[Boats]

After all, they pay the most in taxes. Besides, I'd rather have more gun money than to have the San Francisco County Board give bums $400 a month. Even if all of th SF money is "locally" raised, funds they get from the FedGov supplement in other areas they may otherwise have to spend the bum money.

[TarpleyG]

I agree. If I was paying close to 40% in taxes because I made over $239,000, I'd want a bigger tax break than the guy who gets taxed 15%. It's only fair.

GT

[Lone_Gunman]

Yes.

The tax cut should be applied proportionally based on the amount of tax paid. That is fair.

Remember that last tax refund Bush pushed through? People who actually paid no tax actually complained they got no refund!!

[AJ Dual]

Yep, they pay the lions share now, and they ought to get the lions share of the cut.

The "rich" spend the most money back into the economy, create the companies that give others jobs, who then in turn pay taxes, and put thier paychecs into the economy as well. Besides, the .gov collects less taxes when the rates are higher because the rich just put all thier money in shelters and loopholes anyway.

Lower the rates, and the rich are willing to take the tax hit on whatever transaction it may be, and while the .gov is indeed collecting at a lower rate, they are actually getting some taxes, and the net tax income is higher anyway.

It's not hard to understand, but there are plenty out there who just don't get it, or refuse to, because thier entire idiology is based on class warfare.

[Skunkabilly]

But they're richer than me...it's not fair!!! waaaa waaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaa :rolleyes:

(counting my < $25,000/year)

[Battler]

The terminology is what gets me. . . . .

Let us remember that in REALITY taxing is TAKING money from people.

Tax cuts are portrayed as "giving" money to rich people, even though it means taking less.

Cutting spending on <program> is said as "taking money from <poor weedle babies>"

Curiously, the only things Dems have ever called "government expenditure" is tax cuts.


Just remember, guys, next time you buy a gun you are using funds stolen from the poor!

[Smoke]

Remember that last tax refund Bush pushed through? People who actually paid no tax actually complained they got no refund!!

Must have been a Democrat.

Democrats will always complain that since the rich are getting money back. (as they see it) the poor slobs that don't pay any in taxes in the first place should get some back. They try to turn a true tax cut into another socialist welfare program.:banghead:

If you let the the rich keep more of their money they will:

A. Spend it thus putting more into the economy.

B. Invest it, thus creating jobs, building businesses. And if he invests wisely he will make himself richer which will give him more money to: put into the economy, or invest.

Is this such a tough concept? Class?

[cuchulainn]

Battler,

I find a nice little demonstration for someone who complains about "giving to the rich" is to say "Your welcome."

When they ask "For what," tell them "I just gave you $10 by not taking it from you. Giving you that $10 is a great cost to me, so you should feel guilty, you selfish person, you."

[Mike Irwin]

Oh no! Not at all!

If you earn more than $50,000 a year you should be forced to pay EVERY CENT of it in taxes, plus pay a gluttony, greed, and avarice penalty.

Every cent of what you make is money ROBBED from the pockets of the poor and destitute in this nation, and nations around the world!

Every sensible person knows that wealth simply cannot be created, it is only redistributed.

The wealthy have greedily amassed wealth that rightfully belongs to the masses!

[Frohickey]

Is that why some of the poor are stealing guns to use for robberies?

I didn't see the end_sarcasm tag. :D

The tax bill should not be based on the amount of income earned. The tax bill should be based on the amount of actual services used, if that can't be calculated accurately, then it should be equal in tax assessed to each individual.

[DonP]

My daughter's income as a high school English teacher with a Masters Degree, about $40,000.

My son-in-law is a Chicago fire fighter, income about $45,000.

According to our own Dick Durbin and Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi et. al. they are, "The Rich" and as such should pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden for those "less fortunate in lifes lottery".

Always notice that a Democratic politician will never give a straight answer to the question on who they consider "The Rich". They always seem to talk in vague generalities because if they ever said anyone over $75,000 in total household income is rich and shoulkd be penalized for their income with another "progressive" tax, they'd be laughed out of town.

If you think this is bad, wait until Hillary re-emerges from her cocoon. She is a real hard core wealth redistribution socialist.

Don P.

[Justin]

Quite frankly the idiotic class warfare that the Democrats have been fostering has grown tiresome. I really wish they would stop it. I find it patently absurd that they consider anyone who makes $50K+ to be rich.

I find it patently offensive that a person is considered to be greedy or evil for simply wanting to keep what is rightfully theirs in the first place.

[SkunkApe]

A wise man said (and I paraphrase due to a faulty memory):

"If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote."

[GregoryTech]

Yes.

GregoryTech (NOT-AT-ALL-WEALTY)

[Gordon Fink]

The poor face little income taxes but lose a disproportionate amount of their money to sales taxes. As they are usually renters, they do not directly pay taxes on real property. By percentage, they face a payroll-tax burden similar to that of middle-income taxpayers.

Middle-income earners pay substantial income, payroll, and sales taxes. They often own real property as their primary residences, so many pay property taxes as well. Few legal deductions and loopholes are available to them. (As a middle-income earner, my overall tax burden is somewhere above 30 percent.)

Wealthy taxpayers face a large obligation to the government. However, significant amounts of their incomes can be sheltered through various legal deductions and loopholes. Their incomes also often exceed caps on payroll taxes, so their burden here is proportionally less. The wealthy frequently own multiple real properties for profit, investment, or merely pleasure. This gives them a large property-tax burden, whenever the real estate in question cannot be otherwise sheltered. They also lose a smaller fraction of their incomes to sales taxes.

So who pays the “most” taxes? How should a tax cut be targeted to best stimulate the economy?

I don’t know the answers to the above questions, but I do know that if we could reduce the ridiculously bloated size of our government, all taxpayers could see relief.

~G. Fink

[DaveB]

Warren Buffett is one of the wealthiest men on the planet. Here's what he thinks:

Published on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 by the Washington Post

Dividend Voodoo, by Warren Buffett

...The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich.

Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.

She's not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation -- a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly.

Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.

And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be...

db

[Waitone]

The bottom half of all taxpayers pay 3% of all federal taxes.

The top half of all taxpayers pay 97% of all federal taxes.

Remember these two statistics next time you see a poll that says 19% of all taxpayers do not think we ought to have a tax cut. Last poll is saw proclaimed that statistic as justofication for not implementing a tax cut.

What I want to know is does the demographic profile they use to select interviewees account for the fact that close to half of all potential tax victims pay not taxes.

[Battler]

Comparing "Sales tax" as a "regressive tax" on lower income people?

How about someone on welfare who pays NO income tax. He makes nothing, yet has to pay sales tax too! Oh the humanity!!


Forgotten is that rich people are taxed disproportionately for these "services" that they don't really need; but that are voted for mostly by people who, conveniently, DO want them. Utterly ignored in this "regressive tax" talk is that the evil rich guy is paying for the kids of 10 people who out-voted him to go to school.


From where comes this notion that a percentage of someone's income belongs to those who vote for it? The earliest reference I can find to this is in thei communist manifesto - quite radical for the time when Karl Marx wrote it - of course, in the early 20th century western nations adopted it as gospel.

[CZ-75]

To go where Warren Buffet didn't (He's a democrat by sympathy), how about a flat tax with no dividend tax, no payroll taxes, etc., which are really just scams anyway.

Everyone can pay the SAME (low) percentage of their income, no BS required. Add a (low) national sales tax and you can reap more money. The Fed could control this by a couple percent either way to encourage or discourage spending (conversely, saving) and loosen or tighten the money supply.

[Erik]

"Shouldn't the wealthy get the majority of a tax cut?"

Yes.

Erik - Not wealthy, but not a hypocrit, either.

[Hkmp5sd]

http://www.creators.com/0518/wiz/wiz0518g.gif

[Mike Irwin]

"Quite frankly the idiotic class warfare that the Democrats have been fostering has grown tiresome."

Why should it be any different than the racial warfare that they've been promulgating for decades?

[jimpeel]

Are you nuts? Have you no heart? Of course the majority of the tax cut should go to those who pay no taxes at all. Then they should get a larger portion of that which the wealth pay into the system.;)

Oops, that's right, they already do get that in the form of the (un)earned income credit.

In the words of the immortal Emily Litella: "Nevermind."

[Soap]

I always allude to the Candy Bar analogy in a situation like this.

It isn't rocket science, John Doe who makes $20K/year pays say $3K in taxes. Now Joe Blow who makes $300K/year pays $120K in taxes. Now which one should rightfully get more back expressed in pure dollar terms? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

I love working 60+ hours week so I can pay the way for the lazy in this country.

[Don Gwinn]

Even if only for the sake of basic fairness, of course.

Besides, I've noticed, contrary to the advertising, that taking away lots of money from a rich guy and spending it on V-22 Ospreys and welfare for the guy down the street (the third-generation doler) does not seem to be making my life better as quickly as might be hoped. But then, I have a career, so the only way I make more money is to do more or better work.

[aircarver]

Fifty percent (50%) of the people pay for six percent (6%) of the government. Guess whose constituents THEY are !! :fire: :fire: