abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
poor rich people...poor poor rich people
Mitt Romney Tax Returns Released: Paid Just 13.9% Rate In 2010, Had Swiss Bank Accoun
- Thread starter squarepush3r
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
being rich nowadays is almost as bad as being one of those poor, persecuted, white christian males.
Is it too simple for people to understand?
The rich closed down factories and shipped American jobs overseas ok
The only jobs left are service jobs with low paying wages and no benefits ok
They've lobbied Congress to have corporations have as much political say as an individual citizen ok
They have gone on to become Congressmen and set laws that favor their businesses ok
They go on to lower taxes for themselves and cut education and social welfare programs ok
How does the burden fall on the poor and middle class if the rich have reshaped the system so it only works for them?
The rich closed down factories and shipped American jobs overseas ok
The only jobs left are service jobs with low paying wages and no benefits ok
They've lobbied Congress to have corporations have as much political say as an individual citizen ok
They have gone on to become Congressmen and set laws that favor their businesses ok
They go on to lower taxes for themselves and cut education and social welfare programs ok
How does the burden fall on the poor and middle class if the rich have reshaped the system so it only works for them?
sync0s
Well-Known Member
I hate the conservative argument where they compare dollar amounts of taxes paid by the rich compared to the poor. It's retarded. If you do it by dollar amount we are either going to destroy the US government by having virtually no funding, or tax the shit out of the poor until they are servants.
My ideal tax policy:
- Wipe the entire tax code
- Create a 15% (negotiable) income tax rate with NO BRACKETS
- $10,000 standard deduction applied for all
That is a fair tax policy.
My ideal tax policy:
- Wipe the entire tax code
- Create a 15% (negotiable) income tax rate with NO BRACKETS
- $10,000 standard deduction applied for all
That is a fair tax policy.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Ok, slow down, read again. As a DOLLAR amount the wealthy do pay more into the system even to they are unlikely to ever claim benefits from it. Is 13% of Mitt Romneys $6 mill worth more or less than even 50% of say $25000? Of those two people, who is more likely to need benefits? It's a Social Insurance system that doesn't calculate on risk, and the wealthy are still putting more money (as a total dollar amount, a lower proportion of their total earnings yes).
So the person least likely to benefit from the system is the one so you now say should pay even more?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
almost as bad as being a member of congress too
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no shit, sherlock.
i outlined how someone who employs 10 workers benefits from roads and education 10 times over, not once like the average joe they employ. they benefit from the nation many times over.
so, what is your tax plan? have the poor and middle class send in every dollar they have and the wealthy can just match the dollar amount in the name of fairness?
that is good tax policy, but only if you happen to be a mentally-handicapped wombat.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
lol seriously dude. Do you sit around and browse google and wait for the perfect response to match your picture gallery?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol.
i have only busted out the mentally handicapped wombat once before.
something about a certain poster's replies compelled me to share the glory that is mentally-handicapped wombat.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
You can't possibly argue for that tax platform while simultaneously arguing against entitlements. Just so you know.
Man you are dense. The rich are now paying the lowest taxes they've ever paid since the depression (35% compared to 25%). How is this good for the country? Look at the state of the nation and tell me it has no correlation to the rich's contribution to the nations coffers. Ive seen you do this before in other threads Harrekin. You are either a troll or plain stupid if you can't see this. You have people who see the system is broken and want to contribute more like Warren Buffett.
The republicans make this about small businesses to cloud the issue so the income to qualify for the top bracket is purposely set low to include small business owners when there should be another bracket for people who make more than a million dollars a year. Why should Mitt and Newt pay as much as a guy making 350K? For votes, then they add the religious and social issues to attract the poor (who have nothing in common with the rich except these social issues) and they have a viable candidate to push their economic agenda, further disenfranchising the poor.
The republicans make this about small businesses to cloud the issue so the income to qualify for the top bracket is purposely set low to include small business owners when there should be another bracket for people who make more than a million dollars a year. Why should Mitt and Newt pay as much as a guy making 350K? For votes, then they add the religious and social issues to attract the poor (who have nothing in common with the rich except these social issues) and they have a viable candidate to push their economic agenda, further disenfranchising the poor.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I must say tho to put what I'm saying in context, I'm not in favour of a "Welfare" system whatsoever.
Id consider myself a "Pragmatic Libertarian" and the system I'd propose would be a State run optional social insurance scheme. The wealthy would still be expected to pay fair taxes for upkeep of the infrastructure and the education, justice and Defense departments (as realistically youre better off retaining those departments to ensure everyone starts on an equal footing, as I believe this is essential to long lasting and positive individual liberty.
Id consider myself a "Pragmatic Libertarian" and the system I'd propose would be a State run optional social insurance scheme. The wealthy would still be expected to pay fair taxes for upkeep of the infrastructure and the education, justice and Defense departments (as realistically youre better off retaining those departments to ensure everyone starts on an equal footing, as I believe this is essential to long lasting and positive individual liberty.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Mitt is still an asshole taking advantage of the system, but take a look at it this way.FAIL
the thread is about how a guy that makes 20 million pays 14% while average guys like me who make $30k pays 28%.
are you saying that paying half of what i do is disproportionately high? should we reduce mitt's tax burden to 3% or lower?
Historically the stock market ROI is a little over 7%. So that would mean it would take about ten years to double your money. Your average guy invests in stock funds, ie 401k. This means factoring in inflation and 14% tax upon cash out, you're paying 32.576%. Which would be more than your 28%. How do you suggest we classify Mitt so retired people get classified differently and not get fucked just because Mitt is an asshole?
WillyBagseed
Active Member
No he pays taxes on the profit from his investments, not the money already in there. Capital GAINS tax. Not invested money tax, it is just like you have to pay taxes on interest paid in a bank, just at a much lower rate.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
How do you figure he is taking care of the system?
His income was not over 1 year. It was due to capital gains invested over a much longer period of time.
So, if his income last year was 20 million but he invested that 5 years ago it would be 4 mil per year.
And while you are blasting the Idle rich... Bill Clinton made 10 million dollars in speaking fees alone last year. He did 50 speeches and got paid 200K per speech. 1 per week. Since his retirement as president he has made 75 million in speaking engagements.
So, for you people who believe in a cap... Should Bill Clinton have gotten taxed at 100% after the first few speeches? What about movie stars? Someone pulling down 20million for 3 months of work or less. How much should Richard Gere get paid? Would it top out at 200K? at 500K? Want to drive the movie industry overseas? What about sports figures? Top them out at 500K too? Maybe 500K per year too much? How about 200K???? I mean, how hard do they really work right?
And lottery winners... Fuck them... You cannot win more than 200K per year no matter how much the government takes in from the lottery.
Gotta make this whole fucking world fair ya know...
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Who suggested all that?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Except that he is risking the money.Willyßagseed;6992970 said:
You know what you are going to get paid from a paycheck. It is a guaranteed income.
He does pay more than most people. The middle class pays about 12% in taxes after all the loopholes (mortgage deductions, etc).
Hollywood movie stars will succumb to their own form of populist taxation Free downloads. Julia Roberts and George Clooney shouldnt be making $20 million dollars if the studios are losing money hand over fist. But they still pay them that much because they are making money (just not as much) to compensate they just raise ticket prices on the public.
Sound familiar?
and NLXSK1 how can you sit there and defend anything when you know the rich are paying less taxes now than they have historically?
Everything comes back to equilibrium by one means or another.
Sound familiar?
and NLXSK1 how can you sit there and defend anything when you know the rich are paying less taxes now than they have historically?
Everything comes back to equilibrium by one means or another.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Because the government is spending more money than ever historically. They have run up the biggest debt ever historically. They have no plan to cut spending and even 1/10th of 1% cut in an agency (USDA for example) is seen as a danger to public health.
I am defending the rich because the politicians have you focused on the wrong issue.
Washington DC has a spending problem. They have vastly increased the size of government over the last decade and all of the major welfare programs are unsustainable at this time. Obama wants to talk about fairness when even if you taxed the rich 100% it would not close the deficit gap.
The more the government takes the less there is for private investment and job growth.
I see this path as a way of making things worse for everyone but the centralized government with its ballooning dependence and welfare rolls...