62% Federal Tax rate??!!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by dagolfer33

I don't make a mil a year Tim.

trickle down was my thinkin.....throw the stone across the pond...ripples!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

trickle down was my thinkin.....throw the stone across the pond...ripples!

yes, because we all know that when we give rich folks more money they will share it with the middle class and the poor by creating more well paying jobs and increasing benefits...they are all really secret Santas!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

yes, because we all know that when we give rich folks more money they will share it with the middle class and the poor by creating more well paying jobs and increasing benefits...they are all really secret Santas!

No... but they're not the Klingon Empire either!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

No... but they're not the Klingon Empire either!

In the future, the Klingons become our friends, the rich will never be friends of the poor.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

In the future, the Klingons become our friends, the rich will never be friends of the poor.

Somer: way too cynical for someone with your breadth of knowledge

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Somer: way too cynical for someone with your breadth of knowledge

Timm, unfortunately I've seen the results of trusting rich folks throughout my life. Not saying all are evil, but the ideology that trusting windfalls given to rich folks will benefit us all simply isn't true.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Timm, unfortunately I've seen the results of trusting rich folks throughout my life. Not saying all are evil, but the ideology that trusting windfalls given to rich folks will benefit us all simply isn't true.

The rich need to have an incentive to release their hard-earned gains! Its harder to keep it than it is to gain it...or so I'm told(ahem)

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

yes, because we all know that when we give rich folks more money they will share it with the middle class and the poor by creating more well paying jobs and increasing benefits...they are all really secret Santas!

Subtle, but important difference: it's not "giving the rich more money" - it's taking less from them.

They earned the money. Why should they part with more of it (as a percentage) than anyone else?

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Subtle, but important difference: it's not "giving the rich more money" - it's taking less from them.

They earned the money. Why should they part with more of it (as a percentage) than anyone else?

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

^^^^ No. 50 on the 100 Richest People in the World list.



Small wonder.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by clyde

^^^^ No. 50 on the 100 Richest People in the World list.



Small wonder.

You, sir, are now un-invited to the Belmont party with the Belmonts on my private yacht.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

You, sir, are now un-invited to the Belmont party with the Belmonts on my private yacht.

rolling and laughing!!











all the same:







( ( )

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Subtle, but important difference: it's not "giving the rich more money" - it's taking less from them.

They earned the money. Why should they part with more of it (as a percentage) than anyone else?

As Mr Spock would say..."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Especially in this case when the rich don't "need", they covet. In the end, one either favors possessions or people. Talk of what is "fair" to one group at the expense of another is inherently "unfair"...such is the world, not a black and white place but one filled with shades of grey.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

As Mr Spock would say..."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Especially in this case when the rich don't "need", they covet. In the end, one either favors possessions or people. Talk of what is "fair" to one group at the expense of another is inherently "unfair"...such is the world, not a black and white place but one filled with shades of grey.

Any talk of "need" with regard to income and what can keep due to government confiscation is, often unintentionally, socialistic.

If I am to "earn" a large paycheck, and 62% of it is forcibly taken from me, why the hell would I work hard enough to do that again? I'd work enough to earn a figure in a lower bracket - which I can do, due to the ludicrous progressive tax system. So then it is not just I who lost the income, but also the government. This is one of the mechanisms by which higher tax rates often yield lower revenues.

Another mechanism is that I simply move my business out of the country and avoid this confiscatory tax.

You cannot define what is "fair", especially, as you point out, when the costs are assigned to one group and the benefits are assigned to another non-overlapping group. This is why we need a flat tax: everyone paying the same rate. Earn twice as much, pay twice as much. Earn half as much, pay half as much. Put in a poverty exclusion - like not taxing the first $50,000 or something. Because we can define what is proportional, and that often syncs up with what most people would agree is fair.

By the way, on a more frivolous note:

I am a huge Star Trek fan. When Spock said that statement it was in reference to whether he or Kirk should command the ship since Spock was acting captain, Kirk was an admiral and normally would not interfere, but of course, as always, a critical mission came up. I don't think it was a wholesale endorsement of redistributing wealth.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Any talk of "need" with regard to income and what can keep due to government confiscation is, often unintentionally, socialistic.

If I am to "earn" a large paycheck, and 62% of it is forcibly taken from me, why the hell would I work hard enough to do that again? I'd work enough to earn a figure in a lower bracket - which I can do, due to the ludicrous progressive tax system. So then it is not just I who lost the income, but also the government. This is one of the mechanisms by which higher tax rates often yield lower revenues.

Another mechanism is that I simply move my business out of the country and avoid this confiscatory tax.

You cannot define what is "fair", especially, as you point out, when the costs are assigned to one group and the benefits are assigned to another non-overlapping group. This is why we need a flat tax: everyone paying the same rate. Earn twice as much, pay twice as much. Earn half as much, pay half as much. Put in a poverty exclusion - like not taxing the first $50,000 or something. Because we can define what is proportional, and that often syncs up with what most people would agree is fair.

By the way, on a more frivolous note:

I am a huge Star Trek fan. When Spock said that statement it was in reference to whether he or Kirk should command the ship since Spock was acting captain, Kirk was an admiral and normally would not interfere, but of course, as always, a critical mission came up. I don't think it was a wholesale endorsement of redistributing wealth.

Actually, I thought Spock made that statement regarding his "suicide mission" exposing himself to fatal levels of radiation in the warp drive...perhaps I am mistaken but that's what I recall. Anyway, it obviously wasn't regarding distribution of wealth but applies to life in general. I also support a flat tax with a poverty exclusion so we have a point of agreement there. Socialism is a term that many run from, I have no trouble embracing many so-called Socialist concepts, the problem being avoiding a central government that denies freedoms to the people in the name of same.

[Antitrust32]

My friend had an idea. No federal income taxes but a flat Federal tax (say 6-7%) on all goods and services that you buy.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Any talk of "need" with regard to income and what can keep due to government confiscation is, often unintentionally, socialistic.

If I am to "earn" a large paycheck, and 62% of it is forcibly taken from me, why the hell would I work hard enough to do that again? I'd work enough to earn a figure in a lower bracket - which I can do, due to the ludicrous progressive tax system. So then it is not just I who lost the income, but also the government. This is one of the mechanisms by which higher tax rates often yield lower revenues.

Another mechanism is that I simply move my business out of the country and avoid this confiscatory tax.

You cannot define what is "fair", especially, as you point out, when the costs are assigned to one group and the benefits are assigned to another non-overlapping group. This is why we need a flat tax: everyone paying the same rate. Earn twice as much, pay twice as much. Earn half as much, pay half as much. Put in a poverty exclusion - like not taxing the first $50,000 or something. Because we can define what is proportional, and that often syncs up with what most people would agree is fair.

By the way, on a more frivolous note:

I am a huge Star Trek fan. When Spock said that statement it was in reference to whether he or Kirk should command the ship since Spock was acting captain, Kirk was an admiral and normally would not interfere, but of course, as always, a critical mission came up. I don't think it was a wholesale endorsement of redistributing wealth.

This is beyond ludicrous. You have no understanding of taxation. everyone is taxed at the same rate. The rich are taxed at the same rate up to a certain income that everyone else is. It is only after they go into another bracket that "that" income is taxed at the higher rate. It is this level of stupidity that harms AMerica. All of your income is not taxed at the next level no matter what your income is. If you make 9 gazillion dollars your first 50k is taxed at the lower level, then up to 250 k taxed at the next higher level, then after that taxed at the highest level, so anyone purposely not making money to stay in the lower bracket is an imbecile because they are already there at imcomes taxed at that amount. It's called a marginal tax rate.

Are you this stupid on purpose or do you work hard at it??

[clyde]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

This is beyond ludicrous. You have no understanding of taxation. everyone is taxed at the same rate. The rich are taxed at the same rate up to a certain income that everyone else is. It is only after they go into another bracket that "that" income is taxed at the higher rate. It is this level of stupidity that harms AMerica. All of your income is not taxed at the next level no matter what your income is. If you make 9 gazillion dollars your first 50k is taxed at the lower level, then up to 250 k taxed at the next higher level, then after that taxed at the highest level, so anyone purposely not making money to stay in the lower bracket is an imbecile because they are already there at imcomes taxed at that amount. It's called a marginal tax rate.

Are you this stupid on purpose or do you work hard at it??

Say!!!!....you're good!

[SOREHOOF]

A lot of people can't seem to understand the difference between money "earned", and money "received". Instead of jacking up the taxes on the "rich" let's start taxing the 47% of the citizens who pay no income taxes at all. Money isn't really worth the same amount everywhere in the country. Someone making $100 grand a year may be just scraping by in Manhatten, but where I live they would be doing pretty good. Del is right about the hyper spending Govt. they are spending $$ faster than they can beg, borrow, steal, or print it. They were aware of the Debt ceiling when they were breaking spending records for the last few years. They should have mentioned it when they were coming up with trillion dollar spending sprees. If you can't afford it don't buy it. They said America could afford it, and the people bought it. The only way to force the Govt. to spend within their means is to leave the Debt ceiling alone. Throwing $$ at this countries problems isn't helping. It seems to be having the opposite effect.