How much should the rich pay?

Great question. I don't think most people have any idea what percentage of the income tax the so called rich pay. Originally Posted by joe bloe

And i don't think most people have any idea of what percentage of their own income they pay in income taxes. I got $100 that says most people in here, unless they've actually run the numbers and figured it out, would over-estimate the true percentage that they pay by at least 10%.

The only fair tax is a consumption tax. If a person makes that makes $20,000 a year buys an item that cost $100, he pays $20 in taxes if the rate is 20 percent. If a Person that makes $500,000 a year buys an item that cost $10,000, he pays $2000 in taxes at 20 percent. You make more, you spend more, you pay more in taxes.

The only reason Polititians do not like this is because there is no rewarding your buddies with favorable tax write offs. Originally Posted by Jackie S

That's one reason. Another reason is that the people who aren't living paycheck to paycheck, those who have the ability to save, would pay a lower percentage than those with obviously less income.

its not how much $ gets paid , but at what % rate they pay ..


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...wer-taxes-oth/ Originally Posted by CJ7

That's what I said babe. I've had some decongestant so forgive me please if it didn't come out right.

I meant it to say if we all pay 10% the people making 500k a year will still pay more than someone making 50k a year. The 500k would pay 50k in taxes and the 50k would pay 5k in taxes. All 10%. If it's good enough God, it's good enough for them.

It wouldnt be such a big deal to actually lower taxes across the board....but at the same time...if we eliminated vitually all loopholes and treated all income in the same fashion..(ie: eliminating "carried income") and other such things...tax rates could be lower and we'd likely have more revenue...of course some gov't programs would need to be re-examined....but... you have to start somewhere...

A uniform tax rate treats individuals and corporations fairly, but it eliminates a backup revenue source, the extra dollars generated by taxing high-income earners at a higher rate for the government. The government relies heavily on revenue generated from income taxes.

Have any of you guys ever talked to a 1%er? They say plainly they wouldn't even notice a tax increase on them. Go ahead. Tax em more. The truly super super rich don't care for a couple reasons. 1. They wouldn't notice and 2. They have a zillion loop holes anyway.


They pay someone to pay someone to do this tax crap. Can we say job creators?

It wouldnt be such a big deal to actually lower taxes across the board....but at the same time...if we eliminated vitually all loopholes and treated all income in the same fashion..(ie: eliminating "carried income") and other such things...tax rates could be lower and we'd likely have more revenue...of course some gov't programs would need to be re-examined....but... you have to start somewhere... Originally Posted by Raa1965

unfortunately, lower tax rates do not pay for themselves by creating enough revenue to even come close to breaking even, much less creating MORE revenue ... that less is more theory doesnt apply here, and its been proven beyond a shadow of a dubt.

unfortunately, lower tax rates do not pay for themselves by creating enough revenue to even come close to breaking even, much less creating MORE revenue ... that less is more theory doesnt apply here, and its been proven beyond a shadow of a dubt. Originally Posted by CJ7

I don't think he was saying that lower tax rates would pay for lower tax rates. He was saying that eliminating loopholes would pay for the lower tax rates.

if thats the case, my bad.

Can we say job creators? Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Why the hell aren't they creating then! Below is a good article for people who do not understrand how to much wealth at one end of the curve i not good for a country such as ours.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...xes/53810288/1

Gap began with Reagan
The shift began when the Reagan administration started a systematic transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the privileged few at the top. Subsequent government policy has done little to change that trend. That's dangerous because extremely unequal distribution of wealth makes a society unstable. Nobody knows this better than the Central Intelligence Agency, which posts estimates of income inequality for 140 nations in its World Factbook. The USA has been slowly moving up in the rankings. We're in the top 30% in inequality.
Too much wealth and power in the hands of too few people can interfere with free markets. The dependence of presidential campaigns on a handful of billionaires can interfere with free elections. The greatest flattening of income distribution came in the World War II years and afterward. The income tax was steeply progressive, trade unions were strong, and corporations were sensitive about exorbitant gaps between their top executives and their workers.
Each of those conditions could be restored. We could return to more progressive taxation, encourage collective bargaining, and place limits on the ratio between worker and executive pay. That last one is important because up until the 1970s, the highest incomes were heavily based on investments, according to Saez. Then came "an explosion of top wages and salaries" so that instead of people living on past wealth, those at the top became the "working rich." Many of them are corporate CEOs with friendly boards and pliable compensation committees.
Some think the problem is one of relative deprivation, that folks in the middle are doing OK. It's just a matter of envy. Not so. The most recent annual report of the Census Bureau shows that those in the middle are worse off in absolute terms. Median annual household income, adjusted for inflation, fell in most years of the past decade. In 2010, it was 7% below its 1999 peak.
The stability of any democracy depends on its legitimacy, a general sense that the system is fair. And that is what is at risk today.

Can we say job creators? Originally Posted by LovingKayla

They got rich by cutting jobs here and sending them to other countries.

Why the hell aren't they creating then! Originally Posted by WTF

popular talking point ...

my reply.

A CFO working for a fortune 500 company makes $2 million a year. Lets just say he saves and even $200K .. who thinks $200K can start a business from the ground up, rent space, produce product, hire employees, advertise, legal fees, etc etc etc and have a cash savings large enough to support the first 6 months of business if it doesnt show a profit?

please raise your hands

ok

who thinks said CFO would even consider creating jobs?

or

who thinks said CFO takes his family to Europe on a nice vacation with his "savings"

popular talking point ...

" Originally Posted by CJ7

That it is....I hate that job creators BS.

Where are the jobs?

Where are the jobs these God like job creators are suppossed to have created?

If they are not creating jobs, why do we treat them like they are? Why are we calling them job creators?

They are what would have been called crooks 50 years ago.

That it is....I hate that job creators BS.

Where are the jobs?

Where are the jobs these God like job creators are suppossed to have created?

If they are not creating jobs, why do we treat them like they are? Why are we calling them job creators?

They are what would have been called crooks 50 years ago. Originally Posted by WTF

everyone knows a top exec is willing to leave his/her posh corner office, mulit million dollar salary, benefits package, and risk the lifestyle they are living just to be a job creator

popular talking point ...

my reply.

A CFO working for a fortune 500 company makes $2 million a year. Lets just say he saves and even $200K .. who thinks $200K can start a business from the ground up, rent space, produce product, hire employees, advertise, legal fees, etc etc etc and have a cash savings large enough to support the first 6 months of business if it doesnt show a profit?

please raise your hands

ok

who thinks said CFO would even consider creating jobs?

or

who thinks said CFO takes his family to Europe on a nice vacation with his "savings" Originally Posted by CJ7

With the fear of a likely tax rate to business owners, and the inability to accurately create a business plan and profit projections, I'd take the family to Europe.

With the fear of a likely tax rate to business owners, and the inability to accurately create a business plan and profit projections, I'd take the family to Europe. Originally Posted by nwarounder

Europe? Isn't that Commie landM