Or " Why do you hate the rich?"

Popular thought says that the rich should/need to shoulder the social burden for the rest of us.
Some proof of this is our progressive tax scheme, Democrats claiming that Bush's tax cut only benefited the rich, etc.

Why do think the rich should pay more than you?

Or " Why do you hate the rich?"

Popular thought says that the rich should/need to shoulder the social burden for the rest of us.
Some proof of this is our progressive tax scheme, Democrats claiming that Bush's tax cut only benefited the rich, etc.

Why do think the rich should pay more than you?

In the grand scheme of things, they're the ones who probably benefits the most from the gov't.

I think it's all relative, if I were rich, I'd probably advocate equal taxes or whatnot, we're all selfish like that.


:banana:

Or " Why do you hate the rich?"

Popular thought says that the rich should/need to shoulder the social burden for the rest of us.
Some proof of this is our progressive tax scheme, Democrats claiming that Bush's tax cut only benefited the rich, etc.

Why do think the rich should pay more than you?


that is the thing, i dont think they should pay more then anyone else. I think the loopholes they use to skirt current tax laws should be shut, and they should pay just as much as i do of their worth.

Plain and simple, you would be a tool to think that they dont get off very lightly on taxes now.

everyone is looking out for their own self...nothing wrong with that.

i'm not rich, but i want equal taxes too. the fact that you're rich shouldn't require you to shoulder a bigger portion of that burden. you can rival that with all sorts of economic studies and mathematical logic, but i believe that everyone should be responsible based on percentage, regardless of their gross income.

be it 30%, 40%, etc....leave it at that ratio for all. that is, IMO, fair.

everyone is looking out for their own self...nothing wrong with that.

i'm not rich, but i want equal taxes too. the fact that you're rich shouldn't require you to shoulder a bigger portion of that burden. you can rival that with all sorts of economic studies and mathematical logic, but i believe that everyone should be responsible based on percentage, regardless of their gross income.

be it 30%, 40%, etc....leave it at that ratio for all. that is, IMO, fair.

Yeah but if you were making 20k a year, you probably won't want an equal tax rate across the board, being as that your tax rate would probably be higher if they made a universal rate. I just don't see the gov't saying to themselves "Well we're going to make an equal tax rate and by golly since 20% is the lowest we have, we'll make it 20%." And remember that an equal tax rate would hit harder for lower income households as the cost of living still remains the same.


:banana:

If we had higher government accountability, resisted the temptation to wage pre-emptive strikes on other countries, and raised the bar of education in our country, then this discussion would be moot as we could afford to lower taxes.

(just think of how much money we funnel into BS defense contracts... what good will it be when our infrastucture finally rots from all of the corruption??)

actually if they made it an even percentage the tax rate would most likely be able to go down for everyone. As the most wealthiest who have the most to pay wouldnt be skirting taxes that they should owe. IE using loopholes to pay 40g a year instead of the 4.5 million they would have to pay if it was a flat tax.

Make sense?

actually if they made it an even percentage the tax rate would most likely be able to go down for everyone. As the most wealthiest who have the most to pay wouldnt be skirting taxes that they should owe. IE using loopholes to pay 40g a year instead of the 4.5 million they would have to pay if it was a flat tax.

Make sense?

You do realize that they pay less tax because of their tax breaks right? Not because of the tax RATE. If the gov't wanted to do what you're saying (prevent rich from paying very little relative tax), they'd have to change a lot of the tax code. Rich people basically find ways to reduce their taxable income. If we all had the same tax rate, that doesn't stop rich people from finding ways to reduce their taxable income.



:banana:

Yeah but if you were making 20k a year, you probably won't want an equal tax rate across the board, being as that your tax rate would probably be higher if they made a universal rate. I just don't see the gov't saying to themselves "Well we're going to make an equal tax rate and by golly since 20% is the lowest we have, we'll make it 20%." And remember that an equal tax rate would hit harder for lower income households as the cost of living still remains the same.

it's true, it won't be 20% if it's a flat tax rate system....and that exactly my point. we justify that lower income household should pay less b/c the cost of living is independent of income and therefore, would constitute a higher percentage of the household income.

so in essence, we are giving lower income households a break by lessening the tax burden on them since they have to use a greater percentage of their expendable income on living expenses. it may sound a bit cold, but that's also my gripe...why should lower income families pay a lower percentage?

this is analogous to the whole gender equality issue...if they want equal opportunity, then they should open it up to encompass every facade of life. people want the best of both worlds....make less, pay less taxes.

another good example, i feel, is in how a marriage should work. both the husband and wife should offer up a fixed percentage of their income to pay off shares expenses -- i.e. rent/mortage/utilities/miscellaneous costs. it wouldn't be fair to make the husband pay more if he makes more money.

back to the income tax ordeal. it can also be argued that the benefits of taxation (welfare, social security, healthcare, etc) is more oftenly reaped by the lower class. so why should the higher class pay MORE for somethign that they're unlikely to use? ;)

db

You do realize that they pay less tax because of their tax breaks right? Not because of the tax RATE. If the gov't wanted to do what you're saying (prevent rich from paying very little relative tax), they'd have to change a lot of the tax code. Rich people basically find ways to reduce their taxable income. If we all had the same tax rate, that doesn't stop rich people from finding ways to reduce their taxable income.



:banana:


did i not state that allready? ;)


and being wealthy allows you to expend more resources in finding and using said loopholes.

in the true spirit of capitalism, hard work and business savviness should be rewarded. those who make more should be able to keep their earnings. now throw in tax b/c governments require tax revenue to operate. by contributing a fixed percentage or your income, it's fair b/c a certain portion of your hard work is put towards social programs.

by makign the rich pay more and the poor pay less, we are diluting our system to come closer to a socialist system...under the guise of equality.

not trying to be a d*ck...there are loopholes that the rich use and it isn't always fair. this whole issue of social justice and welfare is an interesting and relevant one.

db

You wanna know what too wealthy is?

try this on:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=7&u=/nm/20040831/us_nm/economy_executives_dc_1

"The study found the average compensation for chief executives at the top 50 outsourcing companies was $10.4 million last year, 28 percent above that of executives at 365 large companies surveyed by Business Week magazine, who earned about $8.1 million each.


CEO pay overall was 301 times higher than the $26,899 earned by the average production worker, the study showed. That's up from about 42 times that of the average worker in 1982."

The problem is that the tax code has evolved over the years to encourage certain types of behavior, and if you drastically change to a flat tax, or national sales tax, these behaviors will no longer carry the same incentives. I'm not arguing that things shouldn't be re-examined and streamlined. Poorly written, well intentioned laws have a way of becoming loop holes, yet they never seem to get addressed unless a crisis precipitates as was the case with CA AB1890 (electricity "deregulation"). My point is that simply saying "flat tax" makes sense in a 7th grade kind of way, but when the rubber hits the road it will result in unintended consequences.

One example is home ownership. Because you are allowed to write off mortgage interest on your taxes, tax payers are incented to invest in real estate instead of renting. It is one of the primary reasons I bought a home. If that were changed tomorrow, I would be upset. I made a huge investment decision based, in part, on the tax laws.

And to address your initial point, Oaf, I do not hate the rich. I would be considered one of them by many, although I am not in the richest 5% which will enjoy the lion's share of the tax benefits Bush enacted, according to this site: http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

I don't mind paying my share of taxes so long as the government is investing in infrastructure for schools and utilities. I understand that investment in roads and schools pays off in the long run. Unfortunately "long run" doesn't win elections.

in the true spirit of capitalism, hard work and business savviness should be rewarded. those who make more should be able to keep their earnings. now throw in tax b/c governments require tax revenue to operate. by contributing a fixed percentage or your income, it's fair b/c a certain portion of your hard work is put towards social programs.

by makign the rich pay more and the poor pay less, we are diluting our system to come closer to a socialist system...under the guise of equality.

not trying to be a d*ck...there are loopholes that the rich use and it isn't always fair. this whole issue of social justice and welfare is an interesting and relevant one.

db


ahhh misguided youth and its colorful disregard for logic and knowledge...

In the grand scheme of things, they're the ones who probably benefits the most from the gov't.

You've got to be kidding me? Because they're living off the social security, unemployment, welfare money and government programs their hundreds of thousands of tax dollars funded, right? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/Emoticons/bigeek.gif

And remember that an equal tax rate would hit harder for lower income households as the cost of living still remains the same.

But if we turn the tables and hit the rich harder with a progressive tax then it's okay, right?

Unless said person is a heir to wealth, rich people don't become rich without a LOT of hard work, dedication and willingness to risk. Why should they be penalized for success, dish out six figure amount for taxes (even after tax breaks) when others are paying minimal taxes and taking advantage of government programs?

actually if they made it an even percentage the tax rate would most likely be able to go down for everyone. As the most wealthiest who have the most to pay wouldn’t be skirting taxes that they should owe. IE using loopholes to pay 40g a year instead of the 4.5 million they would have to pay if it was a flat tax.


Skirting taxes, huh?

I'd like to meet the man paying $40k instead of $4.5million via loopholes :rolleyes:

I know of a LOT of tax breaks courtesy of my CPA and me being a self-employed contractor on my 1099. Even with buy-backs, rentals, leases, donations etc. I know for a fact someone with $1million yearly salary paying $250,000 with every break in the book would be paying $300,000-$350,000 without any writeoffs.

$40K to Uncle Sam instead of $4.5million after writeoff's?! LMFAO http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/Emoticons/lol.gif

and being wealthy allows you to expend more resources in finding and using said loopholes.

This is true but you can only writeoff so much a year. You make it seem like you can writeoff your entire salary which isn't true at all! Instead you'd get back a very small percentage after every trick in the book because you'd exceed the amount of tax breaks you could take and risk audit like a giant red flag.

did i not state that allready? ;)


and being wealthy allows you to expend more resources in finding and using said loopholes.

Actually what you said was this:

actually if they made it an even percentage the tax rate would most likely be able to go down for everyone. As the most wealthiest who have the most to pay wouldnt be skirting taxes that they should owe. IE using loopholes to pay 40g a year instead of the 4.5 million they would have to pay if it was a flat tax.

Make sense?


Can you explain why, if we had a flat tax rate, the rich would not skirt taxes they should owe? The way I see it, if there was a flat tax rate, and I was rich, I would STILL look for loopholes to reduce my taxable income(assuming all that changed was to a flat tax rate). I wouldn't say to myself "ok I'll pay" just because my rate is lower. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point because of the way you wrote it, but it seems to me like you're saying that the rich would not look for ways to reduce their tax liability if there was a flat tax rate.


:banana:

its called bermuda look it up ;)

ahhh misguided youth and its colorful disregard for logic and knowledge...

i was simply addressing the topic from a theoretical viewpoint. i am fully aware of the repercussions of having a flat tax system. one of my undergrad majors happen to be economics, where we spent many an hour reading and discussing our current tax system.

being that we are on an internet forum and discussing the topic at a superficial level, i wanted to be a bit facetious in addressing the issue. to label someone as a misguided youth b/c they are putting out generalities and whatnot is a bit critical, don't you think?

db

actually if they made it an even percentage the tax rate would most likely be able to go down for everyone. As the most wealthiest who have the most to pay wouldnt be skirting taxes that they should owe.

this, i have to disagree with. what makes you think middle class americans don't claim extra exemptions to save on taxes? if the incentive is there, everyone, regardless of income bracket, will be looking for loopholes.

some of the richest people are also penny pinchers....they will look for any opportunity to save or cut corners.

I'd like to meet the man paying $40k instead of $4.5million via loopholes :rolleyes:

I know of a LOT of tax breaks courtesy of my CPA and me being a self-employed contractor on my 1099. Even with buy-backs, rentals, leases, donations etc. I know for a fact someone with $1million yearly salary paying $250,000 with every break in the book would be paying $300,000-$350,000 without any writeoffs.

I agree the $40K vs. $4.5MM is an overblown figure. But, by playing shell games with legal entities, particularly when you involve off shore legal entities, a very rich person could shield a lot of cash from Uncle Sam.
BTW, that millionare you mention above is paying 25% in taxes. I pay a higher percentage, even though my best year thus far was substantially less than a million bucks. See the point?

edit: kicks feet up and sips some chai tea. lol

You've got to be kidding me? Because they're living off the social security, unemployment, welfare money and government programs their hundreds of thousands of tax dollars funded, right? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/Emoticons/bigeek.gif

Everyone pays into it and every has the same right to benefit from it. My point was not that they benefit from these programs specifically. Just that the tax laws are written in a way where the rich seem to benefit more so than poor people.



But if we turn the tables and hit the rich harder with a progressive tax then it's okay, right?

I never said it was ok. I just stated that tax laws help the rich out more.


Unless said person is a heir to wealth, rich people don't become rich without a LOT of hard work, dedication and willingness to risk. Why should they be penalized for success, dish out six figure amount for taxes (even after tax breaks) when others are paying minimal taxes and taking advantage of government programs?

Others are not paying minimum taxes by choice, a lot of people make very little money and they pay their "share." The way the system is set up, it does penalize the rich, whether it's through hard work or just luck.


Skirting taxes, huh?

I'd like to meet the man paying $40k instead of $4.5million via loopholes :rolleyes:

I know of a LOT of tax breaks courtesy of my CPA and me being a self-employed contractor on my 1099. Even with buy-backs, rentals, leases, donations etc. I know for a fact someone with $1million yearly salary paying $250,000 with every break in the book would be paying $300,000-$350,000 without any writeoffs.

$40K to Uncle Sam instead of $4.5million after writeoff's?! LMFAO http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/Emoticons/lol.gif





This is true but you can only writeoff so much a year. You make it seem like you can writeoff your entire salary which isn't true at all! Instead you'd get back a very small percentage after every trick in the book because you'd exceed the amount of tax breaks you could take and risk audit like a giant red flag.

I would have to agree with salty in that the situation is a little far fetched, you won't be paying 40k instead of 4.5M, that's damn near impossible for an individual.


:banana:

I would have to agree with salty in that the situation is a little far fetched, you won't be paying 40k instead of 4.5M, that's damn near impossible for an individual.

The tax code considers corporations an individual, iirc. ;)

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/D557CF7D-3BAE-4550-93F37C97C455A2D4

The tax code considers corporations an individual, iirc. ;)

BLING!


:banana:

Actually what you said was this:




Can you explain why, if we had a flat tax rate, the rich would not skirt taxes they should owe? The way I see it, if there was a flat tax rate, and I was rich, I would STILL look for loopholes to reduce my taxable income(assuming all that changed was to a flat tax rate). I wouldn't say to myself "ok I'll pay" just because my rate is lower. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point because of the way you wrote it, but it seems to me like you're saying that the rich would not look for ways to reduce their tax liability if there was a flat tax rate.


:banana:


Dear Capt asshat,

I regret to inform you but you have missed an important part of this discussion. Please feel free to re review the entire thread in its entirity before you make stupid remarks that are semi out of context.

For your own sake we have attached a portion of a post that you missed.

that is the thing, i dont think they should pay more then anyone else. I think the loopholes they use to skirt current tax laws should be shut, and they should pay just as much as i do of their worth.

Plain and simple, you would be a tool to think that they dont get off very lightly on taxes now.

and being wealthy allows you to expend more resources in finding and using said loopholes.

its called bermuda look it up ;)


Sincerly yours,

The league of internet *******s for a better internet



PS we care so much about you that you arent worth spell checking for.

haha sorry you caught me in a good mood :)

BTW, that millionare you mention above is paying 25% in taxes. I pay a higher percentage, even though my best year thus far was substantially less than a million bucks. See the point?

edit: kicks feet up and sips some chai tea. lol

I pay quite a bit too regarding percentage. The person I mention is the President and co-founder of the same firm I work for as a mortgage broker... she just so happens to be my Mother.

To get back on the thread topic, as I see it, there is no such thing as too wealthy. But if you ARE wealthy, you should realize that the best thing to do with your money is to help other people. If the government has to step in and require you to pay more taxes because you're rich, that's fine. If you're in this country to make a lot of money for yourself, then take that money and move to an island where there isn't anyone to add or detract from your life. If you choose to live here and be wealthy, then part of the cost of living in our society with our freedoms and our way of life is to help other people who are less fortunate get their standard of living up too. I'm not saying we should go commie, that obviously doesn't work to the people's advantage in the real world. But meisers with a ton of money who find ways to pay less taxes are A**holes. No other way about it. It's not like taxes ever made a rich motherf***er broke. And the tax money generated from rich people CAN make a whole ghetto area into a safer and better place to live. It's simple...if you care about other Americans, stay in America and pay taxes (more tax if you got more cash). If you don't care about other Americans, then stop taking advantage of the good things about the country without helping the bad parts and get the f*** out of here.

But if you ARE wealthy, you should realize that the best thing to do with your money is to help other people. If the government has to step in and require you to pay more taxes because you're rich, that's fine....If you choose to live here and be wealthy, then part of the cost of living in our society with our freedoms and our way of life is to help other people who are less fortunate get their standard of living up too. ... And the tax money generated from rich people CAN make a whole ghetto area into a safer and better place to live. ... If you don't care about other Americans, ...get the f*** out of here.

My goodness, you're an intollerant little cuss.
But, please enlighten us dimwits with your vast knowledge of social engineering.

Your assignment is to produce evidence that supports your claim that throwing money at a ghetto area safer & better to live.

To distill the task into simpler terms, name one "urban area" that has been rescued by rich people's money.

Paul

Intollerant...ok maybe I'm being a little narrow minded today...but to get to my "assignment"...
East Palo Alto in Northern California had the highest homicide rate in the US for many years in the 80's. Then the local and state gov't started giving money to EPA to get better police and better schools. Now it's one of the safest places (in terms of homocide) to live in the country. It still isn't great, but it's a HELL of a lot better since tax money started flowing into there to help public issues.

Hey Paul, thought you'd respond to this seeing as you're from the bay area too...anyway, I'll check back in tomorrow to see what you think of my EPA example...

Dear Capt asshat,

I regret to inform you but you have missed an important part of this discussion. Please feel free to re review the entire thread in its entirity before you make stupid remarks that are semi out of context.

For your own sake we have attached a portion of a post that you missed.








Sincerly yours,

The league of internet *******s for a better internet



PS we care so much about you that you arent worth spell checking for.

haha sorry you caught me in a good mood :)

Good one :D


:banana:

My goodness, you're an intollerant little cuss.
But, please enlighten us dimwits with your vast knowledge of social engineering.

Your assignment is to produce evidence that supports your claim that throwing money at a ghetto area safer & better to live.

To distill the task into simpler terms, name one "urban area" that has been rescued by rich people's money.

Paul


http://cocconet.at.infoseek.co.jp/st/alert/images/h_reda_1.gif

Social engineering doesnt not compute.....

Still no reply Oaf? Tax money from rich people DOES help poor people...if the EPA example isn't enough...how about Hunter's Point in SF...or Watts...they're all getting better because they get money from the governments (derived from taxes) to help the situation.

Still no reply Oaf? Tax money from rich people DOES help poor people...if the EPA example isn't enough...how about Hunter's Point in SF...or Watts...they're all getting better because they get money from the governments (derived from taxes) to help the situation.

Sorry for the delay...I was busy making money.

I'll give an B for effort, but a D for content.

EPA recieved few grants totaling a few million dollars.
Most of the money came from declaring EPA an Special Economic Area, meaning that the gov't lured business by giving special incentives, such as tax breaks, lower interest rates, etc. End reasult: rich business owners & investors paid less.
Read here. (www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1998/janfeb/articles/epa.html)

The city also raised property tax, which was later declared illegal. Read here. (www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/cover/1996_Feb_7.COVER07.html)

I'd post more, but I hear some more $$ calling. ;)

...I think you proved my point, and then changed the subject with the illegal prop tax increase...they got money in grants (which the gov't got from tax payers), and the city used it to do whatever they had to do (lure businesses, whatever else) and made the area nicer. Good link, I hadn't heard about the illegality of the tax hike over there, but it doesn't really have much to do with the fact that the gov't gave EPA money and the city got safer/nicer. Either way, I'll give you a B- for effort and a C- for content hehehe