Hard to argue with this proof!

[MrGiz]

Originally Posted by blue3122

Do you want to eliminate millionaires? Because the majority of people worth more than a million $ actually make less than $150k. There is a difference between someone making $1 million and someone worth $1 million.

The number of people making over $1 million is laughably small. Even if we took 60% of there income it would only be around 40 billion. Or less than 1% of the Obama deficit. My question is "What is fair.".

Dunno... I have been asking that question for quite a while... the Eccie Intelligentsia has not been able to answer, coherently.

Raising rates? * The current rate structure already makes some kind of sense.

Closing more loopholes for the mega-rich?* Sounds like a reasonable place to start.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

If I have $100 million in assets/investments with $120,000 a year "fixed" income from those "assets/investments" what's my "fair share" compared to a "pharmacists" making $120,000 a year as an employee?

?

If you are only making 120k a year from a 100million in assets then you should have your head examined.

But to answer your question, you should pay the exact same rate as the pharmacist(s).

When you die they should tax the fuc out of your estate until we bring down the Federal deficit. Afterall, you were able to make all that money in this country without paying the cost of how the country helped you do so.

We have to learn as a society to pay our bills. You can not expect to make tons of money , enjoy the fruits of government services and not pay. Poor people pay in the form of regressive taxes....rich, in progressive. The last thirty years rich folks have not been paying their fair share. That is why income disparity has skyrocketed and debt has boomed.

This is all a simple math problem thatb folks play politics with. Meanwhile both parties ass rape us all.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by blue3122

The "question" that I have yet to see anyone (liberal, conservative, libertarian) answer is "What is fair?"

How can there be a "right" answer? Life is unfair in many ways. Taxes are one of them. Expecting taxes to be "fair" depends on many subjective answers. Once you start talking real numbers you will have people disagree.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

Dunno... I have been asking that question for quite a while... the Eccie Intelligentsia has not been able to answer, coherently.

Raising rates? * The current rate structure already makes some kind of sense.

Closing more loopholes for the mega-rich?* Sounds like a reasonable place to start.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10taxstatscard.pdf
There are 323000 $ 1 mil plus returns filed.
If each only made a 1 million

323000 X $600000 (60%)= $193,800,000,000 ($193 billion not $40 bil)

And that is if each only made 1 million.

Do I advocate they pay that much in taxes? No I don't.

I advocate people learn some math. There are many numbers thrown around that should be checked.

There was a reason they made you show your work for math problems while in school.

[MrGiz]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10taxstatscard.pdf
There are 323000 $ 1 mil plus returns filed.
If each only made a 1 million

323000 X $600000 (60%)= $193,800,000,000 ($193 billion not $40 bil)

And that is if each only made 1 million.

Do I advocate they pay that much in taxes? No I don't.

I advocate people learn some math. There are many numbers thrown around that should be checked.

There was a reason they made you show your work for math problems while in school.

I don't understand why you're quoting me... I've been smart enough to not throw around bogus numbers in a missed attempt to impress anyone.*Your math prowess, displayed above is virtually meaningless!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

If you are only making 120k a year from a 100million in assets then you should have your head examined.

.... you should pay the exact same rate as the pharmacist(s).

As for the first comment, if you need more than $10,000 a month to support yourself, then YOU ought to have your head examined.

But thanks for answering "THE QUESTION" ... anyway.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

The Tea Terrorists are a fickle group. Besides being inherently stupid, they would be calling for Reagan's ouster with the former president's speech below.

With regard to tax loopholes for millionaires, Ronald Reagan's answer was recorded multiple times. See how the following clip compares history with today.

Nothing like a good, old-fashioned apples-to-oranges comparison!

The blatant disingenuousness of Obama's invocation of the Reagan clip can easily be understood by anyone willing to engage in the tiniest bit of critical thinking.

Consider the debate at the time leading up to the bipartisan Tax Reform Act of 1986. At the time, the top tax bracket for individual income was 50%. In the 1970s, it was 70%. Yet even that high rate did not extract all that much revenue from affluent investors, who were able to dodge its potential effects quite easily through accelerated depreciation and other means. Partnerships were often designed around multi-year scheduled capital contributions structured in such a manner that an investor's tax deductions were a multiple of that year's contribution, so that if the partnership actually made money (many didn't, and only provided tax savings) any returns were just icing on the cake!

None of that is the case today. But even more to the point, Obama and most other Democrats are not talking about individual income tax rate reductions in return for base-broadening. Instead, the obsession du jour seems to be a 5.6% tax surcharge on high incomes. Put that together with elimination of deductions and exclusions and you have something completely different from the proposals likely to be pushed.

That wouldn't raise all that much additional revenue, but it certainly might make a lot of people "feel better", and it's probably an effective political ploy. It exploits what I think is probably the Republican Party's biggest weakness -- namely that almost all Republican representatives and senators have pledged fealty to Grover Norquist's anti-tax platform, promising that no tax will be raised on anyone at any time for any reason. For the Democratic Party's part, their position isn't much different. Essentially, it's that no tax shall be raised on anyone at any time for any reason -- unless that person has an income greater than $250K! (In terms of impact on the deficit, there isn't much daylight between those two positions.)

If Obama actually wanted to advance arguments similar to those made by Reagan in 1985, he would have done well to embrace the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles commission. Instead, he completely ignored them and offered a budget proposal so unserious that it was overwhelmingly rejected by Senate Democrats earlier this year.

Another favorite target of liberals is the capital gains tax rate, which is now 15%. You might be able to push it a few percentage points without serious distortive effects, but raising it to levels sufficient to excite those on the left would produce unintended consequences. There's a clear inverse correlation between capital gains realizations and the top-bracket cap gains tax rate.

[Boltfan]

I haven't read all of the thread and my bet would be there was a melt down somewhere here but...

THAT is how you can debate without name calling.

Great discussion, regardless of whether or not I believe in everything being stated.

Wellendowed, wake up dude. Stop being contrarian when you obviously don't have the intelligence to discuss the situation at hand. blue made excellent points and that was all you have?

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Blue,

I can't argue with some of the specifics of what you say because you are right on some of the issues you bring up. HOWEVER, I would counter that some of the "loopholes" are put in place by politicians who respond to lobbyists paid for by "corporate persons" that didn't exist in Reagan's day.

Besides that, your dissertation attempts to draw attention away from some of the basic similarities between their taxation concepts.

Nowadays, you are correct about some of the taxes being different but I certainly would be against your industry's influence being any greater than it already is on the EPA or the DOE.

To use similar hyperbole, you could make a case that we would have balsa wood nuclear reactors and oil spills would be promoted as healthy. Example - The tobacco industry once promoted smoking as a treatment that would lessen cold symptoms. I fear that those abuses would return if your industry and other corporate cartels could write those rules.

I WANT my airplanes inspected by the FAA. I WANT seat belts and airbags and side impact airbags and someone trying to keep Clinton's buddy from dumping chicken entrails into the river. I want my four grand children's pajamas to be flame retardant. I want health insurance companies to be prevented from shrinking the amount of coverage per dollar and I want them EXECUTED as corporate persons when they even try using the excuse of a "pre-existing condition". The assholes have the actuarial data to predict those numbers and charge accordingly but they've gotten used to changing the rules by buying legislators.

And YES, they bought the rights to Obama's health care program largely due to the interference they ran through those fake front group "Town Hall Meetings".

I'll agree with gearing down the IRS and OSHA because they are "self-funded" and that makes them potentially vicious and creates doubt about their ability to be fair about fines with their growth and budget on the line.

It is the same backwards capitalistic approach that creates havoc when insurers are rewarded for cheating sick people by earning more money and knowing that tort reform limits make their daily cheating of thousands of clients (claims of less than $25,000-$50,000) too costly to litigate.

Address the bottom line - not making ordinary Americans pay higher rates than corporations or the wealthy. I'm sure you can see that despite using a complex form of "changing" the equation, neither Reagan nor Obama WANTED millionaires paying a lower tax rate than the middle class.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

When you die they should tax the fuc out of your estate ....

So, you believe that ....

.... it would be "fair" for the other player sitting at the table "to demand a share of my chips," when I got up from the table to leave the game.

I disagree.

I paid the "buy-in" and played better decisions, ...

.... and before I sat down I paid my "fair share" to the "house," in the form of room, food, drinks, and tips to the employees, as well as on the way out the door.

Your "pitch" seems to be based on the notion that one can gather $100 million in nest eggs without paying any "taxes" and/or without contributing to the economy of the country, which in turn generates taxes from those receiving contributions from the "gathering process."

If you, and your kind, want to re-tax my earnings to redistribute them to those who pissed off their income and made poor choices along the way, then I will simply move my "nest eggs" off shore" (along with my own body) so that no one benefits in this country from the opportunity to generate and retain wealth. In other words: "out source" my investment. Sooner or later, most of the folks in this country will wake up and realize that income redistribution by "surcharging" and "taxing" is counter-productive to growth and results in stagnation.

Hopefully it is sooner rather than later. May be by 2012?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Sooner or later, most of the folks in this country will wake up and realize that income redistribution by "surcharging" and "taxing" is counter-productive to growth and results in stagnation.

As evidenced by the booming economy that the current low rates have brought us.

How many times are you people gonna peddle this crap?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Doove

As evidenced by the booming economy that the current low rates have brought us.

How many times are you people gonna peddle this crap?

Last first, I'm not "peddling" anything, because that implies the ability to buy and the sense to make the purchase ... neither one of which the current decision makers in the White House, and their loyal followers as yourself, possess, so ...

rather than squander hard earned dollars on the likes of Solyndra and more worthless teachers, I would rather hold my money that I have earned by making good choices and being careful not to piss it off on useless and nonproductive misadventures, like Solyndra, and enjoy the fruits of my efforts and sacrifices, or pass it on free and clear of more grimmies to my children, who will hopefully have more sense than the current band of would be Robbin Hoods preying on the newly defined ... "rich"!

Lastly the first comment .. if I am on the plus side of the equation in this economy, which I am, then apparently I have made better decisions than did Solyndra and/or Obaminable......and, frankly my dear, I could give a rat's ass if you or Obaminable listen to me, ....

... just keep your grimmies off mine. I don't need any of yours!

Like I suggested, when I get up from the table to head to the cashier, don't expect a split of my chips. The dealer gets a tip, but the player at the table who pissed off his hard earned dollars does not deserve one.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

rather than squander hard earned dollars on the likes of Solyndra and more worthless teachers,

Talk about changin' the subject....

[anaximander]

Firstly we true god-fearing freemen don't
deify any man. Moreover we know all men
stumble at one time or another.

Reagan was raised a democrat, old habits die hard.
The dems anti-rich wrinkle has been with them
ever since that anti-semetic socialist rat FDR
waged his war on millionaires.

He was wrong. I would refer to Lincoln who
said you don't build up the poor by tearing
down the rich.

You are a god damn fool if you actually
believe the govt will take money from the rich
and send the poor a check in that amount.
The goal of the socialist govt is to have us
all indebt to them for one thing or another.
If the govt suceeds in its healthcare usurpation.
It will be a brief matter of time before it has
oversight on anything you do with your body.
After all if the govt has to provide for your
medical care it is a matter of course that the govt
do its best to modify your behavior as they see
it to cut costs.

The government wants us all poor.
Ignoring sheik husseins claim to the counter,
IF the govt was trying to reduce us
to servitude what would they be trying to do
any different from what sheik hussein is?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

With regard to tax loopholes for millionaires, Ronald Reagan's answer was recorded multiple times.

"...rather than squander hard earned dollars on the likes of Solyndra and more worthless teachers, I would rather hold my money that I have earned by making good choices and being careful not to piss it off on useless and nonproductive misadventures, like Solyndra, and enjoy the fruits of my efforts and sacrifices, or pass it on free and clear of more grimmies to my children, who will hopefully have more sense than the current band of would be Robin Hoods preying on the newly defined ... "rich"!

Lastly the first comment .. if I am on the plus side of the equation in this economy, which I am, then apparently I have made better decisions than did Solyndra and/or Obaminable......and, frankly my dear, I could give a rat's ass if you or Obaminable listen to me, ....

... just keep your grimmies off mine. I don't need any of yours!

I don't think I was changing the subject one bit!

As far as Reagan is concerned and changes in the tax code at his time, I never agreed with them and to this day believe that the changes were an underlying factor in the S&L collapse based on a failing real estate market.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

rather than squander hard earned dollars on the likes of Solyndra and more worthless teachers, I would rather hold my money that I have earned by making good choices and being careful not to piss it off on useless and nonproductive misadventures, like Solyndra, and enjoy the fruits of my efforts and sacrifices, or pass it on free and clear of more grimmies to my children, who will hopefully have more sense than the current band of would be Robbin Hoods preying on the newly defined ... "rich"!

I got $100 that says you voted for a trillion dollar war, no-bid contracts, a medicare drug program that costs more than Obamacare, and losing, literally losing $9 billion in Iraq.

Twice.

So spare me your gripes about squandered monies.