Can someone making $1 million a year afford a 5.87% tax increase?

[iMac]

The wealthy got the biggest slice of the taxcuts that created the deficit and is still growing the national debt. Since those taxcuts were allegedly going to produce jobs that never materialized the wealthy have a backlog of taxes that they now owe.

The wealthy pay most of the taxes.

You can't give tax cuts to chronic losers who are not paying taxes anyway.

 

[Ernie S.]

Defending the very rich today again I see. Them poor rich people. You think very, very rich people come on sites like this and read about the defense of their wealth by middle class people? I bet they laugh and laugh.

I would guess that Ernie is concerned about the governments deficit spending and would really like for severe cuts in spending to be made to help reduce deficit spending. But don't want to increase taxes on the very rich who have done so very well the past few years.

And I guess that the cuts in spending need to come from the poor and the middle class. Because we are the ones needing more government services to get by in the shitty economy created by those very same very wealthy people that can't be taxed any more cause they "already pay enough".

But I can't help but laugh. In the example of a one million dollar earner, he pays around 250k in taxes. Lets say total (Fed State Local) taxes are 400k.

Leaving this most fortunate individual a measly $50,000.00 net dollars a month to "get by on."

I wonder why people like you Earnie defend the very rich. WTF do you care about what taxes the guy making 50k net a month pays. He/she (very rich) would much rather that YOU and I take a cut somewhere in our benefits or services as opposed to them paying more. And I understand that. Don't care, but understand.

But why would you care if the very very rich pay 5 or 6% more in taxes?

Or, what are you willing to give up so they don't end up paying more in taxes?

Seems to me it is one or the other. Both would be best. If we really are concerned about how much money we spend and debt we have.

Less spending on most of us, more income from those with all the BIG fucking income gains. The very, very rich are the only ones who can afford a tax increase. And I don't care if they get one. Why do you? Just curious.

Why? Because they receive no more for their money than you do.

You seem to think it is fair to force the rich to pay for what you feel you deserve. Sadly, you deserve only what you acquire through your own efforts.

How about you address the issue of fairness. Tell me why one citizen should pay 20 times as much for the same services.

As opposed to paying for the wars that only benefit the wealthy?

If everyone pays the exact same flat rate of taxes for "services" from the government then conversely everyone should receive an equal share of the profits from the companies that do business with the government. After all the taxpayers are the ones who are paying for those profits, right? So why do only the wealthy get to benefit from the profits generated by taxpayer funds? If you want to go 100% flat then it has to equitable in every respect.

So you ARE a socialist after all. What is it with you? You already get a piece of my income to buy votes for Liberals. Now you want privately held corporations to fork over their profits? And just how do wars benefit the wealthy? Wars do tend to put people to work, so don't they benefit labor?

 

[Ernie S.]

As opposed to paying for the wars that only benefit the wealthy?

.

The wealthy pay most of the income taxes that pay for the wars and now you expect them to pay more for your retirement also?

If the wealthy are paying for the wars that benefit them then why is there still a deficit and a national debt?

Because no one but the wealthy pay (income) taxes. 47% of US workers pay no Federal Income Tax. More than half of them receive a refund larger than what they paid in, in the form of earned income tax credits. THAT is the biggest scam ever perpetrated against the middle class right there.

 

[bripat9643]

My patience for puerile posts is exhausted so let me try a timeout!

[Edit Ignore List] *click*

Add a Member to Your List... *click*

*bripat9643*

[Okay] *click*

ROFL! Answering my questions is making you uncomfortable, is it?

 

[bripat9643]

If the wealthy are paying for the wars that benefit them then why is there still a deficit and a national debt?

Because government borrows .40 cent of every dollar it spends for wars and the wipe-every-nose welfare state.

But the majority of the .60 cents covered by taxes is paid by the wealthy not the poor.

The wealthy got the biggest slice of the taxcuts that created the deficit and is still growing the national debt. Since those taxcuts were allegedly going to produce jobs that never materialized the wealthy have a backlog of taxes that they now owe.

Tax cuts didn't create the deficit, dipstick. Democrat welfare boondoggles caused it. Social Security and Medicare are the two biggest welfare boondoggles.

 

[Ernie S.]

He can't justify forcing the 5% of the population that pays the most taxes to pay more so he bails. I don't blame him. I'd be tempted in this case.

 

[OnePercenter]

No, it's not my belief that the rich deserve a break, nor is it my belief that the rich are better than me, or anyone else for that matter. Why do you ask such a stupid question?

So the rich should pay the same effective percentage in tax as the middle class?

In reality, less. Taxes should be based on services received.

Won't that be a tax hike for the middle class and poor, since they use more services than wealthy.

 

[OnePercenter]

No, I advocate everyone paying for the services they receive.

Meaning a flat tax or denial of services to those who don't pay taxes?

The Internal Revenue Service does have a law enforcement division,

LEO's usually train with a variety of different weapons, but that doesn't mean that they carry them with them at all times.

I would be OK with a flat tax. My preference would be a slightly regressive tax schedule that would encourage high earnings.
14% of a million is a lot better to the IRS than 15% of $750,000

Maybe YOU would, but that would be a tax increase for me.

 

[OnePercenter]

So the rich should pay the same effective percentage in tax as the middle class?

In reality, less. Taxes should be based on services received.

I prefer to say taxes on products and services purchased

Which is a tax increase on the middle class and poor. Who are you really, Reagan?

and / or agreed to voluntarily.

FUNNY!!!!

 

[OnePercenter]

Because government borrows .40 cent of every dollar it spends for wars and the wipe-every-nose welfare state.

But the majority of the .60 cents covered by taxes is paid by the wealthy not the poor.

The wealthy got the biggest slice of the taxcuts that created the deficit and is still growing the national debt. Since those taxcuts were allegedly going to produce jobs that never materialized the wealthy have a backlog of taxes that they now owe.

Tax cuts didn't create the deficit, dipstick. Democrat welfare boondoggles caused it. Social Security and Medicare are the two biggest welfare boondoggles.

Bush/Republicans/wall street crashing the economy did more than everything you listed.

 

[Ernie S.]

So the rich should pay the same effective percentage in tax as the middle class?

In reality, less. Taxes should be based on services received.

Won't that be a tax hike for the middle class and poor, since they use more services than wealthy.

Do you pay for the non-government services you use?

 

[Ernie S.]

The wealthy got the biggest slice of the taxcuts that created the deficit and is still growing the national debt. Since those taxcuts were allegedly going to produce jobs that never materialized the wealthy have a backlog of taxes that they now owe.

Tax cuts didn't create the deficit, dipstick. Democrat welfare boondoggles caused it. Social Security and Medicare are the two biggest welfare boondoggles.

Bush/Republicans/wall street crashing the economy did more than everything you listed.

The economy was just fine until Reid/Pelosi took over Congress. Even then Barney Frank told us everything was just fine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People don't pay tax rates, they pay effective tax rates. For the rich, effective is less than yours.

Rich people pay higher effective rates than I do.

BS lol.

Show how I'm wrong. LOL!

 

[OnePercenter]

In reality, less. Taxes should be based on services received.

Won't that be a tax hike for the middle class and poor, since they use more services than wealthy.

Do you pay for the non-government services you use?

Yes, and I write them off.

 

[OnePercenter]

Tax cuts didn't create the deficit, dipstick. Democrat welfare boondoggles caused it. Social Security and Medicare are the two biggest welfare boondoggles.

Bush/Republicans/wall street crashing the economy did more than everything you listed.

The economy was just fine until Reid/Pelosi took over Congress. Even then Barney Frank told us everything was just fine.

Why don't you study fact and get back to us.

Meltdown 2008 Timeline

 

[OnePercenter]

Rich people pay higher effective rates than I do.

BS lol.

Show how I'm wrong. LOL!

I paid 3%. How about you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The real question: Should people making $1M/year pay the same effective tax rate as people making less than $1M?

Too bad those mean rich people pay a higher rate. Bastards!

This 'mean rich people' paid 3% effective last year. Good News! For 2013, I'll make 5M more and pay less effective! Pretty sweet deal!

Cool. What was your gross, AGI and taxes paid?

 

[Ernie S.]

Won't that be a tax hike for the middle class and poor, since they use more services than wealthy.

Do you pay for the non-government services you use?

Yes, and I write them off.

Your utilities, phone garbage service? If you're deducting all of them, why don't you PM me your name and SS# The reward from the IRS will be awesome.

 

[Ernie S.]

Bush/Republicans/wall street crashing the economy did more than everything you listed.

The economy was just fine until Reid/Pelosi took over Congress. Even then Barney Frank told us everything was just fine.

Why don't you study fact and get back to us.

Meltdown 2008 Timeline

Why isn't Reid/Pelosi Congress on your time line at January 2007?
A couple days ago, I posted graphs of GDP growth and unemployment. Both were in a positive trend from mid 05 through early 2007. The economy started it's dive some time later, then really tanked in late 08 around election day and got worse until January of 2011. Since then, there has been a slight improvement, but no bounce like we usually get coming out of a recession.

 

[OnePercenter]

Do you pay for the non-government services you use?

Yes, and I write them off.

Your utilities, phone garbage service? If you're deducting all of them, why don't you PM me your name and SS# The reward from the IRS will be awesome.

All are owned by a trust corporation thus perfectly legal under IRS rules.