Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CubsSuck1

Am I the only one who sees something wrong?

Recommended Posts

stupid question, but, how much money do you have to have to be considered "rich"

I got a tax cut, so I must be "rich."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather write my check at the end of the yr for my taxes instead of the feds withholding it from my paycheck. And I didn't see a cut in my taxes. I still payed the same percentage of my money as last yr to the feds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look I am far from rich person lobbying for tax cuts....but I understand that if I make 50,000 and some other guy makes 250,000 that he is paying WAY more taxes then me. I also understand that when a taxcut goes out, he will get more back cause he PAID way more. I don't have a problem with that. I don't see why you do. It is his money...why should he be punished for doing well for himself? If you are RICH and democrat and you get this tax cut and you don't want it or don't need it or don't agree with it....then donate it to a charity...You don't have to keep it, but I just dont unserstand with telling some guy that worked his whole life to make good for himself ...that hey sorry...you're doing better than most so you don't get anything back...

 

It seems like common sense to me. Most people that are rich aren't like the Hilton sisters...they have worked hard for their money...they own small business or they invested wisely. Either way it's their money....

 

Sorry but I will never get the other side of this argument...it just seems so black and white to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a tax cut, but few would describe me as rich either. Maybe I'm just good at investing my money. I don't think I should be punished for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't have to keep it, but I just dont unserstand with telling some guy that worked his whole life to make good for himself ...that hey sorry...you're doing better than most so you don't get anything back...

 

It seems like common sense to me.  Most people that are rich aren't like the Hilton sisters...they have worked hard for their money...they own small business or they invested wisely.  Either way it's their money....

Because in our country if you inherit the money - we love you - The Kennedys are our "royalty." But, if you bust your ass and earn it, your the evil rich. Gates is a good example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because in our country if you inherit the money - we love you - The Kennedys are our "royalty." But, if you bust your ass and earn it, your the evil rich. Gates is a good example.

You mean the Bill Gates who donates billions to charities on top of the millions (perhaps billions) he donates to the federal government in the form of taxes??? Yeah, he is one evil son of a b****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because in our country if you inherit the money - we love you - The Kennedys are our "royalty." But, if you bust your ass and earn it, your the evil rich. Gates is a good example.

I always thought Bill G was seen as evil due to his business practices and the piss-poor customer service (BTW Gates, Brian's last name isn't a porn name!!!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look I am far from rich person lobbying for tax cuts....but I understand that if I make 50,000 and some other guy makes 250,000 that he is paying WAY more taxes then me.  I also understand that when a taxcut goes out, he will get more back cause he PAID way more.  I don't have a problem with that.  I don't see why you do.  It is his money...why should he be punished for doing well for himself?  If you are RICH and democrat and you get this tax cut and you don't want it or don't need it or don't agree with it....then donate it to a charity...You don't have to keep it, but I just dont unserstand with telling some guy that worked his whole life to make good for himself ...that hey sorry...you're doing better than most so you don't get anything back...

 

It seems like common sense to me.  Most people that are rich aren't like the Hilton sisters...they have worked hard for their money...they own small business or they invested wisely.  Either way it's their money....

 

Sorry but I will never get the other side of this argument...it just seems so black and white to me.

What I felt was wrong in your story

 

Rich guy leaves and stops paying taxes.

 

1 person is footing 59% of the bill. That would suggest that 10% of our population pays 59% of the taxes. Actually the middle class contributes the bulk of the revenues.

 

You have the poor people mugging the defenseless rich guy, I pointed out he is far from defenseless.

 

I do not have a problem with the rich guy getting his fair share of a tax cut. I also do not have a problem with a graduated tax rate. I would like to see the first $X tax free, whatever the poverty rate is for the number of dependents in the household and none after that.

 

A millionaire has changed tremendously since I was a kid. No longer is it a threshold of luxery. Many of the assets are tied up in their homes and 401Ks. But to suggest that the poor buy more cars than rich just doesn't pass the common sense test. Hey, look at all the millionaires riding the Greyhound to Des Moines for vacation.

 

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are above the federal poverty line the left will consider you "rich".

You know the international poverty line is roughly a dollar a day. Or basically being able to afford food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know why this is?  People are inherently lazy.  If the government can do it all for them, and take care of them, they don't have any responsibility.  *GASP* PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THEIR OWN RETIREMENT... if SOCIAL SECURITY ISN'T THERE.  OMG!

 

Naaaah, it's just easier to have the government subsidize us all, Social Security is, after all, a God Given Right. (As are most government entitlements according to most "leftists".)

 

I'm not saying that private industry is perfect, no, it's not, but the government has become so efficient at being inefficient that it's just pure disgusting.

DING DING DING!!!!!!

 

Right you are. Personal responsibility has gone the way of the dinosaur in this country and you can blame liberals for it.

 

They have planted this notion in peoples heads that government needs to hold their hand from cradle to grave. You mention Social Security? Take the average payroll deduction for that massive boondoggle and invest it properly (Southsider can back me up here ) and instead of a meager, bare bones existence monthly check you'd be a millionaire sipping cocktails on a beach somewhere and to those who fail to take initiative and prepare for old age I have no sympathy.

 

That being said, I honestly feel that there will be no SS when I reach retirement age and I want to be that guy sitting on the beach with the cocktails so I'm saving all I can now. Remember the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper? The very words I live by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know the international poverty line is roughly a dollar a day.  Or basically being able to afford food.

I was thinking about the 15k a year give or take that the government considers poverty, but then if you have anything that someone else doesn't then you are a bad person according to half the people around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the Bill Gates who donates billions to charities on top of the millions (perhaps billions) he donates to the federal government in the form of taxes???  Yeah, he is one evil son of a b****.

Or the thousands upon thousands of people he employs? Yeah, he's a real rotten bastard huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or the thousands upon thousands of people he employs?  Yeah, he's a real rotten bastard huh?

Just employeeing people doesn't make you a saint. Microsoft as been cited for many violations of employment laws. They have pushed the boundaries in many areas. Microserfs wasn't just a catchy name for the thousands of temps that Microsoft used to circumvent paying benefits.

 

Throughout US history we have seen employers who have used and abused their employers. Look no further than The Jungle, the meat processing plants in Chicago. That is why the Unions were able to organize and grow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just employeeing people doesn't make you a saint. Microsoft as been cited for many violations of employment laws. They have pushed the boundaries in many areas. Microserfs wasn't just a catchy name for the thousands of temps that Microsoft used to circumvent paying benefits.

 

Throughout US history we have seen employers who have used and abused their employers. Look no further than The Jungle, the meat processing plants in Chicago. That is why the Unions were able to organize and grow.

You know what a big reason is that jobs are being shipped overseas? It's because employee benefits cost a s***load of money and that cost rises every day. I've read articles in various business magazines where various employers talk about that subject & according to them if you take a workers salary and double it then you have the true cost for them to employ that person.

 

Meanwhile you have people running to the doctor every time they sneeze twice or if they stub their toe. I'm not saying that everybody abuses their medical benefits but there are a great deal of people who do and all those doctor visits aren't free. They cost money and eventually when employers can't make a profit they pick up and move elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet corporate profits are up, at least accoding to the White House. The biggest reason is US Corporations have a moral obligation to their share holders to bring them the highest return on their investment.

 

We could drop minimum wage down to $2 and compete with China.

 

Nuke, how about we cut military benefits so we can fund more programs? Do you really need all these forward medical units?

 

Insurance benefits are not even close to what they were ten or twenty years ago. Businesses in the 1980s used expensive benefits packages to lure top talent to their firms. These are not government mandated benefits. It was all about competing for employees.

 

In Mexico medium size companies and large are required, by law, to employ a Doctor in their facility whenever they have more than 75 (maybe changed in three years) or more employees on the floor. They are required by law to offer transportation or transportation benefits for all their employees. They are required to offer a free meal to every employee. The amount of benefits easily exceeds their salaries. Yet businesses are still moving to Mexico.

 

It is the standard of living that people are willing to accept. In the US we demand indoor plumbing and waste water management. Many homes in Mexico do not have that. Many streets in poor neighborhoods are dirt and flood into the houses when it rains. The US is unwilling to accept that. Only a small percentage of laborers in Mexico can afford cars. Public transportation is a way of life. We do not have a decent public trans system in the suburbs because everyone owns a car.

 

We cannot, nor should we try and compete based on absolute lowest cost of labor. We will lose.

 

Nuke, if our military was a US corporation, what would you think of the argument that we are paying you guys too much in salary and benefits and will begin to employ the Chinese or Mexicans in your capacity? Really, aren't you the highest paid military in the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am nowhere near rich, but I have never understood the concept that the "rich" are not entitled to as much of the money that they earn that I am. Tex, I think you had said that the bulk of federal taxes came from the middle class. I thought I had heard somewhere that the top 10% pay like 90% of the taxes. If I'm wrong, that's fine, but I am pretty sure it was something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am nowhere near rich, but I have never understood the concept that the "rich" are not entitled to as much of the money that they earn that I am. Tex, I think you had said that the bulk of federal taxes came from the middle class. I thought I had heard somewhere that the top 10% pay like 90% of the taxes. If I'm wrong, that's fine, but I am pretty sure it was something like that.

The middle class pays roughly 25% and the highest bracket is 35%. Based on availability of tax breaks and the unique nature of a top executives compensation package they rarely pay the full 35%.

 

2003 brackets

 

With a 2,000,000,000,000 budget and a population of 300,000,000 for the upper 10% to pay 90% of the budget they each would have to pay over $600,000 in taxes and earn 2,000,000 annually.

 

I agree that a graduated tax rate may not be best. I've always thought a simple system with zero deductions that taxed all your income over the national poverty level would be fair. Stop setting a higher rate and offering tax breaks. As much as I loved the bonus each year when they stop taking out social security, it always seemed unfair that we start at zero and end higher. But that's just social security. Not federal taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The middle class pays roughly 25% and the highest bracket is 35%. Based on availability of tax breaks and the unique nature of a top executives compensation package they rarely pay the full 35%.

 

2003 brackets

 

With a 2,000,000,000,000 budget and a population of 300,000,000 for the upper 10% to pay 90% of the budget they each would have to pay over $600,000 in taxes and earn 2,000,000 annually.

 

I agree that a graduated tax rate may not be best. I've always thought a simple system with zero deductions that taxed all your income over the national poverty level would be fair. Stop setting a higher rate and offering tax breaks. As much as I loved the bonus each year when they stop taking out social security, it always seemed unfair that we start at zero and end higher. But that's just social security. Not federal taxes.

Most of what the upper levels of the tax brackets experience is deferred taxes. They'll pay, just not now. And what happens is, we defer those taxes and then decrease the amounts they are taxed in the future when it becomes income. Which is why the future doesn't look so bright on spending 15 years down the road.

 

Aren't CPA's Certified Pains in the Asses? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of what the upper levels of the tax brackets experience is deferred taxes.  They'll pay, just not now.  And what happens is, we defer those taxes and then decrease the amounts they are taxed in the future when it becomes income.  Which is why the future doesn't look so bright on spending 15 years down the road.

 

Aren't CPA's Certified Pains in the Asses? ;)

I thought it was can't pass again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×