« prev   random   next »
1   kimboslice   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 5, 1:18pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

If Reich is proposing increasing taxes on the 1/10 of 1% super mega rich, I won't argue with him. Maybe they could start a little lower, like movie stars and pro athletes.

2   kimboslice   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 5, 1:22pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

How about they tax those who will pay $35,800 a plate to dine with Obama a 15% "gratuity" payable to US Treasury.

3   raswirsky   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 6, 12:26am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

My local school district (Cupertino) is trying to get a Parcel (Poll) tax on the ballot, so I took a good look at their budget.

Teacher's total compensation (salary plus benefits plus pension funding) averages $106,500/teacher. "But we don't earn $106,500 salary" would be the reply from these teachers.

But consider this--if you were a small businessman who wanted to earn the equivalent salary after paying all the taxes (2x social security) and health insurance, you'd have to gross $106,500 to be equivalent to the teacher. A couple doing this would have to gross $213,000.

Why are a couple of school teachers considered "poor", while a husband-and-wife who gross $213,000 considered "rich?"

When I started working full time, in 1984, pensions were on the decline. We were expected to save for our own retirement. I have maxed out all tax-deferred savings options available to me. And for this, I will get punished for being "rich".

Even John Boehner says we should "means test" Social Security. This means that a frugal person who saved as much as a school teacher's compensation provided for a pension would be considered "too rich" to receive social security, while the school teacher won't be too rich to receive their pension.

I feel I have lived a frugal life (I've never owned a new car, for example, and I save about 25% of my income) for nothing. I will be branded "rich" and they'll take everything away from me--even though that was the deal. Earn slightly higher salary but save for your own pension.

Our government won't be happy until everyone makes exactly the same income, and we're all on welfare.

4   jhall   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 6, 1:18am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Setting the amount that defines "rich" is not that hard. Can we agree that $350K or more per household per year is wealthier than the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers? Then that's the number. And taxes also come from Social Security, my tax for SS falls off every October, as I pay in the maximum for the year by then. Raise my Social Security tax. I pay less for most things, because I buy in quantity and have time and resources to find bargains. I make and save more money than most of the taxpayers in this country. I'm not bragging, but I fully support paying more as "my fair share." I think a lot of people feel the way I do (hey, it's one thing I share with Warren Buffet and Bill Gates Sr.!). Let's move on from the bickering and make the tough decisions. If people want to lose their citizenship and live in a low-tax country, fine, take off. You want to live and work in the U.S., you pay your share. Simple.

5   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch   ignore (56)   2011 Apr 6, 2:29am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

As long as the Koch Brothers have to pay one dime in taxes, America has no meaning.

6   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 6, 2:58am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

shrekgrinch says

Actually, since the upper 20% have provided more and more of the tax revenues over the past 30 years — currently around 75% — you once a gain spout complete falsehoods because it doesn’t jive with YOUR world.

I love this argument. So, in your perfect world, where 1 person makes 99.99% of the money and the remaining population fight over the .01% that is left, you would complain because this guy is paying 100% of the taxes. He is getting raped!

7   OurBroker   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 6, 2:59am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Rather than raise rates why not close loopholes -- end the capital gains preference, require hedge fund managers to pay regular taxes, have people pay Social Security taxes on all of their income, etc.

Also, we would not have a budget deficit were it not for the Bush II presidency. Clinton had four years of surpluses in his last term, in some measure because of the tax increases of Bush I.

And the super-rich can afford it. See;


8   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch   ignore (56)   2011 Apr 6, 3:12am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

If one extra dollar is taxed from America's Risk Takers and Opportunity Makers, the earth will spin into the sun.

9   OurBroker   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 6, 4:36am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

toothfairy says

>>>i dont see the 30 year mortgage as an evil life sentence that should be avoided. Actually it locks in hour housing expense for 30 years. Once you have income coming in to cover that payment you?re pretty much set.

>>>If what you are saying is true, than why did so many people just end up losing their houses when they didn't want to walk away?

Part of the answer is that in the past, going back to the Depression, we have not seen as many foreclosures. The problem is not unemployment -- we've had high unemployment before -- rather the root cause of today's problems was the lack of federal regulation which allowed lenders to originate option ARMs, interest-only loans and to make loans with no doc applications.

Alternatively, if you have a plain vanilla 30-year fixed rate loan you have a hedge against inflation and something without prepayment penalties, two recasting triggers and other gotchas.

As well, even with fixed-rate financing not all properties make great rentals. There are a lot of factors to consider.

10   Nobody   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 6, 8:18am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Seems pretty simple. Cause we need to balance our budget, and the budget cut
alone is not going to do it. EU nation has less progressive tax system than ours?
That's laughable. Monaco is about the only country in Europe that is less progressive.
Majority of the EU countries has a tax system design to rape the middle income earners.

Oh, wait, our tax system does that much better. And Republicans are working
to make it even better for the high income earners.

The question should be "does high income earners really need this tax reduction?"
Sure. but at the cost of our nation and our public school system? My take is that
our government has invested the tax money on my future, maybe the us government
deserves the cut of my pay check. Maybe not. At this stage, I really don't care,
cause higher tax or lower tax really won't impact my life style much anyway.
But why volunteer to pay more tax, when the Republicans are already working
to reduce my tax?

But I am concerned about our nation. If our nation's economy does not do too well,
then my money will be worth less in the future.

11   American in Japan   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 7, 10:07pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      


Your honesty is appreciated here. Personally , I am for raising rates on the inheritance tax (for the amounts over $5 million) but that wouldn't apply to me. At least you support a fair system even if you would pay more.

12   OurBroker   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 7, 10:21pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

jhall writes and says, "And taxes also come from Social Security, my tax for SS falls off every October, as I pay in the maximum for the year by then. Raise my Social Security tax."

Meanwhile, I have a poster who says "Government should be kept as small as possible. There are some very basic things like national security (military), law enforcement and the justice system that need to be impartial. I want my taxes to fund just these basic necessities.

"I DON’T want my taxes to fund someone else’s retirement, fund someone else’s healthcare, pay for someone else’s mortgage or someone else’s education. I can pay those things myself.

"Keep Govt to a minimum."

It's the Tea Party/Koch Brothers mantra in a nutshell.

jhall gets it but a lot of people literally see taxes as some sort of abuse, a type of stealing. They don't see that societies cost money and if you're lucky enough to be successful part of that success comes from the country where you live.

13   American in Japan   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 7, 10:37pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

If things are so tough for the rich, why do the top 5% own about 72% of financial assets in the US (and growing)?

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html (Thanks Troy)

14   leo707   ignore (1)   2011 Apr 8, 4:43pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

shrekgrinch says

Doesn’t matter what he pays as a percentage of his income, but what he provides relative to everyone else does.

Hey shrek, I think you forgot to read this:

tatupu70 says

I love this argument. So, in your perfect world, where 1 person makes 99.99% of the money and the remaining population fight over the .01% that is left, you would complain because this guy is paying 100% of the taxes. He is getting raped!

Just helping you out there buddy.

Also, why so focused on the top %20? I am much more intrested in what is going on with the top 1%, or even 0.1%.

There is a much greather wealth divide between the 95th and 99.9 percentile that there is between the 95th and the 20th percentile.

15   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2011 Apr 8, 11:19pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

shrekgrinch says

If you think the rich top 20% supplying over 75% of the income tax revenues while the bottom 50% doesn’t provide jack squat isn’t ‘progressive’, then lets just stop taxing the rich at all….since it is SUCH a failure, after all.
Don’t you learn actual economics, tax policy history, SOME logic, reading comprehension skills and FACTS or something?

I think we need to ask you the same. Looking at total tax paid is meaningless. Why don't you look at the percentage of income paid instead.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions