Right there with you brother. Why should I work hard and pay taxes my whole life and then get taxed again when I die. It is a socialist policy and has no place in this country.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Fair, but not just. The man who makes 50,000, or, better yet,the single mother who makes 30,000, needs the money just a little bit more than the man making 500,000 a year.
With the tax cuts they just passed, a person making under $20,000 (me) gets a tax cut of $3. Good to know the government is looking out for me. [/quote]
Since when did NEED become the standard of justice?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Because he doesn’t need that tax break of 25,000. Fair is from each according to what they can pay, and then letting the government use it appropriately to make the country better.
Hell, you know the way I am. I would rather see national healthcare (at least a minimal system to help those without it) rather than a tax cut, or see us climb out of debt a little.
People who make over a million don’t need to get 50,000 dollars back when the government is a kabillion dollars in debt. Not too mention when there are still people starving in this country.
I’m not asking for any tax cut. Keep the money, and put it towards making this country a better place.[/quote]
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need — doesn’t work. It makes non-existence a value to existence. The standard of value can’t be a vacuum, a nullity.
“Pity makes suffering contagious.”
— Aristotle
HH
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
biltritewave wrote:
its makes me proud to be a republican everytime doogie refutes one of your idiotic bablings with hard evidence and/or facts.
carry on Doogie
the rest of you. especially you wanna be Massachusetts Dems from NJ (you know who you are). Get the fuck out of my state, you are an embarassment to everything that is good about the dirty Jers.
Yea, nothing like having a different opinion huh?
You’re either a rich kid from North Jersey or an ass from South Jersey who is happy he doesn’t live in the “New York Part of New Jersey”.
Either a bullshitter or a hillbilly. Fuck off. The voters of NJ have decided that its my state, not yours.
Have fun losing elections in my state. [/quote]
I have no problem with different opinions. I work in politics and some of my best friends are democrats. I do have a problem with mindless spewing talking points from nancy pelosi on how to create a socialist state in the U.S. which would be the complete and utter anti-thesis of everything this great country was founded on.
And i am from N Jers. Outside of the shore south jersey is dead to me.
[quote]biltritewave wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
biltritewave wrote:
its makes me proud to be a republican everytime doogie refutes one of your idiotic bablings with hard evidence and/or facts.
carry on Doogie
the rest of you. especially you wanna be Massachusetts Dems from NJ (you know who you are). Get the fuck out of my state, you are an embarassment to everything that is good about the dirty Jers.
Yea, nothing like having a different opinion huh?
You’re either a rich kid from North Jersey or an ass from South Jersey who is happy he doesn’t live in the “New York Part of New Jersey”.
Either a bullshitter or a hillbilly. Fuck off. The voters of NJ have decided that its my state, not yours.
Have fun losing elections in my state.
I have no problem with different opinions. I work in politics and some of my best friends are democrats. I do have a problem with mindless spewing talking points from nancy pelosi on how to create a socialist state in the U.S. which would be the complete and utter anti-thesis of everything this great country was founded on. [/quote]
Nothing I say is mindless, and I’m not interested in a socialist state. Capitalism, if nothing else, is interesting, and plays into human nature, so its the best thing we’ve found yet. It’s also cool that you can make money doing anything you want, as long as you’re good at it.
However, I do think that there should be a floor that no man should fall below. I think that there should be national healthcare, at least to a minimum standard for those who have none. I think it’s perfectly fair that the rich get taxed like they do, and I don’t think they should get the tax breaks they get. Making the rich richer is not what this country is about.
You can help people without making them completely lazy and useless- Bill Bradley did it in NJ when he was such a strong proponent for working welfare, which I am a believer in.
The only part that is unfortunate to me about capitalism in general is that those with the most money, or that 10% of the population, are going to have a massive influence on the policies made regarding everything, and they aren’t looking out for me or my family- they’re looking out for themselves. This needs to change. The power needs to be back in the hands of the people, instead of in the hands of the few rich and powerful folks.
This stuff can work. We can be progressive without being a socialist state. I find it funny that you all react like this because everytime the government has interfered in business in any way, be it pronouncing eight hour work days, a minimum wage, banning child labor, setting up OSHA or safety standards, etc. it’s all been called a Communist/socialist plot to take over this fine capitalist country. And I go…No, it’s not. It’s called being human, and helping those that need it. Business can still run fine…but it’s not allowed to make massive profits at the expense of the lives, safety, and health of its workers.
[quote]
And i am from N Jers. Outside of the shore south jersey is dead to me. [/quote]
At least we can agree on that.
my Apologies then for calling you a massachusetts dem. You seemed reasoned at least in that last post. We will have to agree to disagree. The one principle that I think you fail to consider however is small government. Its a founding principle of our country that often goes by the way-side with any of these programs such as osha, national health care etc…in the process we wind up with more waste, more bureacracy, more mismanagment, more stagnation, and a government increasingly removed from the people.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I simply stated the tax burden–the burden of actual payment falls heavier on the middle and lower class than the rich.
And I think you are wrong about that. Especially in light of the fact that the top 5% income earners pay about 54% of all the taxes. It looks like the burden falls upon the rich huh?
I’ve suggested that they use the code to their advantage to further lighten that load.
Please show me where they have an advantage relative to the tax code.
I know you, like other posters, want us to believe you are in this certain economic elite group. That the rest of the population should be happy they can at least stay alive. You just come across as some dumb punk who’s trying to internet live some lifestyle, some little peon unhappy with his rung on the ladder.
LOL!
I had one good year man lighten up.
Oh and while you are lightening up please list all the tax advantages that the rich have. You called them loopholes before, now you call them tax advantages…
I don’t care what you call them in your next post just list them.
If you can’t list them then simply say so. I will then not ask you anymore.
Fair?
[/quote]
You spin it your way and I’ll spin it mine. The number of people who pay the tax is less relevant than the amount of wealth they control–in my opinion.
I’ll state that 90% of the wealth pays 50% of the taxes. How many people control that wealth means little to me. It’s still a percentage of their income.
I can not name the loopholes, fair, but I will still insist that there exist many ways to funnel money so as not to pay taxes on said money. They are legal, for the most part, but none-the-lessit allows for a smaller burden. I know you know it happens ZEB. Overseas accounts. Pretend charities and gifts.
Company fronts. Tax shelfs. I mean are we really arguing that there exists no avenues by which to decrease you taxable income?
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
You spin it your way and I’ll spin it mine. The number of people who pay the tax is less relevant than the amount of wealth they control–in my opinion.[/quote]
But how can that be if those people “own” the wealth? They go out each year and “create” more wealth. And then those top 5% who create wealth, which usually means more jobs and industry, have to pay about 54% of the total tax burden.
You can’t call that fair.
And furthermore, how come they didn’t use any of the loopholes for the rich to get out of paying so much in taxes?
The argument that there are all of these loopholes for the rich is simply wrong! And proven so by the above figures every single year.
[quote]I can not name the loopholes, fair, but I will still insist that there exist many ways to funnel money so as not to pay taxes on said money. They are legal, for the most part, but none-the-lessit allows for a smaller burden. I know you know it happens ZEB. Overseas accounts. Pretend charities and gifts.
Company fronts. Tax shelfs. I mean are we really arguing that there exists no avenues by which to decrease you taxable income?[/quote]
I think there are in fact ways to decrease your taxable income. But I think those ways are able to be used by all who pay taxes.
You have now joined me in not being able to name any loopholes.
When I first asked you I was being sincere. I had a good year…ONE good year. And I paid a great deal of taxes. I don’t think my accountant is a moron he’s with a big firm and comes highly recommended.
You named some things that I don’t think matter:
Pretend charities-Okay, that would be illegal.
Gifts-Okay, you can give a gift to a charity a church or some other legal charitable institution. But how does that really help you? Let’s say you made one million bucks last year (And, no I’m not talking about me. I was far far from such a lofty figure).
If you haul off and give the Red Cross 100-K how does that help you? You might get a tax deduction for the 100-K, which amounts to maybe not paying taxes on an additional 50-K. But you are also out the original 100-K! So, you actually lose money.
Overseas accounts-Here again, there is an accounting for what is sent overseas. In other words take that rich guys million bucks for example. He can send the entire million to some off shore account in the Kayman Islands. BUT…before it goes it is still recorded as income and taxable at whatever bracket that he’s in.
Company fronts- By this do you mean a company which is set up to lose money? If that is the case how does one benefit from such an operation? If you actually lose let’s say 100-K with this “front” and declare that as a loss that means that you don’t have to pay taxes on that 100-K. That might save you 50-k in taxes. But you have actually lost 100-k, which means you are in the hole.
I’m not trying to piss you off sasquatch, and I respect you as a reasonable poster. It’s just that when it comes to this issue I honestly think that many folks are completely misled by the media, movies and whatever else, into thinking that the rich have all sorts of loopholes.
The fact is, they don’t! At least not from what I have studied.
ZEB
I don’t know about being misled by hollywood, but you take in information from many sources and make ‘informed’ opinions from there.
When I see a multi-multi millionaire like Cheney pay 100,000 in taxes, I know there are issue. I use Cheney merely because he is a public figure and has to report his income. I know this number is not exact, but my point is this–I think Bush made like 1/2 or even less than Cheney, yet paid a very similar amount in taxes. Again, I think I remember this and only use it as an example of how people with great discrepencies in income can somehow pay similar amounts of taxes. Legitimate? Probably. Legal? Probably. Available? In my mind certainly.
And I too consider you a reasonable and enlightened poster. The moron shot was cheap, but the sparring got the best of me. I swear, if these discussions could take place face to face and without time barriers and attitude barriers and all the issues with posting, it would be much more civil.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
ZEB
I don’t know about being misled by hollywood, but you take in information from many sources and make ‘informed’ opinions from there.
When I see a multi-multi millionaire like Cheney pay 100,000 in taxes, I know there are issue. I use Cheney merely because he is a public figure and has to report his income. I know this number is not exact, but my point is this–I think Bush made like 1/2 or even less than Cheney, yet paid a very similar amount in taxes. Again, I think I remember this and only use it as an example of how people with great discrepencies in income can somehow pay similar amounts of taxes. Legitimate? Probably. Legal? Probably. Available? In my mind certainly.
And I too consider you a reasonable and enlightened poster. The moron shot was cheap, but the sparring got the best of me. I swear, if these discussions could take place face to face and without time barriers and attitude barriers and all the issues with posting, it would be much more civil. [/quote]
Bush actually paid a reasonable percentage of his income as tax.
Kerry paid a very low amount relative to Bush. Kerry (and his wife) make far more money than Bush and paid a lower percentage as taxes.
He could have voluntarily paid more but he did not.
Clinton deducted his donated underwear from his taxes.
The leaders of the Democratic party try to legally avoid paying taxes just like everyone else.
They are also the ones that push for higher taxes. Seems phony to me.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
ZEB
I don’t know about being misled by hollywood, but you take in information from many sources and make ‘informed’ opinions from there.
When I see a multi-multi millionaire like Cheney pay 100,000 in taxes, I know there are issue. I use Cheney merely because he is a public figure and has to report his income. I know this number is not exact, but my point is this–I think Bush made like 1/2 or even less than Cheney, yet paid a very similar amount in taxes. Again, I think I remember this and only use it as an example of how people with great discrepencies in income can somehow pay similar amounts of taxes. Legitimate? Probably. Legal? Probably. Available? In my mind certainly.
And I too consider you a reasonable and enlightened poster. The moron shot was cheap, but the sparring got the best of me. I swear, if these discussions could take place face to face and without time barriers and attitude barriers and all the issues with posting, it would be much more civil.
Bush actually paid a reasonable percentage of his income as tax.
Kerry paid a very low amount relative to Bush. Kerry (and his wife) make far more money than Bush and paid a lower percentage as taxes.
He could have voluntarily paid more but he did not.
Clinton deducted his donated underwear from his taxes.
The leaders of the Democratic party try to legally avoid paying taxes just like everyone else.
They are also the ones that push for higher taxes. Seems phony to me.[/quote]
Maybe you misinterpreted my post. It was not a political bash at all. In fact I said with much less icome Bush paid far more taxes than Cheney. I just used these names because I thought I saw it on the news and was trying to show that there are ways of manipulating your income (loopholes:)
that allow for paying less.
Everything is not Dem/Rep.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
…
Maybe you misinterpreted my post. It was not a political bash at all. In fact I said with much less icome Bush paid far more taxes than Cheney. I just used these names because I thought I saw it on the news and was trying to show that there are ways of manipulating your income (loopholes:)
that allow for paying less.
Everything is not Dem/Rep.[/quote]
I have no idea what Cheney paid in taxes so I didn’t comment.
Wealthy people end up paying a lower percentage because they can hide their money better.
The fact that the Dems traditionally try to raise taxes and the Reps typically talk about tax cuts is always relevant to a discussion on taxes.
The fact that the very people that want to raise taxes try to get out of paying taxes is also always relevant.
There are many rich Republicans that hide their money and use every legal loophole possible. This is well known so I didn’t feel the need to point it out.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
…
Maybe you misinterpreted my post. It was not a political bash at all. In fact I said with much less icome Bush paid far more taxes than Cheney. I just used these names because I thought I saw it on the news and was trying to show that there are ways of manipulating your income (loopholes:)
that allow for paying less.
Everything is not Dem/Rep.
I have no idea what Cheney paid in taxes so I didn’t comment.
Wealthy people end up paying a lower percentage because they can hide their money better.
The fact that the Dems traditionally try to raise taxes and the Reps typically talk about tax cuts is always relevant to a discussion on taxes.
The fact that the very people that want to raise taxes try to get out of paying taxes is also always relevant.
There are many rich Republicans that hide their money and use every legal loophole possible. This is well known so I didn’t feel the need to point it out.[/quote]
Did you just say “hide their money?”
Did you just say loophole?
And while relevant to the discussion. It was not relevant to my post or the reason I posted those numbers. That was the reason for my comment. I was simply picking two wealthy people of which I had some idea on taxes.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But how can that be if those people “own” the wealth? They go out each year and “create” more wealth. And then those top 5% who create wealth, which usually means more jobs and industry,[/quote]
I am very tried of people saying that absurdity.
Let me write in caps and reduce it to high-school level so maybe this time you can understand:
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF WEALTH IN THIS COUNTRY IS CREATED BY WORKERS, NOT BY BUSINESS OWNERS. BUSINESS OWNERS TAKE ON THE RISK, AND GET REWARDED FOR THEIR RISK, BUT IT IS THEIR EMPLOYEES WHO ACTUALLY ADD VALUE THROUGH WORK, I.E., CREATE WEALTH.
BOTH ARE EQUALLY ESSENTIAL FOR THE ECONOMY, BUT THE BUSINESS OWNERS ARE GETTING A DISPROPORTIONATE REWARD, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE IN CONTROL OF THE REWARD DISTRIBUTION, NOT BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY CREATE THE WEALTH.
Get it now, or do I need to explain it to you like you were a 5-year old?
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
ZEB
When I see a multi-multi millionaire like Cheney pay 100,000 in taxes, I know there are issue. I use Cheney merely because he is a public figure and has to report his income. I know this number is not exact…[/quote]
This is another case of bad information and a partial truth:
The Vice President and his wife had a combined income of $1,328,678. for tax year 2004 (2005 has not yet been released). They donated just over 300-k to charity. Lowering the taxable income to about 1 million dollars. This leaves them a tax bite of around 400-k, of which the Cheneys paid $102,663 up front upon filing their tax return. And the rest was then paid after that.
This is probably where you heard “they only paid 100-k.”
There is so much bullcrap out there regarding any political figure (either party) I can’t blame you or anyone else for thinking the worst.
But I don’t see any mystery, or smoke and mirrors behind the Cheney tax bill.
Hey, if I remember correctly you are a big dude and I would never get smart with you if you were standing in front of me…I’m not stupid.
sasquatch, I think part of the problem is that in a post “tone” cannot be conveyed. I’m sure that you took many of my words as being sarcastic and then responded accordingly. And I can’t blame you for that.
This tax issue drives me crazy. Probably because I just got through dealing with it. We honestly tried to find legitimate ways to reduce the tax bite, and in my case at least it just could not be done.
Thinking like you I launched my own search for the holy grail of tax write off’s loopholes etc. And do you know what? I found none!
I honestly think everyone from rich to poor is unhappy with this repressive system.
I think they should junk the thing and go with a flat tax.
Oh well…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wealthy people end up paying a lower percentage because they can hide their money better.[/quote]
Please tell me how they do it?
(Oh no here we go again…
[quote]hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
But how can that be if those people “own” the wealth? They go out each year and “create” more wealth. And then those top 5% who create wealth, which usually means more jobs and industry,
I am very tried of people saying that absurdity.
Let me write in caps and reduce it to high-school level so maybe this time you can understand:
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF WEALTH IN THIS COUNTRY IS CREATED BY WORKERS, NOT BY BUSINESS OWNERS. BUSINESS OWNERS TAKE ON THE RISK, AND GET REWARDED FOR THEIR RISK, BUT IT IS THEIR EMPLOYEES WHO ACTUALLY ADD VALUE THROUGH WORK, I.E., CREATE WEALTH.
BOTH ARE EQUALLY ESSENTIAL FOR THE ECONOMY, BUT THE BUSINESS OWNERS ARE GETTING A DISPROPORTIONATE REWARD, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE IN CONTROL OF THE REWARD DISTRIBUTION, NOT BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY CREATE THE WEALTH.
Get it now, or do I need to explain it to you like you were a 5-year old?
[/quote]
Now we could insult each other all day long on the Internet, but instead let’s have a real discussion. Please try to point out where you think I’m wrong with the following:
Let’s say a business owner takes all the risk and invests 1 million dollars in a new business and hires 5 people to work in it.
The business owner is risking 1 million dollars of either his own money or borrowed money.
He is putting capital at risk!
Therefore, while the 5 people that decided (on their own free will) to work for him are entitled to a pay check, I’m afraid that’s where it ends! If the business owner succeeds at this venture he reaps the reward.
But what if he lost money?
If the business failed do you think that the 5 workers would dig into their own pocket and try to bail the owner out?
No, of course not. They would be doing what is in their best interest (just as the business man did). And that would be looking for other employment!
The business owner, or investors, made the investment and the business owner gets to reap the reward if there is any. It’s called “the capitalist system.”
Thank you.
Is there anything unjust in your eyes on this, or are you just irritated with the “creating wealth” claim? It’s hard for me to tell, because “disproportionate” holds a negative connotation in my mind.
What you wrote seems like saying:
The overwhelming amount of winnings in roulette are created by the croupier, not the gambler. The croupier and the gambler are both equally essential, but it is the gambler that is getting a disproportionate reward, simply because he is in control of the reward distribution.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Is there anything unjust in your eyes on this, or are you just irritated with the “creating wealth” claim? It’s hard for me to tell, because “disproportionate” holds a negative connotation in my mind.[/quote]
I am just irritated with the “creating wealth” claim.
I used the word disproportionate because it is mathematically disproportionate (i.e., ONE business owner gets a lot more money than ONE of his workers). I am not passing judgment. It’s just a mathematical fact.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
He is putting capital at risk! [/quote]
That is exactly what I said. He is taking a risk, not creating wealth.
I’m glad you agree that you were wrong in your statement.