Wouldn't Federal Tax Cuts to the wealthy really be a welfare benefit aimed at the wrong demographic

Originally posted by MMPI2

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by MMPI2

 

It's awful funny how your corporations become "fictional entities" when it comes to their responsibility to contribute their fair share of taxes but when it comes to political contributions, they instantly become "people" with all of their inalienable rights. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

i didn't say you had to like it.

Well, we didnt say you have to like paying taxes either.

Not when you consider that the top 10% already pay 73% of all taxes (7+ x their share based on a prorata share).
I believe that the top 1% pay 50% of all taxes also. But, that being said, I favor an elimination of the Bush Tax Cuts for those making $1 million or more (2M for married) with extra incentives and deductions for hiring, building new plants and equipment (whicn will stimulate production even if automated). We dont need to punish small business people that make 250K-1M but we dont need to put more money in mult-millionaire and billionaires pockets at the expense of the federal deficit either.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Not when you consider that the top 10% already pay 73% of all taxes (7+ x their share based on a prorata share).
I believe that the top 1% pay 50% of all taxes also. But, that being said, I favor an elimination of the Bush Tax Cuts for those making $1 million or more (2M for married) with extra incentives and deductions for hiring, building new plants and equipment (whicn will stimulate production even if automated). We dont need to punish small business people that make 250K-1M but we dont need to put more money in mult-millionaire and billionaires pockets at the expense of the federal deficit either.

This has been gone over multiple times in this thread. You should read it all before you respond.

TL;DR version:
The top 20% own 93% of all financial wealth.
The poorest 80% own 7% of the wealth, yet pay pay a larger percentage of their money in taxes.
If you are making 250K/year, compared to most Americans you are kicking ass and taking names.
The wars and services are already paid for. We are paying back the loans. If the rich arent paying taxes, who is picking up the slack?

Originally posted by MMPI2
nah. you guys are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base.


in the above, you see that the people in the upper quintile pay significantly more than those in the lower areas of the distribution. they carry the biggest burden for taxes, so it it logical that a "break" would occur.

i wonder constantly why it cant be fairer across the board. why shouldn't everyone pay the same rate regardless of income? the answer i come to is that people like barack obama and the liberal/statists dont care about what is fair and equitable, they care about redistributing wealth.

Where you decided to place emphasis ON LOGIC is the illogical place to do so IMO.
I would place the logic at the doorstep of ability to eat and for the benefit of the higher up folk, invest
into the system that naturally benefits those higher up folks. I spend ALL my money each year and my money does not go to poor folks mate, it goes to the top and come back down. I don't think it is logical to rig the system with more bias towards its natural inclination, which is to saturate those with money with more
benefit. You sure as hell can make money with money, that is the difference, it works that way, its a law of nature that just need a little prudence to execute.

It is not an equitable system where a man who works a hard ten is rewarded .00000001%, that of a man who
presses three buttons gambling with other peoples money. So IMO you base line of what is equitable is ignorant if you can overlook such a glaring equate in the money game here.

Next if you look at the trend, the wealthy are getting wealthier while the middle class is getting poorer,
it is 100% mathematically true that this trend left unchecked would result in virtually ALL the wealth in AMERICA controlled by a few. Less unforeseen moves of sanity, we will see Trillionaires and I reckon we should throw a
party for the marvel of that person, maybe they can buy your state???
Your side is winning - your side is getting its redistribution and you too ignorant to appreciate it.

Also your talk of statists it is you who does not care to interfere in the state of the State or the status quo
now isn't it? Another thing, the most glaring problem with your calculation is failing to see how this concentrated
wealth promotes and sustains, corrupting the government with this benefit.


So you talk about redistribution; it already happens and you want more. Frankly I see logic is some conservative ideas, but this is where the nobility of it gets blurred and perverted.

How can you eat your pudding if you don't eat your meat?!!!!

reply to post by aching_knuckles


Ya see the problem with people like you is that you only pay attention to what backs up your agenda.

You mistakenly believe the Supreme Court knows better than the founding fathers did.

Do you believe each and every SCOTUS decision is correct?

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

Sorry, I prefer to rely on the words of the actual people who wrote the document, not someones interpretation of it.

Interpretations are for people who are incapable of understanding something themselves.

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison

I'm sorry you are incapable of reading and understanding something yourself. Perhaps some more education will alleviate your problem .

As for facts.....You are the last person who should be stating you deal in fact. You live in some sort of parasitic fantasyland where income redistribution is acceptable when it most certainly goes against everything this country was founded upon.

I understand you are poor and bitter about it.. The blame lies squarely with you. Stop being envious of those who have succeeded where you have failed. Spend more time figuring out how to improve your situation in life and stop trying to change things for the worse.

If the real need of America is to stimulate the economy, then why not make tax proportional to profit, and have tax cuts only when:

1) money is invested locally
2) money creates local jobs
3) new businesses are domestic

?

The rich must have an incentive in order to invest their well-earned money, but they should also be "punished" if all they ever do is keep all the wealth to themselves.

A functioning society depends both on the rich and the poor. Everyone should contribute to their own abilities.

Though it may not seem like the wealthy pay much in taxes, but they do contribute to society on the whole. They took a chance, got lucky and are reaping the rewards for their own hard work, and that is not a bad thing. Yet there are those that would berate and even consider them bad for society, the very people who took hold of the American Dream and made it happen. There is one other little thing that many people fail to often realize, and that is that the top people, while their accountants are working hard at saving them money when it comes to taxes, often seeking to donate to different charities across the board. Do you honestly think, that the millions for relief to the different disaster’s or good causes, comes just from the middle or poor classes, when they are busy trying to make ends meet? It comes from those who are deciding to give money as it is the right thing to do. Some of the wealthiest people in the country are taking the time and their money to give back to the community and societies. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, have a grant program, that they are funding with a portion of their own wealth, and getting other people who are wealthy to do the same. There are people like Jon Huntsman, who is determined to give away everything that he has earned in his lifetime, before he dies, endowing hospitals, and research centers to help with diseases that affect us all. Other large companies, choose a non profit group or organization to donate to, to ensure that they have the funding to keep going with their research. Ever hear of St. Jude? Well a large multinational, corporation, with billions in assets donates and takes the time every year to give a very large check to that organization to ensure that all children can grow up healthy, without thought of cost to the parents. And there are others that keep donating to good and charitable causes around the country. The benefits to the country is insurmountable. To further add in, that the days of the rich and wealthy sleeping on piles of cash is an idea of days gone by, now to keep and make money, they have to invest, driving the engine of business. A successful business, has to keep being innovative and smart about its decisions in order to stay on top, or it quickly finds itself in trouble. Other businesses, need to die out, as they are not worth saving.
Like any who would go into business, they are wanting to make money, that is the nature of business, not to be a charity. The taxes on the rich, the question is why do you want to punish success? After all if a company gets that large, it is doing something either very right, or very wrong, and if it is doing something right, should not others try to figure out and follow the business plan of a company that is successful, rather than one that is failing?

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Richer people can invest more. More investing means better products. Better products means more buying.

Poorer rich people means more saving, less investing. less investing means less innovation due to less funds. People buy less because the markets have fewer interesting items. --> Depression.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by OmegaLogos

 

Richer people can invest more. More investing means better products. Better products means more buying.

Poorer rich people means more saving, less investing. less investing means less innovation due to less funds. People buy less because the markets have fewer interesting items. --> Depression.

There is a big assumption in your statement: that rich people always tend to invest in new businesses. They don't always do that. They maybe sit on their cash, spend it on luxury items, or invest in money trade.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Ya see the problem with people like you is that you only pay attention to what backs up your agenda.

You mistakenly believe the Supreme Court knows better than the founding fathers did.

Do you believe each and every SCOTUS decision is correct?

It doesnt matter what I believe ITS THE LAW OF THE LAND. I could give double donkey dink, and it wouldnt matter, because it is the established law of the land as decided by its highest court. If you dont like it, maybe you need to love it or leave it. Sucks when that swings against you, eh?

The rest of your post was just one giant personal attack...all you have in the face of facts. Again.

reply to post by marg6043

We pay payroll taxes that accounts for about 18.7% of income and all other taxes accounts for 5.4% of income.

That's a good reason to not trust NPR... excise tax in Alabama where I live is 9% on everything... including food. Parts of Tennessee are at 9.5% across the board. Now count in FICA tax (16%), gasoline taxes, automobile tags, property taxes, etc., etc., etc...

So how do I only pay 5.4%?

I'm gonna get NPR a calculator for Christmas.

TheRedneck

Not another one of these threads...

What exactly do you guys consider "rich"???

How much do you have to make a year to be "rich"???

Do you think physicians and surgeons are "rich"???

i wouldn't term it a 'welfare benefit' to the well heeled...'cause they don't need welfare

but a tax break - in the form of extending the Bush Era tax rate rollback...would be appropriate
in the situation the people & the economy are now in.

know full well.... the tax cuts are not exclusively for those making $250k yr
the proposed TAX cuts are extended to EVERY tax bracket of the society !!

it seems your trying to cook up a false outrage against the wealthy...
of which 100% of our Congress & Senate Members ARE !!! also the President by virtue of the BS
Peace Prize the Commander of Chief ...... received

Originally posted by Steam
Not another one of these threads...

What exactly do you guys consider "rich"???

How much do you have to make a year to be "rich"???

Do you think physicians and surgeons are "rich"???

I would say the over 250k/year definition that the government uses for the top 5% is a fine number. If you make more than 95% of the rest of the country, wouldnt you say that qualifies as "elite"? 250K/Year could buy you 3 nice small homes a year in a decent area and a decent car. Every year. Think about that...most people will never own their own home, or a new car at all.

Just because someone blows money as fast as they can earn does not mean they arent wealthy....it means they are living outside their means, even if their means are extraordinary. If you argue that is their right, well I think it is immoral to pay hundreds of dollars for suits, or buying ANOTHER car, or some more gold jewelry, when it is the second great depression in this country, and alot of people are losing their homes and families for lack of a few dollars.

I gather from your question that you are a physician or a doctor >.<

Originally posted by St Udio


i wouldn't term it a 'welfare benefit' to the well heeled...'cause they don't need welfare

but a tax break - in the form of extending the Bush Era tax rate rollback...would be appropriate
in the situation the people & the economy are now in.

The same argument over and over, but no new answers. In the 10 years of Bush tax cuts, how many net jobs do we have? Has the gap between rich or poor increased or decreased?

know full well.... the tax cuts are not exclusively for those making $250k yr
the proposed TAX cuts are extended to EVERY tax bracket of the society !!

Thats great. I agree, the middle class should be getting a tax cut. Did you know that the the 2%-10% range of american earners actually pay more than the top 1%?
"...if we count all of the taxes that people pay, from sales taxes to property taxes to payroll taxes (in other words, not just income taxes). And the top 1% of income earners, who average over $1 million a year, actually pay a smaller percentage of their incomes to taxes than the 9% just below them. These findings are discussed in detail near the end of this document."
sociology.ucsc.edu...

it seems your trying to cook up a false outrage against the wealthy...
of which 100% of our Congress & Senate Members ARE !!! also the President by virtue of the BS
Peace Prize the Commander of Chief ...... received

On Thursday, the Republicans blocked an aid bill for 9/11 First Responders, because they didnt get the tax cut for the top 2%. So not only have they held the unemployed hostage, they also held the heros of 9/11 hostage. Not so EVERYBODY could get tax cuts, mind you...they were concerned with just the wealthiest 2%. So if you are going to start leveling charges of class warfare, you might want to consider the Republicans in Washington DC your first target.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by OmegaLogos

 

Richer people can invest more. More investing means better products. Better products means more buying.

Poorer rich people means more saving, less investing. less investing means less innovation due to less funds. People buy less because the markets have fewer interesting items. --> Depression.

In case you havent noticed, we are in a Depression. People arent investing #. If they were, and even ifwanted to borrow money, it is there, thanks to government policies. But they dont want to. They want to pile up all of their lovely money, and count it over and over, and make sure no one else gets their grubby hands on it.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Steam
Not another one of these threads...

250K/Year could buy you 3 nice small homes a year in a decent area and a decent car. Every year.
Think about that...most people will never own their own home, or a new car at all.

$250k annual.... even with the 40% decline in house prices over the last 2 years...could NOT buy
(meaning free & clear) title to 3 modest homes anywhere but the ghetto/decimated area of Detroit
(buildings are going for under $10k...but one will need an Army of protection & helicopters to fly in supplies)

ther is one aspect to your theory... the TaTa Motors. peoples car is slated to be received into the USA
in the near future... the car in India costs less than $2500. but in the USA i think the PTB will only allow
a maximum number of the TaTa Motors version of the 'Nano" that will retail above $5,500.oo
so as to not upset the Chevy Volt sales (anticipated at $49k per auto)


whatta crock

Originally posted by St Udio
$250k annual.... even with the 40% decline in house prices over the last 2 years...could NOT buy
(meaning free & clear) title to 3 modest homes anywhere but the ghetto/decimated area of Detroit
(buildings are going for under $10k...but one will need an Army of protection & helicopters to fly in supplies)

There are plenty of homes outside of major cities in rural suburb areas available for 50,000 and less. Here in upstate NY, get 20 miles out of the city and the home prices go way down. If you want to live in New York City, or LA, or course not. But if you are in NYC you are in the most expensive city in the world and whose fault is that?

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

As for facts.....You are the last person who should be stating you deal in fact. You live in some sort of parasitic fantasyland where income redistribution is acceptable when it most certainly goes against everything this country was founded upon.

Ah Ha,,, but maybe you are programed to accept the current form of wealth distribution in an unquestioning manner. Every single person on this board gives the majority of their money to the same institutions every month,
so is it a fantasy to question this status quo??? Do we all have to sit around and accept this system that is increasing slanted to expedite money to Billionaires, foreign nationals and the chinese government.
All you seem to do is stick to the play book of rhetorical flourish and you stand shoulder to shoulder with those
entities that use the government to enrich themselves. Fools errand, the lot of you stick to this failing concept - despite the evidence that is all around you. It is masochistic and this idiocy will have us become a Third World nation,,, you fools will be crying socialism and redistribution when several Trillionaires OWN your life and your options in it, maybe your children - god bless them, long live Walmart and fight the Redistribution
unless it goes to a Billionaire

How many members feel that the brokers and bankers that bought and sold sub-prime mortgages, and made a fortune, and left the taxpaying holding the bill to "bail them out", deserve to keep the same tax rate as a small business owner, whose business makes $250,000, and works 90 hours a week?

The tax rate should go up for that first category that did not create a real product, did not add to the real GNP, but merely bled others dry.
The tax rate for those in the second category should not go up.

It is a very simple concept, and quite simple to implement.Unfortunately, those in the first category have the excess wealth to bribe Congress (excuse me, contribute to their campaigns and favorite "charities), while the second category are having a hard time paying the payrolls). Give tax breaks to small businesses that invest in equipment, and new employees, and soak the second category(or better yet, convict them of their crimes, and send them to jail).