Results 21 to 30 of 40
-
10-02-2012, 02:08 PM #21
When the rich started acting like they pay 100% of taxes in the US. When they started claiming they help people. When they started claiming that lower taxes would equal them hiring more. When they decided to claim that trickle down works.
Last time I checked it's usually done for tax purposes.
Most charities are companies. Go check out how much the heads of those charities pull out for their own wage. It's sickening. Real help would be keeping jobs in the US, shouldering a fair share (as in the same percentage as everyone else) of the tax burden. How about not lobbying for tax cut after tax cut. How about instead of cutting social programs giving them the money they need to run properly and efficiently (as opposed to, say, taking money away so they're less efficient and easier to abuse).
That would be real help, not stuffing a charity CEO's pockets.
Now THAT is a nice spin job. Kudos. In order to believe it you just have to think that taxes don't belong to the government once paid.
-
-
10-02-2012, 04:21 PM #22
What I don't understatnd is how can someone who says they are a preacher and is supposed to follow and spread the word of Jesus who by the way was a champion for the poor and spread a message of non violence can turn around and cheerlead for the ultra wealthy almost attempting to drum up sympathy for them.
I'm sorry but I ain't got no love for the ultra rich because they are the ones who destroyed our economy, lead us into to wasteful and uneccessary wars and are trying to lead us into another one that could possibly trigger WW III.
please show me where I have cheerleaded for the ultra wealthy or drummed up sympathy for them. I simply commented on the idea that they have done nothing.
I am with others here. I think they need to pay more taxes but only if everyone else does as well.
-
10-02-2012, 04:35 PM #23
Plain and simple, capital gains tax should be higher than regular income tax. You pay more to work and less for already having enough money to allow you to sit and do nothing. That just sounds like a bad sysztem.
-
-
10-02-2012, 04:41 PM #24
As someone who makes an annual income in the seven figures I am not going to comment or put my input into this thread because as some like Wickabee are saying the rich don't want to help others
-
10-02-2012, 04:51 PM #25
As someone who makes an annual income in the seven figures I am not going to comment or put my input into this thread because as some like Wickabee are saying the rich don't want to help others
I have no idea if they want to but, generally speaking, they don't. They look out for number one. They want their taxes cut no matter what the cost to everyone else or the nation as a whole. They didn't get where they are by helping others. Often it's quite the opposite. It was rich people who ruined the economy, rich people who took Obama's bailouts and rich people who say he gives them nothing. He let them stay in control of the banking industry when they had proven themselves entirely incompetent...actually, scratch that. THEY all did pretty well for themselves after screwing everyone.
Then they have the gaul to say:
1 - Everyone blames us for everything
2 - We pay more in taxes...as long as you only look at numbers and not percentages
3 - We get blamed for everything. And my absolute favourite:
4 - Give us all the money and we'll make sure it gets to everyone...eventually...
These are the Romney supporters. They don't care about anything but lower taxes for themselves. They don't even care how those tax cuts will be paid for. Want proof? How exactly do Romney and Ryan plan to pay for it. I watched an interview with Ryan and he could not come up with a straight answer. The only things he actually said were, "It's cost neutral" and when asked to explain how, he said, "It would take too long for me to go over the math."
Now, I know of one poster who likes to tell me that when I say something, I don't back it up but expect everyone to believe me. Now, that's not true and entirely his opinion (funny how some people can recognize an opinion without being specifically told it isn't fact) but I would like to know what he thinks of Ryan saying his cuts are "revenue neutral" but refusing to explain how they come to be revenue neutral.
Of course, if said poster (or others) are simply mindless, blind followers of the Republican party, they will see no wrong with it, I'm sure.
-
-
10-02-2012, 05:16 PM #26
wick - the rich make up the overwhelming percent of voluntary charitable giving. how can you say they don't want to help anyone?
better question is, since when did paying more taxes equal wanting to help people? I don't view someone who pays more taxes as wanting to help anyone. I view it as obeying the law. I see someone who does it voluntarily as wanting to help people.
-
10-02-2012, 05:29 PM #27
Not to be a jerk, but is there anything backing that up?
You're looking at it backwards. NOT wanting to pay taxes is NOT wanting to help pay for things everyone, yes, even the rich, use. Things like police and firemen, teachers, roads, bridges and any other infrastructure the government pays for. Constantly wanting your taxes cut because "I pay more in numbers...though less in percentage" says to me you don't want to help pay for the things you use.
Let me ask you this. How does it make sense that, if you're working to get by, you pay X in taxes, but if you already have a bunch of money and invest it, allowing you to sit and basically contribute nothing to the world, you pay X-Y?
How is that a good, or fair, system?
-
-
10-02-2012, 05:30 PM #28
I believe something like 80% of millionaires are self-made. Maybe more than that.
-
10-02-2012, 05:32 PM #29
AUT, what do you think of Ryan saying in interview that it would take too long to explain the math, but we should trust him that his tax cuts are revenue neutral?
-
10-02-2012, 05:58 PM #30
Random thoughts. I think it would take too long to explain in short order, but I don't see how they can be revenue neutral, at least initially. If they spark the growth that Romney and Ryan think they will, then maybe, but one man's economic growth projections are going to differ from another's. I wouldn't say they are lying or being dishonest. However, they do need to pinpoint exactly what deductions they are going to target and for whom. Also, elimination of the estate tax is very optimistic, but if that died on the floor of congress, it would make it a lot easier to have the plan be revenue neutral. Claims of raising taxes on middle class are nonsense and based on nothing more than wobbly assumptions. I saw an analysis today where it showed under ROmney's plan, the average American would pay something like a 5.7% effective rate, whereas under Obama's it was 8.1%. Bowles-Simpson was like 13%. And that was from a website criticizing the Romney plan for its vagueness. In fairness, both side's plans lack tremendous detail, but Romneys is certainly more detailed than Obama's. All you can find on Obama's plan is (a) let Bush tax cuts expire for 200 S and 250 MFJ, (b) eliminate corporate loopholes (of course, not defining which industries Obama will try to destroy with taxes (probably oil and gas) and which ones he will cater to (probably renewable energy)).
-
Originally Posted by duane1969 
