10K out, which is more than double the tax income that they lose by giving you a huge break of 6%, and upping the tax on the rich only marginally. That's $10K less that's sitting stagnant in a bank/mutual fund, and instead is going towards things like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, education, national debt, etc...that's not a bad thing...and it's simple numbers that aren't in the supply-side economists scope of thought.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That you think it is right for the government to take 40-50% of someone's money is sickening.</div></div>

I'm not saying take half of someone's money, I'm saying take another percentage point or two and give the middle class a bigger break. The government will come out almost even, maybe a little ahead, and the middle class will have more economic freedom as a whole--and they're the ones who make this country's wheels turn everyday, not the rich guys in their high rises.

Besides, on a person by person basis--if a person makes $1 million and gets to keep $500K after tax, they aren't exactly destitute after that. I'm sorry--I just find it hard to cry for someone and be sympathetic towards their plight when they're taking home a half-million after taxes and they can still afford to buy a tank of gas for their H2. Kinda ludicrous.

[sup-rbeast]

I think tax brackets are fair...those who can afford to pay more should. The average joe shouldn't pay on the same percentage as Bill Gates.

[TheBeast]

I am not rich by any stretch of the word, but I can see their side of it. They went out and worked and did what it took to get that money, even if it is $500k after taxes, and they shouldn't be made to give more just because they have it and it won't hurt their budget any. It is a simple matter of fairness, if one is paying 22% then all should pay 22%.