Taxing the 'Not-So-Rich' Rich

uscitizen said:
Lots of spending can be reduced but where it is reducd is the issue.

the right always say social programs and the left says military.
Click to expand...

Because both sides are full of fucking idiots who would sooner ruin this country financially than cut their favorite pet programs (both military AND entitlement).
 
If my roof needs to be replaced, then I don't spend money in other places. That is how things get fixed in EVERYONES homes. You fix the things NECESSARY to life and do without in the WANTS department. The US can do the same thing. We WANT universal healthcare in the US, we NEED stable infrastructure. We want fully funded headstart, well some of us do, we need a well trained, well equiped 21st century military. The problem with lots of the left is that they cannot distinguish between necessity and desire. So to fund the desires they want to raise everyones taxes.
 
Epicurus said:
Because both sides are full of fucking idiots who would sooner ruin this country financially than cut their favorite pet programs (both military AND entitlement).
Click to expand...
And you are right as well, the right wants to spend money on weapons programs that they desire but don't always need.
 
Anyone ever see "Brazil"? Great movie.

There is a lot of fat in gov't, a lot of completely unnecessary bureacracy. They've gotta change the way they do things.

And they have to change Social Security. I don't know the solution, but they have to change it.
 
LadyT said:
.....By "wealthiest" Obama means married couples earning more than $250,000; for a single taxpayer, the equivalent income would be roughly $200,000. Today, taxpayers making that much fall into the top two federal income tax brackets, paying rates of 33% or 35%. Their rates would revert to the 36% and 39.6% top rates used in 2000. The same households would also see a bump up in the rates they pay on capital gains and dividends, both of which now stand at 15%.......

________________________________________________________________

That $250k number just doesn't cut it. Its not "rich" by any stretch of the imagination and it WILL hurt the upper middle class substantially.
Click to expand...

Yeah they'll be living in boxes. Might have to sell the second summer home.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah they'll be living in boxes. Might have to sell the second summer home.
Click to expand...
You are so right. We should all just live in the same exact house, with the same paint and the same yards and no one should have more than one and no one should have a Mercedes when a Yugo will do. And we should all go to the same state run college and get the same degree and no one should work any harder than anyone else, and hell if they are going to tax me more for my extra work then i am going to do less.
 
It wouldn't be that boring, but at least there wouldn't be such a gap between those that have and those that have not.
 
Socrtease said:
You are so right. We should all just live in the same exact house, with the same paint and the same yards and no one should have more than one and no one should have a Mercedes when a Yugo will do. And we should all go to the same state run college and get the same degree and no one should work any harder than anyone else, and hell if they are going to tax me more for my extra work then i am going to do less.
Click to expand...

Big difference between making money and doing work.
 
Exactly, I am sure that some CEO's are good, but not as good as they have been getting!

I mean, where would they be without the worker bees? The Queen couldn't produce without them!
 
Watermark said:
Big difference between making money and doing work.
Click to expand...
Nope the more work I do the more money I make. The more money I make the more I can provide for my family and my retirement, the more I do that the less you are going to have to take care of me when I get old enough to become a burden on you.
 
I thought the good old American way was to invest and let your money work for you?

Work harder for money, I would rather work less and earn more, but, unfortunately, that hasn't happened, yet...
 
My point was that arguing that the people who make above 250k are going to have income above 250k taxed at 40% or so instead of 35% is kind of a trivial argument. It's not going to be a big burden. Maybe to a millionaire, where most of your money would be being taxed at the 40% rate. But any "burden" that a millionaire carries is a sort of dubious one anyway.

No ones advocating a return to Eisenhower like 95% taxation. But any revenue or economy gains we've gotten out of cutting taxes, we got a long time ago.
 
Watermark said:
My point was that arguing that the people who make above 250k are going to have income above 250k taxed at 40% or so instead of 35% is kind of a trivial argument. It's not going to be a big burden. Maybe to a millionaire, where most of your money would be being taxed at the 40% rate. But any "burden" that a millionaire carries is a sort of dubious one anyway.

No ones advocating a return to Eisenhower like 95% taxation. But any revenue or economy gains we've gotten out of cutting taxes, we got a long time ago.
Click to expand...

I agree. What happened to the rich Americans who use to be proud to pay taxes to keep America and its middle class healthy? It was an investment in their country. I guess since being "international" came into play, they don't feel this way anymore?
 
Or a sales tax, which is more equitable? No tax on food for lower income families, but a tax on the things that aren't necessary!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top