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

[LeftofLeft]

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.

I will get behind "increase tax on the rich proposals" when liberals get behind across the board, responsible government spending cuts. The Left only wants to cut the military spending because they personally hate it. How about cutting funding for PBS? Taxpayers are directly funding an entity that can rival Disney for royalty profits. Or, in light of the profit centers coming out of Planned Parenthood selling limbs and brains as if they were hubcaps in an after market, why should the US taxpayer be directly subsidizing that?

 

[Arizona Willie]

Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class? Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
=============

Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).

Like OSHA
Like FDA
Like more highway maintenance
Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.

People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.

Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT

But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).

There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.

Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.

But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.

We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.

Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.

So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.

It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.

It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.

Follow the money.

ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY

The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.

Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?

ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE

They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".

 

[Dad2three]

[

Nah, Gov't POLICY didn't help the rich right Bubs? lol

rich people are rich because they are smarter, more industrious and network better than the whining losers who complain about the rich. No matter what the government, there are always rich, and there are alway scalded monkeys whining about them

Cool, YOU agreeing taxing the rich, like we did 1932-1980 will not hurt them BUT will help the US treasury. Thanks

 

[Dad2three]

Good YOU agree the other poster was full of shit when he said he increased rents when his costs increased.

LIKE ALL LANDLORDS, THERE IS A MARKET YOU WORK UNDER, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ACTUAL COSTS!

Every biz has both costs and market forces affecting the price for their product. You're just an angry jackass with nothing but your hate to offer here. I can see why one such as you would put Toddster on ignore.
Those who can't stand the heat...

Yep, I agree YOU are a dumbass Bubs, AND NO OWNER OF PROPERTY CAN JUST INCREASE RENTS BECAUSE OF HIS COSTS. Get honest ONCE. Oh yeah you are to busy suckin off the plutocrats!

When the lease runs out they will... and government isn't the answer. To many of you fascists are popping up. Our schools have become the enemy

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

lol, I forgot, the rules of supply and demand end when a lease ends *shaking head*



The enemy, like ALWAYS are the conservatives, they are NEVER on the correct side of history, EVER. Fucknn pukes!

Coming from you a guy who supports the party of slavery ? Lol that's rich

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Weird YOU want to conflate IDEOLOGY with party labels, even though they've switched several times the last 150 years? lol

Yeah, the CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa has ALWAYS had the liberal/progressive bent right? lol

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Agreed.

This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to. He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time. Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.

When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores. They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home. When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.

He does pretty well turning in junk. All cash, no paper trail. Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them. He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List. When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.

They are early with the rent every month by at least one week. They both drive new vehicles. Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion. You don't see younger people like that anymore.

Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.

They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible. That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.

And don't try to blame Republicans. People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades. Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents. Of course back then, people had pride. Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance. Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.

It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.

They are? Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare? It doesn't benefit them. But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?

I didn't think so.

Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.

For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.

This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.

Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.

Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.

California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.

Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04

"
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:

• $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.

• $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.

• $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.

• $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.

• $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.

• $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."

Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.

So let me get this straight: All of these people supposedly on all these welfare programs, but it's not the politicians fault that gave them these programs, it's Wal-Mart's fault?

People willingly accept Wal-Mart jobs because they failed to learn a trade, get an education, or otherwise get off of drugs so they can pass a drug test to get a good job, but it's not the workers fault, it's Wal-Marts fault?

These excuses are cut from the same cloth that says it's the guns fault for murders in this country.

You can't solve a problem by shifting blame. It will never happen. Do you really think that before Wal-Mart became so nationwide, there were no lower paying jobs in this country? There were always lower paying jobs. The difference between years ago and today is that there were no social programs to make up the difference. If you were stuck in a lower paying job, you got another job to supplement your income. When that still wasn't enough, you tried harder to advance yourself at work or otherwise leave for better opportunities. That doesn't happen today.

Do you want to see Wal-Mart pay better money? Do you want to see Wal-Mart begging people to work for them? Then get rid of these social programs. If you get rid of these programs, maybe, just maybe people will have to earn all of their money which would make them try harder. There are plenty of better paying jobs than Wal-Mart in this country. In my industry alone, they are hiring foreigners to come to work because Americans won't. They can't find enough employees to fill these positions.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Let's also come to a consensus on what the definition of "rich" is is. Joe Biden thought a plumbing subcontractor grossing $250K per year was rich. Talk to a plumbing subcontractor and see what they take home.

 

[Dad2three]

good riddance

Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.

SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!

From the article:
"It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."

Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.

MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y8VaqBpkx...AAvCA/i6Ic99EBV0w/s1600/120426-fair-share.gif

God little right winger, make sure to narrow down tax burden to INCOME taxes ONLY, lol

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.

They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible. That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.

And don't try to blame Republicans. People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades. Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents. Of course back then, people had pride. Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance. Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.

It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.

They are? Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare? It doesn't benefit them. But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?

I didn't think so.

Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.

For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.

This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.

Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.

Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.

California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.

Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04

"
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:

• $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.

• $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.

• $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.

• $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.

• $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.

• $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."

Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.

So let me get this straight: All of these people supposedly on all these welfare programs, but it's not the politicians fault that gave them these programs, it's Wal-Mart's fault?

People willingly accept Wal-Mart jobs because they failed to learn a trade, get an education, or otherwise get off of drugs so they can pass a drug test to get a good job, but it's not the workers fault, it's Wal-Marts fault?

These excuses are cut from the same cloth that says it's the guns fault for murders in this country.

You can't solve a problem by shifting blame. It will never happen. Do you really think that before Wal-Mart became so nationwide, there were no lower paying jobs in this country? There were always lower paying jobs. The difference between years ago and today is that there were no social programs to make up the difference. If you were stuck in a lower paying job, you got another job to supplement your income. When that still wasn't enough, you tried harder to advance yourself at work or otherwise leave for better opportunities. That doesn't happen today.

Do you want to see Wal-Mart pay better money? Do you want to see Wal-Mart begging people to work for them? Then get rid of these social programs. If you get rid of these programs, maybe, just maybe people will have to earn all of their money which would make them try harder. There are plenty of better paying jobs than Wal-Mart in this country. In my industry alone, they are hiring foreigners to come to work because Americans won't. They can't find enough employees to fill these positions.

I say it's Walmart who are pushing for this sort of thing. We all know the politicians are easily bought. I wonder how much Walmart pays to make sure sort of thing is allowed to happen.

But you want to get rid of these programs. How? Walmart paying the politicians to make sure this thing continues?

 

[Dad2three]

good riddance

Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.

SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!

From the article:
"It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."

Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.

MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ

The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes
Jane Wells | @janewells
Wednesday, 11 Dec 2013 | 11:56 AM ET

Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent...pay negative 9 percent.

You read that right. One group is paying more than 100 percent of individual income taxes, the other is paying less than zero.

It's right there in Table 3 on page 13 of the report. The numbers are based on 2010 IRS and Census Bureau figures.

(Read more: New budget deal will pass, says GOP congressman)

How does someone pay negative taxes? The CBO's formula offsets whatever taxes are paid with "refundable tax credits." Some of these are due to "government transfers" of money back to the taxpayer in the form of social security and food stamps.

That's not to say the rich are going broke. Hardly.

According to the CBO, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans saw before-tax income grow more than 16 percent from 2009 to 2010, which isn't such a surprise since the stock market was coming off the bottom. Most of the rest of the country only saw gross incomes grow about 1 percent. When it comes to federal taxes,the top bracket paid 69 percent of the total last year. The bottom bracket paid 0.4 percent.

Top 40% paying ALL income taxes, and leaving a tip

WEIRD you want to ONLY stick with INCOME tax burden, why??? lol


Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes

• Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5] In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.

• Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)

• Moreover, low-income households as a group do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which these data are available — not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are; the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007.[6] The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10.6 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.

• Moreover, even these figures greatly understatelow-income households’ total tax burden because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2011

When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent


Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Dad2three]

good riddance

Really? Those leaving not only can afford to do so, they represent the class of Americans who invest (creating jobs and growth) and spend on the kind of products and services that drive our economy. What is left behind - as happens when the same class abandons our dying cities and states - is an increasingly poor America in need of financial support but incapable of providing for not only our general welfare, but even their own.

SOURCE? Didn't think so dumbass!

From the article:
"It's believed that for many a combination of taxation and banking issues has made retaining US citizenship while living and working abroad undesirable."

Those leaving are productive peeps who don't want to be part of the 51% of American earners who shoulder the entire load for everyone else, Princess.

MORE dupes! The richest are paying 29% in ALL taxes and fees, the second quintile, 30%, the poorest 21%. You're totally full of bs propaganda. Your figure is for fed income tax only, now less than payroll tax. ZZZZ

Uh. Moron. The top 1% pays 29% of the taxes. The top 10% pays over 50%.

LIAR.


Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Dad2three]

Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts

I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980

50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!



THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!

stop whining that others should pay for your existence. the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.

Stop being a total dupe. see sig. Pander to the greedy idiot rich Reaganism is wrecking the nonrich and the country, dingbat dupe. see sig

Stop being a total whiny bitch. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.

Nah, Gov't POLICY didn't help the rich right Bubs? lol

There is only one way government policy can help the rich: GTF out of the way. That's it.

You mean like the past 35 years of Reaganomics? How'd that work for the bottom 90%?

 

[Dad2three]

Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?

Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.

Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol

Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride. They pay no actual income tax at all. How much more of a free ride do you want?

Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.

Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?

Taking on extra work to make ends meet is the free market. You are free to make as much money as you desire or need. In my younger days, I did it many times myself.

But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class? Would they see ten cents of that money government collected?

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, so if a owner of rental property has unexpected costs, as the poster implied, they can just up the rental priice? lol

Dumbass

NO STATE/FED GAS TAX FUNDS THE ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE EVEN 75%, HINT NOT ENOUGH REVENUES FROM THEM!

Every rational landlord either figures in some unexpected costs or will try to recoup current them in future rental rates and yeah, we are constrained by market forces (economic reality) but certainly figure our costs into our pricing. You are just an obtuse bitch but given your loony left POV on everything, I can see why. You're gonna give yourself that stroke.

Good YOU agree the other poster was full of shit when he said he increased rents when his costs increased.

LIKE ALL LANDLORDS, THERE IS A MARKET YOU WORK UNDER, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ACTUAL COSTS!

Every biz has both costs and market forces affecting the price for their product. You're just an angry jackass with nothing but your hate to offer here. I can see why one such as you would put Toddster on ignore.
Those who can't stand the heat...

Yep, I agree YOU are a dumbass Bubs, AND NO OWNER OF PROPERTY CAN JUST INCREASE RENTS BECAUSE OF HIS COSTS. Get honest ONCE. Oh yeah you are to busy suckin off the plutocrats!

Perhaps you are just used to the Democrat way. You know, keep running your industry at a loss until you lose everything. After all, that's what the Democrats are doing to our country.

Weird, amnesia of 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies and their effect on US?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray from Cleveland asked " But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class? Would they see ten cents of that money government collected? "
=============

Of course. You might not get CASH from the government --- but you would see improvements in government services. You know those places that Republicans complain don't do a good job ( after they have cut the agencies funding ).

Like OSHA
Like FDA
Like more highway maintenance
Like hiring more people to handle the years long backlog of LEGAL immigration requests.
Like keeping track of people who come on Visas to make sure they leave when the Visa is over.

People in the Scandinavian countries pay up to 50% of their income in taxes but they are HAPPY to do so because they receive so many benefits from government.

Contrary to the Republican mantra --- GOVERNMENT DOES MANY THINGS RIGHT

But Republicans don't like government doing most of those things.
Like inspecting the food plants the Republicans own.
Like inspecting work places to make sure you have a safe working environment.
Like enforcing wage and hour laws ( Republicans REALLY HATE THOSE ).

There are just so many areas where we need government but the Republicans want to do nothing but kill the government because it keeps them from raping the population the way they would like to.

Government regulations are anathema to Republicans who worship the wealthy.

But unregulated Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.

We have deregulated so much in the last 30 years and you can see the results.

Bridges falling down. Airport runways in poor condition ... not enough air traffic controllers ... jobs shipped overseas ... people working 50 - 80 hours a week and feeling too threatened over their jobs to take a vacation even though it is listed in the company HR manual.

So many people are feeling screwed and angry and they SHOULD BE but they are angry at the wrong people.

It isn't the union guy making more than you for the same job that is responsible for your pay --- IT IS YOUR EMPLOYER who is scrooing you.

It isn't the people getting public assistance that are screwing people over --- they are the ones who have been screwed the worst and lost their jobs.

Follow the money.

ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY

The people getting the money are the people who are screwing you and that is the wealthy REPUBLICANS.

Republicans are always claiming they will create more jobs but how many job related bills have they forwarded since the Republicans had a majority in both houses?

ZERO / NADA / NONE / NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE

They have not even caucused about any jobs bills or ANYTHING to help the middle class --- but they will pass another tax cut for the wealthy at the drop of a " campaign contribution ".

So what you're saying is that we should steal more money from the producers of our country so we can make government even bigger? I don't understand that. The leftist solution to everything is bigger government.

"The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."
Dennis Prager

Let me give you an example here. Perhaps this happened to you, or even somebody you know when you were younger.

You turn 18 years old. Now you are a legal adult. So you decide to have a party; a wild,wild party. Oh no you don't. You live with your parents. Everybody out of the house by 9:00pm.

Looking for more liberty, you decide to get an apartment. Now you are a legal adult with your own place to live. Now you can have your party. Well yes, you can, but with major limitations. You have neighbors to consider. They are on both sides of your walls and even below you on the next floor.

So now you move out of your apartment into your own house. Now you are the king of your castle. Now you can have your party, with limitations because of your next door neighbors, but with much more leeway than you had in your apartment.

The point is, the less you rely on others for your way in life, the more freedom you have. That's why relying on government for everything is servitude. Who has more liberty in life, a welfare queen that relies on government in regards to how much she can eat, where she gets medical care from, where she lives, or a well to do person who decides what to eat, when to eat, what conveniences they have, and what kind of medical care to get?

I won't surrender freedom for the convenience of not having to rely on myself.

 

[Dad2three]

True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol

That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts. Or haven't you heard of such a thing?

When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.

REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???

Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours. So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates. There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.

Good YOU agree, YOU are full of shit that rental costs are based on your costs. Dumbass, admit you fukked up!

I didn't F up. I know how to read. What I said was that rental prices are based on several things but operational costs set the base price because everybody in that business has to pay those base prices.

From that point, each property owner must adjust their price (upwards or downwards) to make the business run. If the owner of the rental property next door is charging the same amount of rent that I am, but he has a family of five and my unit has one individual occupying the unit, he loses money when he pays his water and sewer bills. He must charge more (or take a big loss) to make the same profit as I do.

GOOD DODGE BUBS, What you ACTUALLY said, IS if your costs go up, you increase rents

HINT THE RULE OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND DON'T APPLY IN YOUR WORLD? lol

Hint PROFITS aren't the same on rentals (cost basis dummy!!)...

 

[Dad2three]

Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?

Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.

Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol

Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride. They pay no actual income tax at all. How much more of a free ride do you want?

Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.

Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?

Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.

Weird, I thought Dubya.GOP policy like cutting taxes was going to boom the economy and create jobs EVERYWHERE? WHAT HAPPENED?

Why do those "job creators" still have the lowest sustained tax burden since 1932 IF they don't create JOBS Bubs?


Stick with your low informed leech meme Bubs, it's ALL you have

 

[Dad2three]

Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts

I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980

50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!



THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!

stop whining that others should pay for your existence. the rich get NOTHING extra from the government that you don't get. Stop being a parasite and a child.

Stop being a total dupe. see sig. Pander to the greedy idiot rich Reaganism is wrecking the nonrich and the country, dingbat dupe. see sig

Stop being a total whiny bitch. The poor are not poor because the rich are rich, just as the rich are not rich because some of us are poor. What you have is just a nasty case of jealousy. Grow the f%$k up.

Nah, Gov't POLICY didn't help the rich right Bubs? lol

Yeah, gov't policy does absolutely nothing for the poor.

You mean AS the right wing attacks Gov't policy that helps the poor?

 

[Dad2three]

Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride. They pay no actual income tax at all. How much more of a free ride do you want?

Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.

Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?

Taking on extra work to make ends meet is the free market. You are free to make as much money as you desire or need. In my younger days, I did it many times myself.

But if we taxed all the rich at 80%, how does that help the working middle-class? Would they see ten cents of that money government collected?

Who said anything about 80%, fool? Training, education, infrastructure- all ruined by Reaganists over 30 years. See sig for worst inequality ever, dipstick. Change the gd channel, perfect chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP.

Loony leftist BS.
Over 1/3 of NY kids don't finish high school. HIGH SCHOOL!
It's free.
It doesn't cost 'em a dime yet they don't care enough about themselves, their communities or America to even make the effort.
I did not work nor do I expect ANYONE to work to support those who refuse - by their actons - to make the effort.

Dumbass righties. THINK. WHY?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts. Or haven't you heard of such a thing?

When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.

REALLY? Since WHEN can Biz just DECIDE to increase their prices BECAUSE their costs increase? Here I thoiught there was this supply/demand thing???

Because when costs go up, it generally increases on the entire industry, not just yours. So when costs go up, everybody increases their rates. There may be slight adjustments for your particular situation, but the major costs affect everybody.

Good YOU agree, YOU are full of shit that rental costs are based on your costs. Dumbass, admit you fukked up!

I didn't F up. I know how to read. What I said was that rental prices are based on several things but operational costs set the base price because everybody in that business has to pay those base prices.

From that point, each property owner must adjust their price (upwards or downwards) to make the business run. If the owner of the rental property next door is charging the same amount of rent that I am, but he has a family of five and my unit has one individual occupying the unit, he loses money when he pays his water and sewer bills. He must charge more (or take a big loss) to make the same profit as I do.

GOOD DODGE BUBS, What you ACTUALLY said, IS if your costs go up, you increase rents

HINT THE RULE OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND DON'T APPLY IN YOUR WORLD? lol

Hint PROFITS aren't the same on rentals (cost basis dummy!!)...

What did I just write? Did you read my scenario with the neighbor that has many tenants and the water bill? Yes, when costs go up, your rental prices must go up. That's not only the case for apartments, it's that way with rental cars, rental party equipment, tool rental. Nobody has a business to lose money or not get ahead.

 

[Dad2three]

Yep, the US tax code is BARELY progressive, and thos taxes the "wealthy" pay are MUCH smaller percentage of their incomes than the poor, why do you think you right wingers created the meme on INCOME taxes at the federal level about the poor getting a free ride? lol

Because the poor and even middle-class do get a free ride. They pay no actual income tax at all. How much more of a free ride do you want?

Actually, the free ride is limited to those earning less than $35,000/yr meaning the middle class - those making over $35,000 - do indeed help pull the train. I may have told you the source of my irritation with the current tax structure:
A long time friend - single mom with some college & 2 kids - works as much o-time as necessary to provide the kids with the little extras (hockey, dance) most of us want for our children. When o-time wasn't available she would take a 2nd job. She drove herself to have a life - nurturing, providing for & teaching her children, maintaining strong family & friend ties and working out daily - often at the cost of sleep.
She neither sought nor accepted gov't aid and always earned a bit more than the free-riders so that this hard-working, responsible mom annually paid at least some federal personal income tax which our gov't, in all its "wisdom and justice," used to supplement the income of those who couldn't or wouldn't match her effort.
She never expects or demands that society ("the rich") provide for her and hers ... she does what is necessary to be self-sufficient.

Weird, you'd think the "free market" would pay enough to live on AND be able to pay income taxes, why has the "free market" failed on this end the past 35 years AS Gov't policy has shifted the tax burden off the richest?

Yeah .. it can't possibly be that the non-contributors to our federal tax burden are just unwilling to make the effort. My friend has proven that thanks to the OPPORTUNITIES available to us ambition, pride, determination and grit can be enough to provide for ones family in America. Perhaps you hand-wringing Chicken Littles should stop playing Mommy to those who rather than make the effort are a drag on America. Frankly, she (and all who do produce) has paid a terrible price for our leech class.

Agreed.

This discussion reminds me of a couple I rent an apartment to. He works full time plus, and in spite of many illnesses, she works part-time. Neither make any real money; no skills, no education, no trade.

When he gets home from work, he quickly helps her load her car for her office cleaning chores. They both head out to clean offices until 7:30 pm when they return home. When she doesn't need his help, he runs around town collecting scrap metal which he turns in to the scrap yard during his lunch time at his full-time job.

He does pretty well turning in junk. All cash, no paper trail. Because he knows the people so well at the scrap yard, they save him bicycles that he buys from them. He fixes them up and sells them on Craigs List. When he's not doing that, he refinishes furniture he picked up out of the garbage and sells that too.

They are early with the rent every month by at least one week. They both drive new vehicles. Yes, they still have to watch their money, but they are the quintessential of real Americans in my opinion. You don't see younger people like that anymore.

PERFECT example of what the right wing WANTS the US to look like AGAIN



Poor people working 7 days a week for very little money