Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Dad2three]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

Well... You are wrong. Most wealthy people are not selfish and do care about others. You've been sold a myth and you believe it because it's easy to envy someone who has more than you. Chances are, you're not a Christian and you don't understand this violates one of the Ten Commandments. So we can say "good and righteous people" don't covet the possessions of their neighbors.

To me, it is extremely "selfish" to want to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't... and think that is "righteous!" It's "selfish" to try and punish an entire class of people based on a stereotype because you envy what they have and don't think they deserve it.

Rich people, for the most part, are capitalists who have prospered in a free market capitalist system... I know you view this as a problem but free market capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Yes, this creates a natural disparity of wealth as time goes by because rich people tend to know how to generate wealth faster than poor people. It's how they got to be rich.

Greed and selfishness have no place in free market capitalism. What a greedy and selfish capitalist discovers is that there is always a less greedy and selfish competitor in a free market system, who is more than willing to take their business. Of course, there are some exceptions... Crony corporatists are capitalists who exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over their competition... so there are some greedy and selfish capitalists but they aren't "free market" capitalists. Greed and selfishness doesn't fly in a free market system.

Now... Let's talk about taxes... Rich people don't pay much income tax because they don't earn much taxable income. One great thing about being wealthy is, you don't have to earn income anymore... you have plenty of wealth. You foolishly think that the upper income tax bracket is "rich people" and it's really not. It's mostly small businesses filing as individuals as almost every small business in America does. These people are not "rich" by any stretch... they are trying to become rich. So your policies actually punish those who are trying to move up from middle class... not the rich.

GAWD YOU ARE FUKKNN MORON. INCOME TAXES INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS DUMMY. TO BE IN THE TOP 2% OF US INCOME, YOU NEED TO HAVE A AGI OF $250,000+ PER FAMILY. NOT WEALTHY? lol

Hint EFFECTIVE TAX RATES

You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Capital gains and investment dividends are not taxed at income tax rates. It is reported as income but taxed at a much lower rate in order that we might create incentive for investment. If you want to jack those rates up you will essentially kill capital investment in the US.

When Reagan reduced the top marginal income tax rate it spurred 30 years of economic growth and prosperity... the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. It did not do this because it gave rich people more money in their pockets. It encouraged rich people to earn incomes again. If you raise the rates back up, they will do what the did before and stop earning income. You will effectively kill most small businesses who file as individuals and may very well have over $250k of reported income, but they are businesses with operating costs and overhead, supplying jobs to most of America. These are NOT "rich people!"

Now, I have no idea why you want to post some idiocy about the Bible where it says the thing about a rich person getting into heaven, but the fact that you don't seem to have any more theological sense than you have economic or common sense, is all we need to consider. You're a world class idiot on all fronts. The passage is Jesus explaining why it's better to be a good Christian than a rich man.. well, you're not a Christian so it simply doesn't apply to you. He is not saying that rich people don't go to heaven. He is saying that just "being rich" is as unlikely to get you into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. I suspect the chances of an Atheist Liberal are considerably less.

Listen DUMBSHIT, AGI IS AFTER DEDUCTING OPERATING COSTS AND EXPENSES. Grow a fukkn brain


Yes, Ayn Rand over Jesus's teachings in right wing 'Christianity" lol

 

[Dad2three]

Once again you have done NOTHING but VOMIT all over the forum.
You DID NOT disprove my statement that it is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when you register to vote using the Federal Voter Registration form

This is a shame because I was under the impression you were a liberal with a brain. I thought we were going to be friends but obviously I was very very wrong.

My bad.

And now you're on the ignore list.

==================

Yes, YOU LIED Bubs


IT ASKS IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN WHEN YOU SIGN UP TO VOTE!

Everything else you posit is just MORE right wing noise devoid of CONTEXT or credibility. Weird right?

GOP's war on voting continues though Bubs



Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo)




Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.

"Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."





The GOP War on Voting


In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting

The GOP War on Voting | Rolling Stone


Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP’s War on Voting

You may have been voting in the same polling place for longer than your state legislators have been alive, only to find yourself disenfranchised as a result of new restrictive voting laws passed by Republicans as a “solution” to the non-existent problem of voter identification fraud.

It happened to 92-year-old Ruby Barber and 84-year-old Dorothy Card in Texas. In Tennessee, 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper and 93-year-old Thelma Mitchell — who had cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years — faced similar problems, as did 86-year-old World War II vet Paul Caroll in Ohio, 97-year-old Beth Hiller in Kansas and a 92-year-old Alabama woman who was too embarrassed by the incident to reveal her name to the media. Even 90-year-old former Speaker of the House Jim Wright had to jump through a number of hoops to get a suitable ID from the Texas Department of Public Safety.


Another Elderly Woman Gets Caught in GOP's War on Voting | BillMoyers.com

What a dumbfukk you are Bubs, it asks ON THE GAWDDAM FORM IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN DUMMY!

ANOTHER worthless CONservative who can't EVER be honest, it's like an affliction to like 80% of the GOP party!

And nobody cheats on their taxes. It says right on that GAWDDAM TAX FORM THAT YOU ARE SIGNING AND CERTIFYING ALL INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND ACCURATE.
So whats your problem with taxes, everyone pays exactly what they are supposed to. THEY SIGN AND SAY ITS ACCURATE
Frikken helmet wearing short bus riding retard. Must have been lead on those bus windows, you evidently ingested it somewhere.

Good Bubba, YOU agree they CAN AND DO ASK IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN. Thanks for agreeing with me, tell the dumbass about it though Bubs


AGAIN, GOP's voter restriction AKA voter ID laws, are a solution when there ISN'T a problem!

You really are not very bright are you butt chunk.

Your projection noted Bubs

 

[Boss]

Wait, cap investment MUST be taxed at lower rates? WHY DID RONNIE UP IT TO THE SAME RATE AS ORDINARY INCOME BUBS?

I have no idea since he spent most of his political career pushing for eliminating capital gains taxation.

 

[Dad2three]

Wait, cap investment MUST be taxed at lower rates? WHY DID RONNIE UP IT TO THE SAME RATE AS ORDINARY INCOME BUBS?

I have no idea since he spent most of his political career pushing for eliminating capital gains taxation.

Yet he increased it weird. Of course you'll, like usual, ignore the posts that DEMOLISHED your right wing talking points!



FLASHBACK: Reagan Raised Capital Gains Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time


FLASHBACK: Reagan Raised Capital Gains Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time

 

[Boss]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

Well... You are wrong. Most wealthy people are not selfish and do care about others. You've been sold a myth and you believe it because it's easy to envy someone who has more than you. Chances are, you're not a Christian and you don't understand this violates one of the Ten Commandments. So we can say "good and righteous people" don't covet the possessions of their neighbors.

To me, it is extremely "selfish" to want to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't... and think that is "righteous!" It's "selfish" to try and punish an entire class of people based on a stereotype because you envy what they have and don't think they deserve it.

Rich people, for the most part, are capitalists who have prospered in a free market capitalist system... I know you view this as a problem but free market capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Yes, this creates a natural disparity of wealth as time goes by because rich people tend to know how to generate wealth faster than poor people. It's how they got to be rich.

Greed and selfishness have no place in free market capitalism. What a greedy and selfish capitalist discovers is that there is always a less greedy and selfish competitor in a free market system, who is more than willing to take their business. Of course, there are some exceptions... Crony corporatists are capitalists who exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over their competition... so there are some greedy and selfish capitalists but they aren't "free market" capitalists. Greed and selfishness doesn't fly in a free market system.

Now... Let's talk about taxes... Rich people don't pay much income tax because they don't earn much taxable income. One great thing about being wealthy is, you don't have to earn income anymore... you have plenty of wealth. You foolishly think that the upper income tax bracket is "rich people" and it's really not. It's mostly small businesses filing as individuals as almost every small business in America does. These people are not "rich" by any stretch... they are trying to become rich. So your policies actually punish those who are trying to move up from middle class... not the rich.

GAWD YOU ARE FUKKNN MORON. INCOME TAXES INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS DUMMY. TO BE IN THE TOP 2% OF US INCOME, YOU NEED TO HAVE A AGI OF $250,000+ PER FAMILY. NOT WEALTHY? lol

Hint EFFECTIVE TAX RATES

You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Capital gains and investment dividends are not taxed at income tax rates. It is reported as income but taxed at a much lower rate in order that we might create incentive for investment. If you want to jack those rates up you will essentially kill capital investment in the US.

When Reagan reduced the top marginal income tax rate it spurred 30 years of economic growth and prosperity... the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. It did not do this because it gave rich people more money in their pockets. It encouraged rich people to earn incomes again. If you raise the rates back up, they will do what the did before and stop earning income. You will effectively kill most small businesses who file as individuals and may very well have over $250k of reported income, but they are businesses with operating costs and overhead, supplying jobs to most of America. These are NOT "rich people!"

Now, I have no idea why you want to post some idiocy about the Bible where it says the thing about a rich person getting into heaven, but the fact that you don't seem to have any more theological sense than you have economic or common sense, is all we need to consider. You're a world class idiot on all fronts. The passage is Jesus explaining why it's better to be a good Christian than a rich man.. well, you're not a Christian so it simply doesn't apply to you. He is not saying that rich people don't go to heaven. He is saying that just "being rich" is as unlikely to get you into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. I suspect the chances of an Atheist Liberal are considerably less.

Listen you dumbfukk, REAGANOMICS SPURRED CRAP. 30 YEARS? LOL

Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics

Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work

When President Bill Clinton,raised taxes that same year did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? The data says no.



Investment growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Productivity growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Overall economic growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Employment growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Income growth for middle-class households was lackluster under supply-side policies

Hourly earnings were flat or declined under supply-side policies

Our nation’s fiscal health deteriorated under supply-side policies
Some of the more dedicated supply-side devotees go so far as to argue that tax cuts for the rich will result in so much additional economic activity that they will actually increase government revenues, thereby “paying for themselves,” and have no negative impact on the bottom line. This assertion, as with the others, is not supported in the data. Not only did government revenues fall during the supply-side era, but the bottom line deteriorated noticeably, too. Publicly held debt rose during both supply-side eras, and fell substantially during the higher-tax period. (see Figure 7)

Conclusion


Did the supply side policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush work? Did they boost investment, spur growth, and cause prosperity to trickle down? The data says no. And when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? Again, the data says no.

This data does not mean that higher taxes are always better and lower taxes are always worse for the economy. That would be making the same mistake that many supply-siders make, but in reverse. Indeed, there were obviously other forces at work in our economy besides tax policies over this 30-year period. But it does mean that lower taxes aren’t always the answer, aren’t a magical economic cure, and that higher taxes can coexist with, and perhaps even aid, a strong economy.

The Failure of Supply-Side Economics

What is all this "supply side era" bullshit? In 1988, as soon as Bush Sr. took over, he began to undo Reagan's economic policies. Under Reagan policies, we had more consecutive quarters of economic growth than any peacetime period in US history... that's a FACT.

It is regrettable that you have been brainwashed by Socialists who are good at manipulating statistics and making misleading graphics. But then, you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

[Boss]

Wait, cap investment MUST be taxed at lower rates? WHY DID RONNIE UP IT TO THE SAME RATE AS ORDINARY INCOME BUBS?

I have no idea since he spent most of his political career pushing for eliminating capital gains taxation.

Yet he increased it weird. Of course you'll, like usual, ignore the posts that DEMOLISHED your right wing talking points!



FLASHBACK: Reagan Raised Capital Gains Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time


FLASHBACK: Reagan Raised Capital Gains Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time

thinkprogress.org? ...REALLY?

 

[Dad2three]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

Well... You are wrong. Most wealthy people are not selfish and do care about others. You've been sold a myth and you believe it because it's easy to envy someone who has more than you. Chances are, you're not a Christian and you don't understand this violates one of the Ten Commandments. So we can say "good and righteous people" don't covet the possessions of their neighbors.

To me, it is extremely "selfish" to want to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't... and think that is "righteous!" It's "selfish" to try and punish an entire class of people based on a stereotype because you envy what they have and don't think they deserve it.

Rich people, for the most part, are capitalists who have prospered in a free market capitalist system... I know you view this as a problem but free market capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Yes, this creates a natural disparity of wealth as time goes by because rich people tend to know how to generate wealth faster than poor people. It's how they got to be rich.

Greed and selfishness have no place in free market capitalism. What a greedy and selfish capitalist discovers is that there is always a less greedy and selfish competitor in a free market system, who is more than willing to take their business. Of course, there are some exceptions... Crony corporatists are capitalists who exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over their competition... so there are some greedy and selfish capitalists but they aren't "free market" capitalists. Greed and selfishness doesn't fly in a free market system.

Now... Let's talk about taxes... Rich people don't pay much income tax because they don't earn much taxable income. One great thing about being wealthy is, you don't have to earn income anymore... you have plenty of wealth. You foolishly think that the upper income tax bracket is "rich people" and it's really not. It's mostly small businesses filing as individuals as almost every small business in America does. These people are not "rich" by any stretch... they are trying to become rich. So your policies actually punish those who are trying to move up from middle class... not the rich.

GAWD YOU ARE FUKKNN MORON. INCOME TAXES INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS DUMMY. TO BE IN THE TOP 2% OF US INCOME, YOU NEED TO HAVE A AGI OF $250,000+ PER FAMILY. NOT WEALTHY? lol

Hint EFFECTIVE TAX RATES

You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Capital gains and investment dividends are not taxed at income tax rates. It is reported as income but taxed at a much lower rate in order that we might create incentive for investment. If you want to jack those rates up you will essentially kill capital investment in the US.

When Reagan reduced the top marginal income tax rate it spurred 30 years of economic growth and prosperity... the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. It did not do this because it gave rich people more money in their pockets. It encouraged rich people to earn incomes again. If you raise the rates back up, they will do what the did before and stop earning income. You will effectively kill most small businesses who file as individuals and may very well have over $250k of reported income, but they are businesses with operating costs and overhead, supplying jobs to most of America. These are NOT "rich people!"

Now, I have no idea why you want to post some idiocy about the Bible where it says the thing about a rich person getting into heaven, but the fact that you don't seem to have any more theological sense than you have economic or common sense, is all we need to consider. You're a world class idiot on all fronts. The passage is Jesus explaining why it's better to be a good Christian than a rich man.. well, you're not a Christian so it simply doesn't apply to you. He is not saying that rich people don't go to heaven. He is saying that just "being rich" is as unlikely to get you into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. I suspect the chances of an Atheist Liberal are considerably less.

Listen you dumbfukk, REAGANOMICS SPURRED CRAP. 30 YEARS? LOL

Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics

Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work

When President Bill Clinton,raised taxes that same year did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? The data says no.



Investment growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Productivity growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Overall economic growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Employment growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Income growth for middle-class households was lackluster under supply-side policies

Hourly earnings were flat or declined under supply-side policies

Our nation’s fiscal health deteriorated under supply-side policies
Some of the more dedicated supply-side devotees go so far as to argue that tax cuts for the rich will result in so much additional economic activity that they will actually increase government revenues, thereby “paying for themselves,” and have no negative impact on the bottom line. This assertion, as with the others, is not supported in the data. Not only did government revenues fall during the supply-side era, but the bottom line deteriorated noticeably, too. Publicly held debt rose during both supply-side eras, and fell substantially during the higher-tax period. (see Figure 7)

Conclusion


Did the supply side policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush work? Did they boost investment, spur growth, and cause prosperity to trickle down? The data says no. And when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? Again, the data says no.

This data does not mean that higher taxes are always better and lower taxes are always worse for the economy. That would be making the same mistake that many supply-siders make, but in reverse. Indeed, there were obviously other forces at work in our economy besides tax policies over this 30-year period. But it does mean that lower taxes aren’t always the answer, aren’t a magical economic cure, and that higher taxes can coexist with, and perhaps even aid, a strong economy.

The Failure of Supply-Side Economics

What is all this "supply side era" bullshit? In 1988, as soon as Bush Sr. took over, he began to undo Reagan's economic policies. Under Reagan policies, we had more consecutive quarters of economic growth than any peacetime period in US history... that's a FACT.

It is regrettable that you have been brainwashed by Socialists who are good at manipulating statistics and making misleading graphics. But then, you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

LOL, TO FUNNY BUBS, REAGAN CUTS TAX RATES, PROMISING EXPLOSIVE GROWTH, AND TAKES US INTO A RECESSION INSTEAD. WEIRD RIGHT?


Hint CLINTON was #1 in CONSECUTIVE quarters of growth

followed by JFK

THEN Ronnie

ACCORDING TO RIGHT WING NEWSBUSTERS BUBBA? ANY OTHER FANTASIES YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT?


AP Fantasy: U.S. Economic Growth Has Been 'Really Durable'


Hint Bush "took over" in 1989 Bubs AND didn't increase taxes UNTIL 1991 tax year, by 3% at the top rate? LOL



PLEASE tell me more of Ronnie's "economic policies" like ignoring the warnings from Mr Gray, the regulator of S&L that started in 1984 on Ronnie's "hands off approach'??? lol you know the economy poppy inherited???

 

[Dad2three]

Wait, cap investment MUST be taxed at lower rates? WHY DID RONNIE UP IT TO THE SAME RATE AS ORDINARY INCOME BUBS?

I have no idea since he spent most of his political career pushing for eliminating capital gains taxation.

Yet he increased it weird. Of course you'll, like usual, ignore the posts that DEMOLISHED your right wing talking points!



FLASHBACK: Reagan Raised Capital Gains Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time


FLASHBACK: Reagan Raised Capital Gains Taxes To The Same Level As Wage Taxes For First Time

thinkprogress.org? ...REALLY?

So NO you can't refute FACTS that Ronnie increased the capital gains tax rate to 28%, same as earned wages! How the fuk could the economy work? Hell Ronnie had a TOP rate of 50% the first 6 years Bubba, how could the economy function at those levels? lol

 

[Boss]

So NO you can't refute FACTS that Ronnie increased the capital gains tax rate to 28%, same as earned wages! How the fuk could the economy work? Hell Ronnie had a TOP rate of 50% the first 6 years Bubba, how could the economy function at those levels? lol

Economy functions regardless of policy... idiot.

Yes, Reagan signed the bill presented to him by a Democrat Congress where he agreed to increase the cap gains tax rate from 20% to 28% temporarily. His reasoning was, it was better to compromise here in order to reduce the top marginal income tax rates from 50% to 28%. He didn't LIKE it... it wasn't what HE wanted to do... he had to work with the Congress he was dealt, which was controlled by the opposing party.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

 

[Boss]

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

But we don't tax wealth in America.

 

[hadit]

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

But we don't tax wealth in America.

We do, just not at the federal level. I pay property taxes every year for the privilege of "owning" a house and a car. The more valuable the house and car, the higher the taxes.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

But we don't tax wealth in America.

income is a form of wealth.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.

fair is a social concept not a capital concept. cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.

fair is a social concept not a capital concept. cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.

Compelling argument that would indicate they should pay a higher percentage?
even at the same percentage they do pay a greater amount.
what's needed is for everyone to contribute something.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.

fair is a social concept not a capital concept. cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.

Compelling argument that would indicate they should pay a higher percentage?
even at the same percentage they do pay a greater amount.
what's needed is for everyone to contribute something.

everyone does contribute something at the State and local level.

 

[dcraelin]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

Well... You are wrong. Most wealthy people are not selfish and do care about others. You've been sold a myth and you believe it because it's easy to envy someone who has more than you. Chances are, you're not a Christian and you don't understand this violates one of the Ten Commandments. So we can say "good and righteous people" don't covet the possessions of their neighbors.

To me, it is extremely "selfish" to want to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn't... and think that is "righteous!" It's "selfish" to try and punish an entire class of people based on a stereotype because you envy what they have and don't think they deserve it.

Rich people, for the most part, are capitalists who have prospered in a free market capitalist system... I know you view this as a problem but free market capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Yes, this creates a natural disparity of wealth as time goes by because rich people tend to know how to generate wealth faster than poor people. It's how they got to be rich.

Greed and selfishness have no place in free market capitalism. What a greedy and selfish capitalist discovers is that there is always a less greedy and selfish competitor in a free market system, who is more than willing to take their business. Of course, there are some exceptions... Crony corporatists are capitalists who exploit the power of government to leverage an advantage over their competition... so there are some greedy and selfish capitalists but they aren't "free market" capitalists. Greed and selfishness doesn't fly in a free market system.

Now... Let's talk about taxes... Rich people don't pay much income tax because they don't earn much taxable income. One great thing about being wealthy is, you don't have to earn income anymore... you have plenty of wealth. You foolishly think that the upper income tax bracket is "rich people" and it's really not. It's mostly small businesses filing as individuals as almost every small business in America does. These people are not "rich" by any stretch... they are trying to become rich. So your policies actually punish those who are trying to move up from middle class... not the rich.

GAWD YOU ARE FUKKNN MORON. INCOME TAXES INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS DUMMY. TO BE IN THE TOP 2% OF US INCOME, YOU NEED TO HAVE A AGI OF $250,000+ PER FAMILY. NOT WEALTHY? lol

Hint EFFECTIVE TAX RATES

You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Capital gains and investment dividends are not taxed at income tax rates. It is reported as income but taxed at a much lower rate in order that we might create incentive for investment. If you want to jack those rates up you will essentially kill capital investment in the US.

When Reagan reduced the top marginal income tax rate it spurred 30 years of economic growth and prosperity... the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. It did not do this because it gave rich people more money in their pockets. It encouraged rich people to earn incomes again. If you raise the rates back up, they will do what the did before and stop earning income. You will effectively kill most small businesses who file as individuals and may very well have over $250k of reported income, but they are businesses with operating costs and overhead, supplying jobs to most of America. These are NOT "rich people!"

Now, I have no idea why you want to post some idiocy about the Bible where it says the thing about a rich person getting into heaven, but the fact that you don't seem to have any more theological sense than you have economic or common sense, is all we need to consider. You're a world class idiot on all fronts. The passage is Jesus explaining why it's better to be a good Christian than a rich man.. well, you're not a Christian so it simply doesn't apply to you. He is not saying that rich people don't go to heaven. He is saying that just "being rich" is as unlikely to get you into heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. I suspect the chances of an Atheist Liberal are considerably less.

Listen you dumbfukk, REAGANOMICS SPURRED CRAP. 30 YEARS? LOL

Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics

Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work

When President Bill Clinton,raised taxes that same year did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? The data says no.



Investment growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Productivity growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Overall economic growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Employment growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Income growth for middle-class households was lackluster under supply-side policies

Hourly earnings were flat or declined under supply-side policies

Our nation’s fiscal health deteriorated under supply-side policies
Some of the more dedicated supply-side devotees go so far as to argue that tax cuts for the rich will result in so much additional economic activity that they will actually increase government revenues, thereby “paying for themselves,” and have no negative impact on the bottom line. This assertion, as with the others, is not supported in the data. Not only did government revenues fall during the supply-side era, but the bottom line deteriorated noticeably, too. Publicly held debt rose during both supply-side eras, and fell substantially during the higher-tax period. (see Figure 7)

Conclusion


Did the supply side policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush work? Did they boost investment, spur growth, and cause prosperity to trickle down? The data says no. And when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? Again, the data says no.

This data does not mean that higher taxes are always better and lower taxes are always worse for the economy. That would be making the same mistake that many supply-siders make, but in reverse. Indeed, there were obviously other forces at work in our economy besides tax policies over this 30-year period. But it does mean that lower taxes aren’t always the answer, aren’t a magical economic cure, and that higher taxes can coexist with, and perhaps even aid, a strong economy.

The Failure of Supply-Side Economics

What is all this "supply side era" bullshit? In 1988, as soon as Bush Sr. took over, he began to undo Reagan's economic policies. Under Reagan policies, we had more consecutive quarters of economic growth than any peacetime period in US history... that's a FACT.

It is regrettable that you have been brainwashed by Socialists who are good at manipulating statistics and making misleading graphics. But then, you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

When the government borrows a lot of money, just as when individuals do.....things look rosy for a while.....until the bill comes due. .....that the economy grew during Reagan's years isnt surprising......but proves nothing....it was unsustainable growth, kinda like what China has seen in the last few years.

now, Reagan's so called tax-cuts were more revenue neutral than supply-sider, laughter curve aficionados like to admit. He did some good things in stopping up loopholes like excessive use of tax-exempt bonds. That is one thing we need to do again, as it was undone by Bush.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.

fair is a social concept not a capital concept. cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.

Compelling argument that would indicate they should pay a higher percentage?
even at the same percentage they do pay a greater amount.
what's needed is for everyone to contribute something.

everyone does contribute something at the State and local level.

Not those that totally live off of welfare, but still, the federal tax is the major drain on ones pay check. So everyone should contribute an equal percentage of their income to satisfy the debt. Tax revenue should be based on the total dollars traded.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, the wealthiest should pay taxes according to worth under Any form of capitalism.

Those talking about paying a fair share don't agree with you.
if a rich guy pays 1,000,000 in tax a year, yet I only paid roughly 30k, then to be fair either my tax has to increase by 999,970.00 or his would have to decrease by an equal amount.
Really makes no difference what you make, there is a bill due and every citizen owes an equal part of that bill.

fair is a social concept not a capital concept. cost is a capital concept; why shouldn't our wealthiest pay the finest tax rates in the world.

Compelling argument that would indicate they should pay a higher percentage?
even at the same percentage they do pay a greater amount.
what's needed is for everyone to contribute something.

everyone does contribute something at the State and local level.

Not those that totally live off of welfare, but still, the federal tax is the major drain on ones pay check. So everyone should contribute an equal percentage of their income to satisfy the debt. Tax revenue should be based on the total dollars traded.

who doesn't pay consumption taxes regardless of income?

why not end our war on drugs.