What should the wealthy do? Libs How should they be sharing there wealth?

[Skull Pilot]

When the plutocrats that run this country get tired of the current tax structure, maybe they will change it (income tax) to suit you skull. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
If you were ultra rich and a plutocrat skull, why would you support an overhaul of the tax system? I mean, the real rich folk have worked long and hard and spent considerable money on lobbyists to get the tax treatment they have. Why change it?

A flat tax of 10% would lower the tax rate on everyone with an income above $8925 a year.

Those with an income below that would be in the same tax bracket as they are now.

That's enough reason to change it.

So, hows come the ultra wealthy are not demanding this wonderful flat tax of 10%?
They evidently would have the most to gain. But I don't hear of the Buffets and the Jamie Diamonds of the world calling for such changes. Why?

Why is Buffett calling for tax raises? Surely that cannot benefit him.

 

[Brain357]

If I own a private jet I do not get to deduct anything on it.
But if a company owns one they do if they use it for business use only.
Something about the tax code which is the law and not the distorted biased anti capitalist rhetoric someone told you out of a bullhorn at your last socialist raly.
End the income tax and corporate tax silliness and go to a fair tax and NO ONE can write off any jets anywhere. Will not have to play the games.
How come your team loves this tax code so much and will not end it?

There are ways to get around the business use only. I know some people who own a very large business and have a company jet. They bought a small completely unrelated business right near the summer home. This small business is owned by the larger business. They use the corporate jet to go to this summer home all the time. I'm guessing for tax purposes they are "working" at the other small business when they do that. It's about a 6 hour drive.

So why don't you start a business and take advantage of the tax code?

Who said I don't?

 

[zeke]

A flat tax of 10% would lower the tax rate on everyone with an income above $8925 a year.

Those with an income below that would be in the same tax bracket as they are now.

That's enough reason to change it.

So then the poor will be worse off. To fix this we'll end up with some expensive government program to help them. Great!

They won't be worse off they will see no change.

And what happens in a consumer based economy when people have more money?

You want to eliminate the Earned Income Credit that benefits the low wage earner the most.

But you claim the low wage earner would see no change. How could that be?

 

[Skull Pilot]

There are ways to get around the business use only. I know some people who own a very large business and have a company jet. They bought a small completely unrelated business right near the summer home. This small business is owned by the larger business. They use the corporate jet to go to this summer home all the time. I'm guessing for tax purposes they are "working" at the other small business when they do that. It's about a 6 hour drive.

So why don't you start a business and take advantage of the tax code?

Who said I don't?

You whine too much.

 

[Gadawg73]

There are ways to get around the business use only. I know some people who own a very large business and have a company jet. They bought a small completely unrelated business right near the summer home. This small business is owned by the larger business. They use the corporate jet to go to this summer home all the time. I'm guessing for tax purposes they are "working" at the other small business when they do that. It's about a 6 hour drive.

Of course there are. The income and corporate tax system the left loves so much MUST GO.
If someone has worked hard enough 70 hours a week to have a business that makes a profit risking all of their capital what business is it of anyone if they have a jet?
Get the government out of our business and end the 56000 pages of the tax code.
The IRS is bigger than the US military combined over seas.

Well why would you ever give a break for a corporate jet to begin with? Do we need more polution in the air and sky? I think not. Not everyone worked 70 hours a week btw. There are a LOT of the inherited rich who never had to do that. Do you really think the left loves it more than the right? I think they both like it a lot. I mean the left wouldn't put a break in for owning a jet thats for sure.

Why do you need a car? You can drive a bike.
Why do you need a house over 350 square feet? You can live in that.
Why do you need to eat meat? Beans have protein.
Why are you so jealous if Johnny got one more jelly bean than you did?
All the left wants to do it take from the producers to grow the moocher class.

 

[zeke]

A flat tax of 10% would lower the tax rate on everyone with an income above $8925 a year.

Those with an income below that would be in the same tax bracket as they are now.

That's enough reason to change it.

So, hows come the ultra wealthy are not demanding this wonderful flat tax of 10%?
They evidently would have the most to gain. But I don't hear of the Buffets and the Jamie Diamonds of the world calling for such changes. Why?

Why is Buffett calling for tax raises? Surely that cannot benefit him.

That is the big BIG question skull. Why would the people that run this country EVER want to go along with the system you love?

Or are you claiming that the ultra wealthy already pay less than 10% income tax? Hell thats what the 1% dude has been saying. So again, why change it from the ultra wealthy perspective?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No you aren't. You gave them zero money. All that happened is THEY get to keep more of the money THEY EARNED.
You did not make any of the money they earned. THEY DID.
No money went from anyone to them. They just kept what was THEIRS TO BEGIN WITH.

I pay more for the same services than they do and because they have a gaggle of rug rats they most likely use more government services than I therefore I am paying for part of their lifestyle. Subsidy.

No, that is not a subsidy.
"most likely" is a supposition which is nothing more than a guess.
A subsidy is money going to them from you if you are subsidizing them.
They never took a dime from you.
I oppose the tax code but that is not a subsidy.
Tax CREDITS ARE subsidies.

If I get charged 500 for a dvd player and the law states that because the next guy in line has 10 kids that he only has to pay 100 the fact that I pay more than the product is worth so he can pay less for the same thing is a subsidy enforced via the pricing law.

 

[zeke]

Or skull, do you quaintly believe the regular voters run this country? Not the plutocrats?

 

[Brain357]

A flat tax of 10% would lower the tax rate on everyone with an income above $8925 a year.

Those with an income below that would be in the same tax bracket as they are now.

That's enough reason to change it.

So then the poor will be worse off. To fix this we'll end up with some expensive government program to help them. Great!

They won't be worse off they will see no change.

And what happens in a consumer based economy when people have more money?

They will now be taxed 10% when they were less before. How will they not be poorer?

In theory the economy would grow. Didn't really see it with the Bush tax cuts though. Plus your increasing taxes for some and decreasing for others. So would there be any real growth?

 

[DiamondDave]

No you aren't. You gave them zero money. All that happened is THEY get to keep more of the money THEY EARNED.
You did not make any of the money they earned. THEY DID.
No money went from anyone to them. They just kept what was THEIRS TO BEGIN WITH.

I pay more for the same services than they do and because they have a gaggle of rug rats they most likely use more government services than I therefore I am paying for part of their lifestyle. Subsidy.

No, that is not a subsidy.
"most likely" is a supposition which is nothing more than a guess.
A subsidy is money going to them from you if you are subsidizing them.
They never took a dime from you.
I oppose the tax code but that is not a subsidy.
Tax CREDITS ARE subsidies.

Taking less is not a subsidy... paying zero in and gaining service or entitlement out is indeed subsidy

Having a middle man like the government does not mean it is not US subsidizing the leeches... it just means that government, unconstitutionally, is the agent

 

[Gadawg73]

Earned Income Credit is not earned.
The Chinks are loaning our government money to give away to people that do not deserve it forcing our kids and grandkids to pay it back.
Best way not to be poor is not have kids you can not afford and get a 3rd job if you need to.
Get the hell out of my wallet.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So, hows come the ultra wealthy are not demanding this wonderful flat tax of 10%?
They evidently would have the most to gain. But I don't hear of the Buffets and the Jamie Diamonds of the world calling for such changes. Why?

Why is Buffett calling for tax raises? Surely that cannot benefit him.

That is the big BIG question skull. Why would the people that run this country EVER want to go along with the system you love?

Or are you claiming that the ultra wealthy already pay less than 10% income tax? Hell thats what the 1% dude has been saying. So again, why change it from the ultra wealthy perspective?

The fact that it' would bring in more revenue and be less expensive to run should be enough but then again there is nothing rational about politics.

 

[Brain357]

So why don't you start a business and take advantage of the tax code?

Who said I don't?

You whine too much.

Yes you seem to think everyone whines. You should invest in a dictionary.

 

[Gadawg73]

I pay more for the same services than they do and because they have a gaggle of rug rats they most likely use more government services than I therefore I am paying for part of their lifestyle. Subsidy.

No, that is not a subsidy.
"most likely" is a supposition which is nothing more than a guess.
A subsidy is money going to them from you if you are subsidizing them.
They never took a dime from you.
I oppose the tax code but that is not a subsidy.
Tax CREDITS ARE subsidies.

If I get charged 500 for a dvd player and the law states that because the next guy in line has 10 kids that he only has to pay 100 the fact that I pay more than the product is worth so he can pay less for the same thing is a subsidy enforced via the pricing law.

How is that the same as a deduction where someone pays less taxes?
When YOU take any deduction that means YOU keep more of the money YOU earned.
Skull, respectfully, even if your hypothetical IS TRUE above please show me where YOU OR ANYONE paid more for the product above because someone else paid less.
Once again you are guessing and making suppositions without any foundation in fact or reality.
If you earn 100K and YOU owe 20K in taxes ON THE MONEY YOU EARNED.
And your deductions lower your tax liability to 17K.
Who made the 3K that is the difference?
How is the money YOU MADE being subsidized by someone else?
Allowing YOU to keep more of the money YOU MADE is not a subsidy.
Ever.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So then the poor will be worse off. To fix this we'll end up with some expensive government program to help them. Great!

They won't be worse off they will see no change.

And what happens in a consumer based economy when people have more money?

They will now be taxed 10% when they were less before. How will they not be poorer?

In theory the economy would grow. Didn't really see it with the Bush tax cuts though. Plus your increasing taxes for some and decreasing for others. So would there be any real growth?

Hey dip shit the lowest tax bracket is already 10%

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, that is not a subsidy.
"most likely" is a supposition which is nothing more than a guess.
A subsidy is money going to them from you if you are subsidizing them.
They never took a dime from you.
I oppose the tax code but that is not a subsidy.
Tax CREDITS ARE subsidies.

If I get charged 500 for a dvd player and the law states that because the next guy in line has 10 kids that he only has to pay 100 the fact that I pay more than the product is worth so he can pay less for the same thing is a subsidy enforced via the pricing law.

How is that the same as a deduction where someone pays less taxes?
When YOU take any deduction that means YOU keep more of the money YOU earned.
Skull, respectfully, even if your hypothetical IS TRUE above please show me where YOU OR ANYONE paid more for the product above because someone else paid less.
Once again you are guessing and making suppositions without any foundation in fact or reality.
If you earn 100K and YOU owe 20K in taxes ON THE MONEY YOU EARNED.
And your deductions lower your tax liability to 17K.
Who made the 3K that is the difference?
How is the money YOU MADE being subsidized by someone else?
Allowing YOU to keep more of the money YOU MADE is not a subsidy.
Ever.

If everyone gets the same deduction then it's a wash.

If you get more deductions therefore pay less in taxes than another with the same income and you use the same or more government services that those taxes are supposed to pay for who is picking up the cost for you?

The guy getting charged more for them that's who.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Who said I don't?

You whine too much.

Yes you seem to think everyone whines. You should invest in a dictionary.

Most people are whiners. So you're just like the rest of the sheep.

 

[Brain357]

You whine too much.

Yes you seem to think everyone whines. You should invest in a dictionary.

Most people are whiners. So you're just like the rest of the sheep.

Pretty sure that makes you a sheep too.

 

[Gadawg73]

I pay more for the same services than they do and because they have a gaggle of rug rats they most likely use more government services than I therefore I am paying for part of their lifestyle. Subsidy.

No, that is not a subsidy.
"most likely" is a supposition which is nothing more than a guess.
A subsidy is money going to them from you if you are subsidizing them.
They never took a dime from you.
I oppose the tax code but that is not a subsidy.
Tax CREDITS ARE subsidies.

Taking less is not a subsidy... paying zero in and gaining service or entitlement out is indeed subsidy

Having a middle man like the government does not mean it is not US subsidizing the leeches... it just means that government, unconstitutionally, is the agent

No argument here on that.
All I am stating is when people to get to keep more of the money THEY EARNED that is not a subsidy as NO ONE gave them any money.
Keeping one's earned cash is not receiving any money.

 

[Gadawg73]

If I get charged 500 for a dvd player and the law states that because the next guy in line has 10 kids that he only has to pay 100 the fact that I pay more than the product is worth so he can pay less for the same thing is a subsidy enforced via the pricing law.

How is that the same as a deduction where someone pays less taxes?
When YOU take any deduction that means YOU keep more of the money YOU earned.
Skull, respectfully, even if your hypothetical IS TRUE above please show me where YOU OR ANYONE paid more for the product above because someone else paid less.
Once again you are guessing and making suppositions without any foundation in fact or reality.
If you earn 100K and YOU owe 20K in taxes ON THE MONEY YOU EARNED.
And your deductions lower your tax liability to 17K.
Who made the 3K that is the difference?
How is the money YOU MADE being subsidized by someone else?
Allowing YOU to keep more of the money YOU MADE is not a subsidy.
Ever.

If everyone gets the same deduction then it's a wash.

If you get more deductions therefore pay less in taxes than another with the same income and you use the same or more government services that those taxes are supposed to pay for who is picking up the cost for you?

The guy getting charged more for them that's who.

Hate to tell you this but NO ONE is picking up any cost. Your analogies to the private sector of what tax policy is is absurd.
GOVERNMENT PRINTS MORE MONEY AND BORROWS IT.
And no one is going to pay it back except the interest.
But we agree on too much to get stuck on this. End the income tax and ALL THIS GOES AWAY.