Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Tax the rich! Take it ALL

NomadacNomadac Senior MemberPosts: 902 Senior Member
Tax the rich! Take it ALL the ongoing mantra of Obama. If you believe this I recommend you watch this video on You tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=JY8LKII_MNA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Why should 47% pay zero taxes? I believe that everyone should have some skin in the game, especially if they are going to have access to the benefits of our society.
I am growing tired of this continuing "Class Warfare' from Obama and the OWS crowd. This is driving our country apart. How do you see it?
«1

Replies

  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    While 47% pay zero income taxes, they still pay taxes. State and federal ones, even.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • TugarTugar Senior Member Posts: 2,423 Senior Member
    I know this is going to sounds socialist, but there is room for improvement. About 15 years ago, I saw the salary for the CEO of Coca-Cola. He made about 116 Million in salary, and another 119 Million in stock options. So in one year, one person grossed almost a quarter of a BILLION dollars....for selling sugared water. To me that is obscene. I can't see any reason someone should make THAT kind of money, when the lowest guys on the totem poll struggle to make it paycheck to paycheck.

    Guess what. If you taxed him at 75%....he's still making 58 million and change. I don't see the logic in the super rich crying about more taxes when most of them have surpluses larger than small nations.

    The flip side of that is the government is a wasteful overloaded garbage-fest. Cleaning that up would reduce the need to collect such taxes.
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
    Winston Churchill
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    Tugar wrote: »
    I know this is going to sounds socialist, but there is room for improvement. About 15 years ago, I saw the salary for the CEO of Coca-Cola. He made about 116 Million in salary, and another 119 Million in stock options. So in one year, one person grossed almost a quarter of a BILLION dollars....for selling sugared water. To me that is obscene. I can't see any reason someone should make THAT kind of money, when the lowest guys on the totem poll struggle to make it paycheck to paycheck.

    Guess what. If you taxed him at 75%....he's still making 58 million and change. I don't see the logic in the super rich crying about more taxes when most of them have surpluses larger than small nations.

    The flip side of that is the government is a wasteful overloaded garbage-fest. Cleaning that up would reduce the need to collect such taxes.

    And you feel Baseball players making $200M +, Football players, Basketball players, etc. making more then CEO that run a Major Company is OK? Why do you think you should have the right to determine what any CEO is paid? There are many entertainers making obscene salaries for what they do, compared to the responsibility of running a major Corporation, that generates large profits and employs hundreds of people. This is Capitalism, that rewards those that reach the peak of success. It sounds like you buy into the Class Warfare that Obama preaches, take from the rich and give to the poor.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    Wow, a strawman...
    I'm just here for snark.
  • TugarTugar Senior Member Posts: 2,423 Senior Member
    Actually, I not into ball players or entertainers making that kind of money either. At some point to me at least, it stops being a salary and more about throwing money away.
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
    Winston Churchill
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    I don't care if it's sugar water or practical nuclear powered cars....an entrepreneur, CEO, sports star or movie actor has the legal and moral right to be paid whatever the market will bear. When we start telling people how much they're ALLOWED or should make, we are no better than communists. I'll bet all these lib movie stars would be crying the blues if someone told them they were making too much money, and they have to take a big reduction in salary to be "fair" to everyone else. This is what progresso-lib public school education has produced in this country, and it makes me sick!
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • TugarTugar Senior Member Posts: 2,423 Senior Member
    I'd be the first to say you're right if things were more fair. They aren't and haven't been for some time. Skyrocketing medical costs, the hundredth housing bubble, I could go on and on. Congress AND the people need to get off our collective ( no pun intended) rears, and yell, scream, kick, and until the right things start to happen. Otherwise America is done, turn the page, we just went the way of Great Britain, Spain, and the Roman empire.

    You don't like it, fine. Tell me how WE fix it. When I see hundreds of thousands of people with two and three jobs due to the crap that the CEO's screwed up by taking the jobs overseas. The idiotic governmental BureaKlowns that let them, and the lazy American public that didn't cry loud enough when that was taking place then!
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
    Winston Churchill
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    I want to see a flat tax on everybody
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    I want to see a flat tax on everybody

    +1
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    I want to see a flat tax on everybody

    Ugh. That can open up an whole can of worms, much like using sales taxes. First, how do you deal with earnings on investments and stock? Also, if you tax someone 5% of their income (which we all know will be too low) then the person making $30K a year and feeding a family of 4 will have a lower percentage of their overall money for food, housing, transportation, etc. than the guy making $2mill in part because those at the higher end of the income scale don't necessarily spend up with their income.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • TugarTugar Senior Member Posts: 2,423 Senior Member
    Ok...so a progressive flat tax. 5% for single individual making less than 50K, Add 1% for every 50K above that until a cap at say 15-25% is reached. Something like that could work. Just throwing it out there. the numbers can be arranged differently. No loopholes, no deductions, no IRS.

    When the tax codes are so complex the guys that wrote it are hiring tax laywers.....time to start over.
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
    Winston Churchill
  • ghostsniper1ghostsniper1 Banned Posts: 2,645 Senior Member
    Instead of taxing a percentage, how about a reasonable dollar amount?
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    Tugar wrote: »
    Skyrocketing medical costs, the hundredth housing bubble, I could go on and on. Congress AND the people need to get off our collective ( no pun intended) rears, and yell, scream, kick, and until the right things start to happen....When I see hundreds of thousands of people with two and three jobs due to the crap that the CEO's screwed up by taking the jobs overseas. The idiotic governmental BureaKlowns that let them, and the lazy American public that didn't cry loud enough when that was taking place then!
    Most of this is due to government meddling into everything...bureaucracy, ridiculous environmental policy, stupid trade policy, business taxes, tax loopholes, over regulation, Federal Reserve, fiat money, Fannie, freddie. I'm sure there are more.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    Tugar wrote: »
    Ok...so a progressive flat tax. 5% for single individual making less than 50K, Add 1% for every 50K above that until a cap at say 15-25% is reached. Something like that could work. Just throwing it out there. the numbers can be arranged differently. No loopholes, no deductions, no IRS.

    When the tax codes are so complex the guys that wrote it are hiring tax laywers.....time to start over.

    AGREED. *THIS* is the problem. Time for a SERIOUS revamp.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    I want to see a flat tax on everybody

    I would like to see Volunteer Firefighters / EMS personnel that put in 40 hours a week become tax exempt, get a pension, and healthcare, pay for it by taxing those $ 200,000,000 + athletes.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,632 Senior Member
    Tugar wrote: »
    I'd be the first to say you're right if things were more fair. They aren't and haven't been for some time. Skyrocketing medical costs, the hundredth housing bubble, I could go on and on. Congress AND the people need to get off our collective ( no pun intended) rears, and yell, scream, kick, and until the right things start to happen. Otherwise America is done, turn the page, we just went the way of Great Britain, Spain, and the Roman empire.

    You don't like it, fine. Tell me how WE fix it. When I see hundreds of thousands of people with two and three jobs due to the crap that the CEO's screwed up by taking the jobs overseas. The idiotic governmental BureaKlowns that let them, and the lazy American public that didn't cry loud enough when that was taking place then!

    Life ain't fair. Get a helmet. All those CEOs make that money because they have figured out how to get other folks to give them that money. Their 'boss' (the stockholders/board members of their particular company) have decided that it is necessary to provide that money to get the results they desire. If they're willing to pay that amount, who are we to say they're wrong and that it's too much? Who are we to say that, since you're being paid too much, we're going to have a third party come in and take a large amount of what you make...but don't worry, you'll still have 'X'? And when that turns out not to be enough to feed all the folks sucking at the government teat, what do we do then? Instead of the Mega-Rich, do we then shift to the merely Obscenely Rich? And after that? How long before we get down to guys like MY boss or YOUR boss, the Basically Comfortable? How far are we willing to go to be 'fair'? When will we start realizing that forcing more 'fairness' on the rich isn't going to make things one damn iota easier for anybody?!

    'Fairness' is a highly subjective state and I'm afraid you can't get there from here...
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    Life ain't fair. Get a helmet. All those CEOs make that money because they have figured out how to get other folks to give them that money. Their 'boss' (the stockholders/board members of their particular company) have decided that it is necessary to provide that money to get the results they desire. If they're willing to pay that amount, who are we to say they're wrong and that it's too much? Who are we to say that, since you're being paid too much, we're going to have a third party come in and take a large amount of what you make...but don't worry, you'll still have 'X'? And when that turns out not to be enough to feed all the folks sucking at the government teat, what do we do then? Instead of the Mega-Rich, do we then shift to the merely Obscenely Rich? And after that? How long before we get down to guys like MY boss or YOUR boss, the Basically Comfortable? How far are we willing to go to be 'fair'? When will we start realizing that forcing more 'fairness' on the rich isn't going to make things one damn iota easier for anybody?!

    'Fairness' is a highly subjective state and I'm afraid you can't get there from here...

    :applause:
  • TugarTugar Senior Member Posts: 2,423 Senior Member
    So what's your solution since you have all the answers? Just let people rot?
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
    Winston Churchill
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Funny how some clowns yell about CEO's and others getting too much money, then other clowns yell about minimum wage being too high etc......

    Then other clowns yell protectionism when We complain about jobs going overseas.

    Other clowns yell socialized medicine when people suggest a Government established fund for medical care so you never lose medical coverage.

    The bottom line is this: most people have no idea how to fix anything, yet these are the most vocal and spout the most drivel.

    The bitter aftertaste of cheap products and labor lingers on long after the sweet taste of cheap has worn off.

    We want cheap computers and other products made in China, but long term We pay higher costs due to this.

    We have lost healthcare as a cost of doing business too.

    Then We have clowns that push the all or nothing approach to healthcare, I for one do not want "FREE HEALTHCARE" , I want healthcare with permanent coverage not tied to any company or employment if such is lost.
    Just as you pay into social security, you do not lose the money vested in social security if you lose a job or are unemployed for a time.

    I do not think drug addicts and alcoholics should be allowed to drain healthcare dollars if they do not wish to seek treatment and maintain themselves clean & sober.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    Man walked on the moon, nothing wrong with that and many indispensable things are funded via taxes but then many things that are not indispensable, a first order need or just a royal waste are paid for with the money government takes from it's citizens, some at incredibly raised cost, some is just plainly stolen and then there is all the $$$ wasted on all that red tape, demand that government administers that money in a wise and responsible manner the first priority in that regard, then when all the "waste dust" clears there will be a clear picture on where to go from there, meanwhile we are just looking for a better way to fund incompetence.
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    "Man walked on the moon, nothing wrong with that and many indispensable things are funded via taxes "

    We benefited greatly from that trip to the moon, lots of technical advances were made that served in many industries and everyday uses and products.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    DoctorWho wrote: »

    I do not think drug addicts and alcoholics should be allowed to drain healthcare dollars if they do not wish to seek treatment and maintain themselves clean & sober.

    *THIS* is one of the biggest issues... we're allowing our tax $$ to be spent in HUGE quantities on programs that will never repay us back one cent of that investment. No program should be established that isn't going to benefit us at least the cost of the program in return. Using this standard would allow us to drop a HUGE % of what the Government wastes.

    Spending the money on going to the moon paid us back tenfold over with technologies that were developed on the taxpayers dime, but then yielded huge benefits in the long run.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,632 Senior Member
    Tugar wrote: »
    So what's your solution since you have all the answers? Just let people rot?

    No, of course not. Frankly I have fewer answers than I prefer to have, but I do know that any problems I have are MY problems. Not yours, and certainly not some CEO's. I think that a large part of 'our' problem is that we try to solve too damned many problems! As a country, we are rapidly approaching a tipping point of sorts, where the majority will pay little or no federal income taxes, but hold a vote on where and to whom those taxes go. To be certain, I understand that many of those folks DO pay taxes to the Fed, but they also recieve as much or more than they pay in as either some sort of entitlement or in the form of tax refunds.

    I guess I'm left wondering what ever happened to the rugged individual? why do we keep looking for uncle to make things better?
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    The "rugged individual" always was the great American myth. The closest thing to a "rugged individual" left on the planet are the billion or so poor subsistence farmers in developing countries.
    It is not a "myth," but has been reduced in numbers as a way of life since the beginning of the 20th century. It is because of the expansion of manufacturing and the rise of the welfare state that has reduced the number of rugged individualists in this country. The rugged individuals start from nothing, work hard and build successful farms or businesses. Are you saying these people don't exist anymore? It is only as mythical as you want it to be. Subsistence farmers have no choice and are more or less victims of repressive and dictatorial/communist governments who steal and hoard all the wealth for themselves. Pretty much the future of this country if things don't change.

    Definition Noun 1: rugged individualism - individualism in social and economic affairs; belief not only in personal liberty and self-reliance but also in free competition.

    individualism - a belief in the importance of the individual and the virtue of self-reliance and personal independence.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    Show me a "rugged individual" and I'll show you the hundreds or thousands of people they depended upon to get where they are today.
    Rugged individual doesn't mean you are isolated from everyone else, but it is a concept you could apply to anyone who could survive by their own wits and enterprise. In my mind, one could apply this term to anyone who starts a farm or business and becomes successful through their own ingenuity, regardless of how many other people it takes to help them accomplish that goal. We're not talking about 19th century cowboys here, although conceivably you could.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    Show me a "rugged individual" and I'll show you the hundreds or thousands of people they depended upon to get where they are today.

    Try http://www.businessinsider.com/young-successful-entrepreneur-world-digital-100-2011-9
    You can find many young successful entrepreneur's if you do some research, and your comment that they depended on thousands of people is ridiculous. Yes they found assistance, but if you investigate any or them, some assistance was received, but it took a lot of persistence and work to achieve their success.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Nomadac wrote: »
    And you feel Baseball players making $200M +, Football players, Basketball players, etc. making more then CEO that run a Major Company is OK? Why do you think you should have the right to determine what any CEO is paid? There are many entertainers making obscene salaries for what they do, compared to the responsibility of running a major Corporation, that generates large profits and employs hundreds of people. This is Capitalism, that rewards those that reach the peak of success. It sounds like you buy into the Class Warfare that Obama preaches, take from the rich and give to the poor.

    One side of me wants to agree with Tugar on this and another side is with you. But the truth of the matter is and the falisy of what Tugar expresses is there's no way you can regulate this sort of thing unless you have a dictator who can arbitrarily say "OK, Joe Blow makes too much and he needs to pay X amout of tax. Henry J on the other hand makes Y amount but he is contributing to society in the business he's running, so Henry J is absolved of 10% of his taxes." So you can see that in our system you can't micromanage who pays what. You have to set up brackets and live by them. It's a cold cruel world but cold and cruel are the real deal, and the other is fantasy land. I have learned to live with the Cold and Cruel part.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    I am not downplaying the hard work and perseverance that goes into most of these successes or even the importance of entrepreneurs, but it's important to realize that entrepreneurs or "self made men" or "rugged individuals" or whatever you want to call them cannot exist in a vacuum. Their success is also dependent upon the system and conditions in which they exist and the knowledge and technology that came before them that enables their success as well. If Mark Zuckerberg were born to a poor family in Uganda there is a less than zero percent chance that he would have ever invented facebook and more than likely someone else would have, or at least something vaguely resembling facebook.

    We are not talking about other countries or locations, but the opportunity that still exists in the U.S. and currently. The problem today is that too many want to rely on the Government to provide for them, or believe they are owed something, instead of working hard for their success or failure. It appears the OWS crowd believe they should be given good jobs and not have to work hard to accomplish them. I have seen many college graduates start out as interns in Big corporations and believe in a short period of time they should advance to Managers, we called them CEO's In training. They seemed to fail to understand you have to develop experience and good work ethics and not a 8-5 mentality.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    Show me a "rugged individual" and I'll show you the hundreds or thousands of people they depended upon to get where they are today.
    I gave you the definition of rugged individualism, but you still ignore it's meaning. You seem to ascribe to the "It Takes A Village" mentality to accomplish anything.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    If Mark Zuckerberg were born to a poor family in Uganda there is a less than zero percent chance that he would have ever invented facebook and more than likely someone else would have, or at least something vaguely resembling facebook.
    Poor example.... I wouldn't call a smart kid who could program computers, and going to Harvard exactly a rugged individualist. Everything he did was from a room in a Frat house. Not only that, he ripped off someone else's idea, and he would have failed if not for his room mates money to fund everything.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement