Occupy Wall Street

[almost40]

You want to tax the rich for more of this kind of spending??

http://news.investors.com/Article/59...green-scam.htm

Taxing the rich to help the middle class is a joke. Its nothing more than class warfare that hits a nice tone in the ear of the ill informed.
Wake up and smell the stuff your shoveling.

Heres a little info on who pays and how much.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm

At what point does the conversation about who is paying the fair share end??

Heres something you might not have read but its worth checking out. It might shed some light on where your thinking has gone off the rails.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

[Samer]

Originally Posted by almost40

You want to tax the rich for more of this kind of spending??

http://news.investors.com/Article/59...green-scam.htm

Taxing the rich to help the middle class is a joke. Its nothing more than class warfare that hits a nice tone in the ear of the ill informed.
Wake up and smell the stuff your shoveling.

Heres a little info on who pays and how much.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm

At what point does the conversation about who is paying the fair share end??

Heres something you might not have read but its worth checking out. It might shed some light on where your thinking has gone off the rails.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

You STILL have not answered my simple question. I guess that means you have no answer so you admit defeat. I thought you would, since you seem to ignore facts which contradict your ideology.

You still don't understand the simple concept that when you own almost everything, you pay almost all of the taxes. I don't know about you but I wouldn't mind being one of the people who pays most of the taxes because I am very rich.

Every country in the world has a progressive tax system. The Bush tax cuts on the wealthy failed and it is time to let these tax cuts expire. Under Clinton, I did not see anybody crying foul and mentioning class warfare.

I'm fairly certain that the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy will expire this time around. When that happens, let's see what happens to jobs. I predict the job numbers will continue to improve.

[almost40]

I give up samer your just way way to smart for me. Keep spouting the class warfare propoganda as your annointed leaders wish. Keep on thinking its a revenue problem and not a spending problem. (brought on by Clinton GW and now the Obama administration.) Keep on quoting or paraphrasing fictional bills that dont even exist in congress to make it seem like you know what your talking about. As a matter of fact I did a little research to try to find the bill you asked about. The best I could find was a bill that said a 1.9% surtax on incomes of the richest Americans, those taking home more than $1 million a year. Now if you have a bill number to back up your fictional 3% number post it up and Ill read it. (BTW 3% of 1,000,000 is a little more than $.03, do they not teach math in your grade school?) They (Obama and the democrats) apparently have dropped that demanded tax increase and will find the money to finance continued cuts through higher fees charged by the public-private organizations that guarantees home mortgages. (Freddie and Fanny among others) That will indeed spur growth in the housing markets. No doubt.
Add to that, the fact that the taxpayers (those of us who pay taxes) are continually bailing out freddy and fanny to the tune of billions of dollars on a yearly basis. So, Guess what? The taxpayers are footing the bill anyway. (Thank you Speaker Boner or Bahner or whatever your name is. Your negotiating skills are indeed world class. NOT Add to that the fact that you want to spend like a democrat and its no wonder the republican congress which you lead has the lowest approval rating ever.)

Samer you need to wake up and smell the stuff you are shoveling. Blind alligence to the democrats and repeating the propoganda they spout will not help us get out of this spending mess.
Take a look at this graph. It seems to me that when the Democrats controlled everything the spending went thru the roof. Granted the tax revenues were down, but if spending was kept under control we wouldnt be anywhere near the mess we have today.

[Alex]

Kevin, the only thing fictional is your belief you are being logical. Samer's point, clear to all who actually *can* read and do math at the same time, was the first $1 past $1M was increased by 3 cents. The grade school crack made it even funnier.

[almost40]

Now I dont know how it works at your house, but when I take a pay cut. I spend less, not more.
Of course........
If i was a Keynesian and I took a pay cut. I would go max out all my credit cards then borrow $10000 from the bank on top of that and spend it on things I dont need. Why? Because I would want to stimulate my own economy. That will solve my income problems.
Then, when I was filing bankruptcy, I would find a bogieman to blame for all my problems. Hey I know, Ill blame the rich guy down the street. He should bail me out of all my stupid spending habbits. Its not my fault that he cant see the brilliance of keynesian econmics. He should bail me out because he is the stupid one. Then I march down the street with all my other bankrupt neighbors and kick down his front door and begin to confiscate his stuff all the while telling him how ignorant he is for not seeing the light of keynesian economics. Then, after I go broke again because I cant control my spending Ill pick a new bogieman and ransack his home. All the while self assuring all my other broke friends that its not our fault we spend to much we are entitled to have his stuff.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

Kevin, the only thing fictional is your belief you are being logical. Samer's point, clear to all who actually *can* read and do math at the same time, was the first $1 past $1M was increased by 3 cents. The grade school crack made it even funnier.

Sorry there Alex but they dont want to tax the money made over the first million. They want to tax the entire million an additional 1.9% or maybe it does say that the only want to tax income above and beyond the first million in his fictional bill.
The real bill stated 1.9% above and beyond the current tax rate. or $19,000 additional dollars.
That is before they backed off the idea.

What makes it even funnier is the fact that you believed his crazyness.

BTW please Alex do post the number for the fictional bill he is quoting if you know it.

[Alex]

You didn't attack "They", you attacked Samer for getting his math wrong. When yours is close to correct 1 time out of 10. This instance isn't one of those.

Originally Posted by Samer

Let me answer your other question with a specific Democratic proposal that was rejected by the Republicans very recently. The proposal was to pay for a one year extension of the payroll tax cut by adding a 3% surcharge on personal income above one million dollars. That is, if your adjusted gross income was 1000,001 dollars. Your income tax would increase by $.03

Originally Posted by almost40

(BTW 3% of 1,000,000 is a little more than $.03, do they not teach math in your grade school?)

Originally Posted by almost40

I give up samer your just way way to smart for me.

Clearly.

[almost40]

Well clearly you have stayed out of political discussions. But I digress.

Care to take up the cause for him Alex?
Bring me some real facts with real numbers and Ill play the game for the day. Im bored, hunting sucks today anyway.
Im not looking for made up stuff Alex. find me something I can google. Im up for a spirited discussion with an adult.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

You didn't attack "They", you attacked Samer for getting his math wrong. When yours is close to correct 1 time out of 10. This instance isn't one of those.

Is that one time in post 60 in this thread?

Those were your numbers mind you.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Samer

Every country in the world has a progressive tax system. The Bush tax cuts on the wealthy failed and it is time to let these tax cuts expire.

And the current tax code isnt?? Even with the Bush tax cuts??
Thats right the US has a flat tax system where everyone pays the same amount. Including the 45%+ that pay no federal income taxes. Give me a break.
What do you really know about the tax code samer?

[Samer]

For the record, I have a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering and I design gas turbine engines for a living... One of the rocket engines that I helped to design is being tested at Edwards AFB right now. But thanks for the math lesson.

Here is a link to the latest Journal of Turbomachinery paper of which I am a co-author:

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...ifs=yes&ref=no

The people who pay no federal income taxes are very poor. They pay a payroll tax, and other taxes. Again, please take a little bit of emotion out of it and try to think about what you're saying with an open mind. There are members of Congress who are proposing to cut heating subsidies for the poorest of the poor who live in cold climates, but they signed a pledge to NEVER raise taxes on anyone under any circumstances.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Samer

For the record, I have a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering and I design gas turbine engines for a living... One of the rocket engines that I helped to design is being tested at Edwards AFB right now. But thanks for the math lesson.

Here is a link to the latest Journal of Turbomachinery paper of which I am a co-author:

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...ifs=yes&ref=no

Well, thanks for giving me your resume.

Originally Posted by Samer

The people who pay no federal income taxes are very poor. They pay a payroll tax, and other taxes. Again, please take a little bit of emotion out of it and try to think about what you're saying with an open mind. There are members of Congress who are proposing to cut heating subsidies for the poorest of the poor who live in cold climates, but they signed a pledge to NEVER raise taxes on anyone under any circumstances.

A payroll tax?? Care to quantify here?? Which tax exactly are you talking about?? How about getting specific??

Funny how you go right back to class warfare. Guess you cant help it.

FYI I dont consider someone who makes $44,000a year has 3 kids a home 2 cars (nice cars to boot) a dog an I-phone a 50 inch lcd TV and gets $1148 a month in child support on top of her earnings to be extremely poor.
I know this person. I helped file her taxes last year. she got a refund of $967 and paid no federal taxes.
For the most part of you earn under $33k and are single you will pay no federal taxes.
If your single and have kids run that number up to near 50k before you will pay federal taxes.
Married couples with kids, who file. Can expect to pay no federal taxes until the joint income hits near 60K. Depending on how they file and if they own a home.

Give me a break with the extremely poor BS.

[Samer]

Wow, well I'm officially done with this thread.

You try to make a point that I can't do simple math. It turns out that you're the one who's confused and I'm literally a Rocket Scientist and you still find something condescending to say about me, and you don't admit that you were wrong.

I guess you can never be wrong. Good for you Jesus.

You still haven't answered my simple question.

Peace out.

[Heed]

Oh, internet.

[CynicalC]

Oh lawd I've been ignoring this thread for too long.

Anyway this really pinpoints what the occupiers are trying to draw awareness to.

[massacremasses]

Good post ^

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Samer

You still haven't answered my simple question.

Peace out.

And you still havent answered mine.

Can we define a dollar amount that makes one wealthy?? How much in yearly income qualifys you as the rich?

I would expect a rocket scientist could understand the need for this clarification, as it is an intergral part of giving your question an answer.
I need my question to be adressed before I can give you an answer. Thats how it works.

Or, do you use broad based non quantified numbers in rocket science?

Some people consider a yearly pre tax income of over $250,000 (married) $200,000 (single) to be "rich". Thats 3% of households in the US.
While others, consider a yearly income of over a million (pre-tax) to be the "rich". Thats a little over 2 tenths of a percent or 0.23% (for a rocket scientist.)

So which version do you consider "rich"?? The million plus or the 200-250k??

[almost40]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Good post ^

I hate to admit it, but I rather liked it myself.

Now only if they could pick this message and act in an orderly fasion, they might get some traction.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/occu...wd-streams-in/


This kind of thing is not helping.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ny...-occupy-64987/

along with the latest headline from a biased source that nonetheless has some interesting quotes.

[massacremasses]

Ive stated I am behind OWS as far as standing against corruption between govt. and corporations, HOWEVER then coming back and saying "we need to be bailed out because corporations got bailed out" is hypocritical.

but again dont get me wrong there is corruption, it needs to be addressed, and heads need to roll. But again, this is also the fault of our Govt. allowing and by their policies encouraging this type of behavior from the corporations.

Ron Paul 2012

[SephiaSputnik]

Almost40 please don't take this the wrong way but I'm curious as to what your end game here on this thread.

Are you trying to educate people? Are you trying to change their minds or just prove your point?

People are less inclined to listen when you present your facts in such an argumentative and demeaning way... state your facts or opinions and realize that not everyone has to agree.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by SephiaSputnik

Almost40 please don't take this the wrong way but I'm curious as to what your end game here on this thread.

Are you trying to educate people? Are you trying to change their minds or just prove your point?

People are less inclined to listen when you present your facts in such an argumentative and demeaning way... state your facts or opinions and realize that not everyone has to agree.

Im not sure if youve read the whole thread, and perhaps because I tend to side with @almost40, but it seemed to me Samer was much more pompous and argumentative them almost40. (I say pompous because in every post he mentions he makes a lot of money, and then told us he's a rocket scientist like it automatically made him all knowing.)

I havent seen him call anyone names yet either.

But I enjoy arguing and watching people argue so carry on

[SephiaSputnik]

I addressed it to Almost40 because Samer I think has given up on the thread.

I don't agree with either side arguing in a way that comes off as pompous or demeaning. It just solves absolutely nothing and no one listens anyway. =/

Also it'd be nice to focus this in a different direction than just class warfare... has anyone but KYRider bothered to read what I posted??

[massacremasses]

I did. And Im pretty much done writing in this thread as well so I didnt respond.

But I agreed with what you were trying to say. which correct me if im wrong was "instead of giving hand outs, help people learn to take care of themselves".

And yeah that's def the way to go, but a lot of the people on govt. aid dont want that kind of help, because that would mean having to work.

The part of the OWS movement Im down with and just as pissed about is the Govt. allowing lobbyists for big corporations to buy them over. Look at the post the @cycnicalC just posted up. THAT is what pisses me off, no so much the class warfare ****, thats where I seem to differ from that crowd. (taxes and such) However the clear corruption in the govt. is obvious and we should be mad at our representatives as well as the corporations that are taking advantage of it.

[Samer]

I said I'm done with this thread, but I want to defend myself a little bit. I'm done with communicating with Almost40, maybe "Past40" is more accurate? Not a dig at aging, as we're all aging at the same rate :-)

For anyone thinking I'm being pompous. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'm not the type of person that goes out of his way to brag. I cringed when I mentioned what I do for a living in this situation, or that my salary is above average. Trust me, I don't think I'm better than anyone. I have been privileged with opportunities and I simply chose not to waste them. I hope as many other people as possible have those opportunities. The reason I mention that I earn a good living is specifically to try to counter the vast number of posts in this thread that OWS supporters are unemployed lazy people seeking a handout. How many times have you heard that word in this thread? If I happen to earn more money than most of the people making these stereotypes, I was hoping to make them reconsider their oversimplified view of the world. If it is more convenient for some of them to focus on criticizing me rather than face the cognitive dissonance of my example, then that is their prerogative.

As for the rocket scientist thing, I just couldn't resist. It obviously has no bearing on this thread, and again I'm not one to randomly boast. But it was just so ironic that someone would question my math skills when I've been studying math all my life and I get paid to design engines using math. And it still bogles my mind that when someone can be that wrong and still isn't humbled enough to admit that he was a bit off.

Okay Past40, you ready for my answer?.. Here it comes... I DON'T KNOW. I don't know the exact definition of wealthy or the exact definition of middle class. Certainly people who earned above 1 million dollars per year under Clinton did not need a tax cut on money they earned above one million then, and they don't need it now. That was Bush's now proven false idea.

Here's what I do believe. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy need to expire, certainly income above one million should go back to the rate it was under Clinton. In other words, they would get to have the same low tax rate on their first million per year. Outrageous, I know.

Anyone who is not working because they are lazy or somehow abusing the system should not be getting one penny from the federal government. Crazy that we probably all agree on that, isn't it!

However, be careful how broad a brush you paint people with. Are you willing to completely quit helping out the majority of the struggling people who legitimately need a temporary safety net in order to prevent abuse by a few? I'm not. If there are ideas about how to weed out anyone who may try to abuse the system, I think everyone is all ears. In fact that is continually happening, but you need not consume your mind with this small part of the picture. You or I could be laid off tomorrow, and I'd bet that you would be grateful that unemployment benefits are there to help get you back on your feet.

What happened in 2008? Was there a lazy disease that spread throughout the US causing millions of Americans to spontaneously quit their job? Or is it possible there really aren't enough jobs?

Bush said that tax cuts on the wealthy would "trickle down" to everyone else and that deregulating Wall Street would help grow the economy. How well did either of these ideas pan out?

For those concerned about spending, what about Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq? That cost us about 1 trillion dollars. For those blaming Obama for the recession, how quickly does one forget that in the last month of Bush's presidency, the US economy was losing 750,000 jobs per month. That's right, per month. The entire US financial system was on the brink of collapse...

[massacremasses]

Oh yeah Bush was not a very good conservative. Something about being a republican makes you a war monger? idk why? (being serious) Id vote independent if they ever had a chance. Im glad Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket, but shoot if we had a Republican in office right now, and Ron Paul ran as a democrat, damn straight Id still vote for him.

But Samer, Im not trying to hate on you man. Im glad you are successful but you mentioned you have a lot of money in almost every comment you made. Surely you can see how that would come across as pompous.

[shiroganeshinobi]

SephiaSputnik, you have some good points regarding no children left behind. The education system is primarily teaching kids how to pass a test. I wish I had my links for education studies. There was some examination on why we throw so much at the education system and get less than mediocre results. That's for another thread though.

Almost40, why are you still trying to be inclusive with tax rates. OWS wants at least higher taxes on the 1%. Do yourself a favor and look up how much that is. (Hint, you're NOT in that bracket). Redistribution of wealth makes everyone's life better, not just on person.

Since you want to still link biased right wing think tanks, I'll say that we can agree that graphs and data are moot at this point unless it's a simple plot.

I'll try this again with simple logic.

Tax cuts = less revenue for government (bigger deficit)
Wars not paid for = more spending.
Other stuff = more spending
Conservatives cry about spending and deficits and want MORE tax cuts.

No estate tax = loss of revenue or more taxes on middle class(most likely) to make up difference
Primarily, estate tax affects millionaires and above.

Do you see the problem above? Do you understand yet that you're nothing but a human shield for higher up?

Now you'll say that well spending needs to be cut because it's too big! You're right. The issues we need to fix is Medicare / medicaid. You want to know to exactly how to fix that? Single payer system for starters. Privatized health care is screwing us over but those healthcare companies have lobbied so money to make sure it's never on the table.

Ron Paul had it right regarding our foreign policy however his economic policy is not

[Samer]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Oh yeah Bush was not a very good conservative. Something about being a republican makes you a war monger? idk why? (being serious) Id vote independent if they ever had a chance. Im glad Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket, but shoot if we had a Republican in office right now, and Ron Paul ran as a democrat, damn straight Id still vote for him.

But Samer, Im not trying to hate on you man. Im glad you are successful but you mentioned you have a lot of money in almost every comment you made. Surely you can see how that would come across as pompous.

No worries Justin. The last post where I mentioned what you complain that I always mention was to try to explain why I mention it in this thread. Does that particular instance still count against me for being pompous?

I clearly attempted to explain why I think in this particular thread it is relevant. I think I'm justified when after I mention it, someone will write, 'yeah, but the OWS people are all just a bunch of lazy bums asking for a handout'. You can believe what you want but I'm not pompous and I've never judged anyone based on how much money they earned. If there are many people in OWS who earn more money than the people calling OWS handout seekers, my point is not that the OWS people are better. My point is the 'handout' charge is dead wrong. That is all.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by SephiaSputnik

Almost40 please don't take this the wrong way but I'm curious as to what your end game here on this thread.

Are you trying to educate people? Are you trying to change their minds or just prove your point?

Make a point. You cant convince some here. They believe there leaders are for them

Originally Posted by SephiaSputnik

People are less inclined to listen when you present your facts in such an argumentative and demeaning way... state your facts or opinions and realize that not everyone has to agree.

Well where do I start? lol Why is this adressed to just me?

I suggest you read this thread from the very begining.

I dont really care if I change anyones mind. The point is to make them think a little. I am accused of being the lemming when in fact it is blind alligence to the democrat party and its propoganda that in my minds eye makes some here sheep.
I have no problem with calling out the politicians on "my side" who are part of the problem. I have done so in this very thread, repeatedly. Find me an instance where the "leftys" here have said one thing negative about the leadership on there side. It doesnt happen. Why?? Not because there leaders are perfect but because they are being led to the slaughter.

All this discussion about taxes and the graph I posted from wikipedia (that uses the GAO's numbers) is to make a point. Taxes and or revenue to the government is not the problem. Spending is the problem. We need to get control of spending or there will be a colapse of the financial system Just take a look at europe. Entitlement spending is crushing the euro.

It doesnt seem to be to hard to understand that if you spend more than you make your going to go bankrupt.

I would guess its eaiser to rachet up the class warfare to distract the masses then address the real problem.

This president and the democrat controled house and senate had nearly spent more to stimulate the economy in the 2 years they were in charge than GW did in 8 years. Its a fact that was argued earlier here. Add to that speaker Boehners or Boner as I call him (republican) spending and we have eclipsed GW's spendoholic ways of 8 years in just 3 years. This type of thing can not continue.
Understand that the "tax the rich" argument is nothing more than a smoke screen. The federal government could confiscate all of the 1 million plus crowds income and the still wouldnt have enough to pay off the debt we have accrued.

Taxation is more about government control, social manipulation, and political power, than it is about economic productivity, efficiency, and growth.

Look at post 17 and 18 here. that in my opinion says it all.
Less than 3 million was gifted to the government in 2010. It seems to me that the "rich" are quite happy to keep as much as the can and all the blowhards who preach raising taxes on the rich and say they dont mind paying more dont really put up any money, they want your money.

Did John Kerry pay extra taxes out of his 200 million plus net worth?? How about Nancy Pelosi and her 35+ million? They are very vocal when it comes to confiscating your money (if you make over 250K) but wont pay any extra themselfs.

Add to that the fact that the term "rich" has become a moving target and is now all the way down to 200-250K. Doesnt something seem fishy here?

If you earn 250K are married and have 2 kids and live in LA, Chicago, NY, DC, etc etc. you are not rich by any streach of the imagination. Thats millions and millions of people.
Why should I, they or anyone else for that matter pay for the insanity that gets spent in Washington?

Get spending under control and then we will talk about where taxes should or should not be.

If that doesnt make any sense to you.
Keep spouting the left wing propoganda of how the rich dont pay there fair share. They pay over 80% of the federal tax generated by all income groups.
and depending on your definition of rich up to 90% The bottom 47% pay no federal taxes. NONE

[Alex]

It's as if you believe there are people left in this thread who still haven't added you to their ignore list.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

It's as if you believe there are people left in this thread who still haven't added you to their ignore list.

And its as If you believe I really care. Besides you have to read it.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by almost40

Make a point. You cant convince some here. They believe there leaders are for them



Well where do I start? lol Why is this adressed to just me?

I suggest you read this thread from the very begining.

I dont really care if I change anyones mind. The point is to make them think a little. I am accused of being the lemming when in fact it is blind alligence to the democrat party and its propoganda that in my minds eye makes some here sheep.
I have no problem with calling out the politicians on "my side" who are part of the problem. I have done so in this very thread, repeatedly. Find me an instance where the "leftys" here have said one thing negative about the leadership on there side. It doesnt happen. Why?? Not because there leaders are perfect but because they are being led to the slaughter.

All this discussion about taxes and the graph I posted from wikipedia (that uses the GAO's numbers) is to make a point. Taxes and or revenue to the government is not the problem. Spending is the problem. We need to get control of spending or there will be a colapse of the financial system Just take a look at europe. Entitlement spending is crushing the euro.

It doesnt seem to be to hard to understand that if you spend more than you make your going to go bankrupt.

I would guess its eaiser to rachet up the class warfare to distract the masses then address the real problem.

This president and the democrat controled house and senate had nearly spent more to stimulate the economy in the 2 years they were in charge than GW did in 8 years. Its a fact that was argued earlier here. Add to that speaker Boehners or Boner as I call him (republican) spending and we have eclipsed GW's spendoholic ways of 8 years in just 3 years. This type of thing can not continue.
Understand that the "tax the rich" argument is nothing more than a smoke screen. The federal government could confiscate all of the 1 million plus crowds income and the still wouldnt have enough to pay off the debt we have accrued.

Taxation is more about government control, social manipulation, and political power, than it is about economic productivity, efficiency, and growth.

Look at post 17 and 18 here. that in my opinion says it all.
Less than 3 million was gifted to the government in 2010. It seems to me that the "rich" are quite happy to keep as much as the can and all the blowhards who preach raising taxes on the rich and say they dont mind paying more dont really put up any money, they want your money.

Did John Kerry pay extra taxes out of his 200 million plus net worth?? How about Nancy Pelosi and her 35+ million? They are very vocal when it comes to confiscating your money (if you make over 250K) but wont pay any extra themselfs.

Add to that the fact that the term "rich" has become a moving target and is now all the way down to 200-250K. Doesnt something seem fishy here?

If you earn 250K are married and have 2 kids and live in LA, Chicago, NY, DC, etc etc. you are not rich by any streach of the imagination. Thats millions and millions of people.
Why should I, they or anyone else for that matter pay for the insanity that gets spent in Washington?

Get spending under control and then we will talk about where taxes should or should not be.

If that doesnt make any sense to you.
Keep spouting the left wing propoganda of how the rich dont pay there fair share. They pay over 80% of the federal tax generated by all income groups.
and depending on your definition of rich up to 90% The bottom 47% pay no federal taxes. NONE

No one that I have spoken to could tell me what the fair amount should be. I have never gotten a job from a poor person.

Why does it seem so simple but very few on the left can figure it out?

What is it about not spending more than you take in that confuses people?

[almost40]

Im just curious how much the "tax the rich" crowd here, has sent as a "gift" to the federal government. Ill bet not one of them has paid one dime in extra taxes. DUH
Yes, that does include you, our rocket scientist with the above average salary.
Please remit your extra taxes to this address since you are rich and you feel the rich are not paying there fair share.

Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

They will happily take your money and spend it on great things like Solyndra Solar

Or maybe even pay 4 times the going rate for eco jet fuel because the CEO of the company selling the jet fuel is buddie buddie with our president.

Or how about

$300,000 for a GPS-equipped helicopter to hunt for radioactive rabbit droppings at the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state

$11 million for Microsoft to build a bridge connecting its two headquarter campuses in Redmond, Wash., which are separated by a highway. Its not like microsoft cant afford it. lol

$800,000 for the John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pa., serving about 20 passengers per day, to build a backup runway.

$9.38 million to renovate a century-old train depot in Lancaster County, Pa., that has not been used for three decades.

$2.5 million in stimulus checks sent to the deceased.

$6 million for a snow-making facility in Duluth, Minn

The list goes on and on and on.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by almost40

Please remit your extra taxes to this address since you are rich and you feel the rich are not paying there fair share.

"there fair share"? You mean over there, or owned by them? In that case, I would use the word "their". I won't knock your high school or elementary school like you did mine.

So you can point out examples of either government waste or government investments that didn't pay off. That clearly proves that everyone should pay zero taxes and struggling poor people should be left on the street to die. Excellent argument

And no, I will not be donating extra money to the Federal Government, I will pay my fair share. And if I did earn enough to pay more taxes after the expiration of tax cuts for the 'rich' then I will gladly pay more.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by almost40

I dont really care if I change anyones mind. The point is to make them think a little. I am accused of being the lemming when in fact it is blind alligence to the democrat party and its propoganda that in my minds eye makes some here sheep.
I have no problem with calling out the politicians on "my side" who are part of the problem. I have done so in this very thread, repeatedly. Find me an instance where the "leftys" here have said one thing negative about the leadership on there side. It doesnt happen. Why?? Not because there leaders are perfect but because they are being led to the slaughter.

It doesnt seem to be to hard to understand that if you spend more than you make your going to go bankrupt.

I would guess its eaiser to rachet up the class warfare to distract the masses then address the real problem.

This president and the democrat controled house and senate had nearly spent more to stimulate the economy in the 2 years they were in charge than GW did in 8 years. Its a fact that was argued earlier here. Add to that speaker Boehners or Boner as I call him (republican) spending and we have eclipsed GW's spendoholic ways of 8 years in just 3 years. This type of thing can not continue.
Understand that the "tax the rich" argument is nothing more than a smoke screen. The federal government could confiscate all of the 1 million plus crowds income and the still wouldnt have enough to pay off the debt we have accrued.

Taxation is more about government control, social manipulation, and political power, than it is about economic productivity, efficiency, and growth.

Look at post 17 and 18 here. that in my opinion says it all.
Less than 3 million was gifted to the government in 2010. It seems to me that the "rich" are quite happy to keep as much as the can and all the blowhards who preach raising taxes on the rich and say they dont mind paying more dont really put up any money, they want your money.


Add to that the fact that the term "rich" has become a moving target and is now all the way down to 200-250K. Doesnt something seem fishy here?

Get spending under control and then we will talk about where taxes should or should not be.

If that doesnt make any sense to you.
Keep spouting the left wing propoganda of how the rich dont pay there fair share. They pay over 80% of the federal tax generated by all income groups.
and depending on your definition of rich up to 90% The bottom 47% pay no federal taxes. NONE

I didnt see any wiki link citing any GAO report.

I've already called out Clinton and Obama as moderate conservatives but your view of the left and center is so distorted that people like you generalize them as the left.

Entitlement spending is crushing the Euro according to YOUR conservative sources. The same with "Obama's runaway spending" cause it's out of control and etc. It's all the same conservative dogma.

You speak of more spending but tax cuts makes it worse for the deficits. I don't understand why you dont see this. It's simple algebra.

You're right about tax the rich, it is a smokescreen. It's to hide the fact that the top 1% isnt paying their fair share. You moved the goal post again. Taxation is redistribution of wealth. Now that the rich controls government, they are keeping more of their money and putting a higher burden on the middle class and below.

You're right again, the rich want to keep their money. Not all are greedy but certainly most are ignorant on how the world works. See the documentary link for the 1%.

Again, you're right. Rich has become a moving target. I would said millionaires in the 50 million needs to be targeted but who is moving the target. It's the media who does it. Who owns the media? Why do they move it? TO CONTROL YOU to believe their side.

Again, you're right the bottom 47% pay no federal taxes. Do you understand why? Because the average income for families is 33K. That is automatic low income housing. You discriminate against the poor because of your anecdotal experience. Samer has already talked about the other side of the coin, it seems that everyone else like you, ignores the poverty in the US. Everyone is not doing fine because they hide it. If you recall the Elizabeth Warren study on the dying of the middle class, the families surveyed did not want them to use bankrupt on the phone in case their kids were listening.

You're right. You talk about making everyone think a little, and that's all your talking points take to acknowledge. If you want to think, look at ALL SIDES, walk through the logic, and see the light.

You and everyone else including democrats and republicans dont understand that you have indoctrinated by the mass media your whole life. I've explained and linked the bias of mass media. What you have been indoctrinated to believe in, I don't think I can talk about. It is literally a matrix moment like no other. I gave out hints by linking some Noam Chomsky. Slavoj Zizek, and Howard Zinn Zinn are other fine modern philosophers who can help give perspective. Thank god for the Internet because I would never have heard of these people in my life without it.

[kyrider]

The problem is not enough taxes but to much spending.

Easy!

[kyrider]

Wow!

Batman takes on the Occupiers!

Link to original page on YouTube.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by kyrider

No one that I have spoken to could tell me what the fair amount should be.

"Fair" is an inherently challenging word, as it is always going to be subjective depending on one's own viewpoint. The hope is that there enough different voices providing those viewpoints so the outcome of whatever particular item is being described as "fair" is seen as such by more people than other outcomes. Someone is always going to be unhappy.

What's interesting in the taxes debate, is that the right has backed itself into a corner that it can't escape from, without alienating the supporters it has gained by this loopy, but seemingly simple, idea.

Economy going well? Lower taxes. Economy going poorly? Lower taxes. Going to war? Lower taxes. Ending war? Lower taxes. End corruption? Lower taxes. Make things more fair? Lower taxes.

There isn't a single input to the equation, that would allow someone to support raising taxes in any form or fashion, and keep their position in the party. Which is ludicrous on its face. Taxes go up, taxes go down, and there are legitimate reasons for both. Up until very recently, people from the far left to the far right and everywhere in between understood this. Believing that not to be the case is not supporting economic growth, it's supporting cheap political strategy at the expense of actually supporting a growing economy. Unfortunately for the far right, it's not working either economically or politically. It just means that in the meantime, their candidates need to actually be, or pretend to be, more simple than they've ever had to.

Originally Posted by kyrider

I have never gotten a job from a poor person

Silliest argument yet. Because those with more money hire those with less money, lowering the tax rates of those with more money will help those in both camps. It's alice-in-wonderland logic, yet has been accepted as dogma.

Originally Posted by almost40

...snip...DUH...snip...

Summarized.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Alex

"Fair" is an inherently challenging word, as it is always going to be subjective depending on one's own viewpoint. The hope is that there enough different voices providing those viewpoints so the outcome of whatever particular item is being described as "fair" is seen as such by more people than other outcomes. Someone is always going to be unhappy.

What's interesting in the taxes debate, is that the right has backed itself into a corner that it can't escape from, without alienating the supporters it has gained by this loopy, but seemingly simple, idea.

Economy going well? Lower taxes. Economy going poorly? Lower taxes. Going to war? Lower taxes. Ending war? Lower taxes. End corruption? Lower taxes. Make things more fair? Lower taxes.

There isn't a single input to the equation, that would allow someone to support raising taxes in any form or fashion, and keep their position in the party. Which is ludicrous on its face. Taxes go up, taxes go down, and there are legitimate reasons for both. Up until very recently, people from the far left to the far right and everywhere in between understood this. Believing that not to be the case is not supporting economic growth, it's supporting cheap political strategy at the expense of actually supporting a growing economy. Unfortunately for the far right, it's not working either economically or politically. It just means that in the meantime, their candidates need to actually be, or pretend to be, more simple than they've ever had to.



Silliest argument yet. Because those with more money hire those with less money, lowering the tax rates of those with more money will help those in both camps. It's alice-in-wonderland logic, yet has been accepted as dogma.



Summarized.

What kind of tax system do you prefer?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by kyrider

What kind of tax system do you prefer?

One that adequately and fairly funds the necessary and agreed-upon expenses that we expect from our government.

I'd certainly support efforts to make things more transparent, reduce loopholes that bake inequities into the system, and encourage gaming the rules to minimize one's personal portion. But since everyone's primary individual goal is going to minimize their own burden, from the very top of the strata to the very bottom, tax codes are always going to be complex and inherently non-transparent as those goals work their magic over time.

[massacremasses]

but dont you think a more transparent, and more simple tax code would create less loop holes?