or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Honestly, do you think the rich pay their fair share of taxes?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Honestly, do you think the rich pay their fair share of taxes?

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-...nclick_check=1

Quote:
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, following the lead of her rivals for the GOP nomination, has released tax return documents showing that she and her husband reported $2.75 million in joint income in 2008 and paid $389,000 in federal taxes. They made $481,000 in charitable contributions, mostly in the form of Hewlett-Packard stock given to a charitable foundation the couple controls.

If you subtract $481,000 from $2.75 million, assuming her donations are 100% deductible, her reported income was still $2.27m. Let's see... 389/2270= a little over 17%. How many of you who live in America earning over 100k per year paid 17% or less?

And Fiorina made only 2.75 million, by no means the richest of the rich. The people making 20 million pay an even lower percentage.

The lie that taxes are not fair for the rich is the most ignorant, selfish, and offensive lie that "conservatives" can make. But they just don't stop.

The fact is that the rich can take advantage of tax loopholes that the middle class cannot. Get rid of those loopholes and I'll stop calling you liars.
post #2 of 49
To be fair you might consider going beyond one single example (which didn't provide a lot of detail anyway) and a blanket guess about how many people making more than $100k are paying less than 17% and the unsupported claim that "the people making 20 million pay an even lower percentage" and do a little more research.

Here's a place that might be helpful. And this report could be a start:

Quote:
Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To be fair myself, the above statement addresses a different statistic than you have raised (the percentage of income that is paid in taxes). However, I'm sure you can find that data for all income groups to make your case. Furthermore the concept of "fair share" will need to be defined for any rational and objective debate to occur. Otherwise it's just "the rich aren't paying what I think they should" and "the poor and middle class are paying more than I think they should."

NOTE: Here's another way to look at "fair":

Quote:
Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton

The lie that taxes are not fair for the rich is the most ignorant, selfish, and offensive lie that "conservatives" can make. But they just don't stop.

Before throwing out what "lies" are it might be best to present objective facts beyond a single example and a couple of hand wavy assertions. And until you define "fair" for us, the entire conversation will simply be opinion floating around facts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton

The fact is that the rich can take advantage of tax loopholes that the middle class cannot. Get rid of those loopholes and I'll stop calling you liars.

Presents some facts to support your claim and then you might have some ground to stand on.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #3 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

(quoted) Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

Before you use this statistic you have to provide further data.

You're talking about the top 1% of earners.

How much of a percentage of all the income do the top 1% of earners earn?

If the top 1% of earners are earning 50% of all the income, then they SHOULD be paying MORE than 40% of the taxes.

Now, I doubt the top 1% are earning 50% of all the income, and I expect you to find the correct statistic. But you also have to factor in those people who are too poor to pay little or any taxes at all. Take those earners out of the equation.

What we need to see is the percentage of income tax vs. income the top 5% are paying compared to the percentage the 60-65% bracket are paying.

And in no way is Fiorina's tax rate an outlier for someone making what she does. I challenge you to find one single reported earner who is earning more than $2mil and paying more than 20%, unless they are either really really stupid people, or they are patriotic philanthropists (Warren Buffet comes to mind). It is child's play for someone as rich as that to cut their tax burden to those levels.
post #4 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Presents some facts to support your claim and then you might have some ground to stand on.

I presented a fact, and you called it an outlier, in other words you stuck your fingers in your ears and chanted, "nanananananana... I'm not listening!"

I asked you to show an example that my example is an exception, and not the rule. Can you?
post #5 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Before you use this statistic you have to provide further data.

You're talking about the top 1% of earners.

How much of a percentage of all the income do the top 1% of earners earn?

About 20-25%. I don't have the actual number at hand and it has varied (but not all that much) between 20 and 25%.

NOTE: Found it. That took like 30 seconds.

Quote:
In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What we need to see is the percentage of income tax vs. income the top 5% are paying compared to the percentage the 60-65% bracket are paying.

I believe that site has that data. You can probably get the data from the IRS site too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I presented a fact, and you called it an outlier, in other words you stuck your fingers in your ears and chanted, "nanananananana... I'm not listening!"

I guess if that's how you wish to see it, that's you business.

As I see, I suggested a site where you could do more complete and comprehensive research and present more facts than one single case and a couple of hand-wavy claims measured against a subjective and undefined concept ("fair"). But whatever.

You started out wanting to talk about "fair share." To make this discussion anything but opinion, you will first need to define "fair." Then we can start collecting and presenting facts to go up against that definition.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #6 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-...nclick_check=1



If you subtract $481,000 from $2.75 million, assuming her donations are 100% deductible, her reported income was still $2.27m. Let's see... 389/2270= a little over 17%. How many of you who live in America earning over 100k per year paid 17% or less?

And Fiorina made only 2.75 million, by no means the richest of the rich. The people making 20 million pay an even lower percentage.

The lie that taxes are not fair for the rich is the most ignorant, selfish, and offensive lie that "conservatives" can make. But they just don't stop.

The fact is that the rich can take advantage of tax loopholes that the middle class cannot. Get rid of those loopholes and I'll stop calling you liars.

I'm interested in what made you settle on $100k?

A couple more points, you note charitable contributions are deductible from taxable income. You complain about the taxation rate, but seem to fail to likewise question how many people in said income brackets donate almost 18% of their income to charity?

Together those two figures amount to almost a third of income going to government or charity. How many people at said income level engage in those actions?

Likewise a third of all income is going to help others. Why isn't that enough? Is the problem with it going to charity rather than government?

In the U.S. currently, most folks below say... $75k or so for a married couple pay no income tax. Depending upon the number of deductions and dependents, they often get back credits even if they paid no income tax at all. As a landlord and just a regular guy who chats with his fellow parents at weekend kid sport events, I know several families who have 3-4 kids and get $7-8k a year back in child credits along with EITC credits.

So sure, she has a third of her income helping others. Plenty below her have no income helping others and in fact have 10-20+% of their entire yearly income given to them by the government.

My biggest criticism of Bush and currently of all Republicans is that no one should be off the tax rolls. One of the founding concepts of this country was taxation without representation. Well now we have representation without taxation. No one should be able to vote themselves something for free. If we all want it and all go in on it then it is common contributions for the common good. We can argue about whether it need be progressive, regressive or flat but no one should be excused from their duty of providing for that common cause.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #7 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm interested in what made you settle on $100k?

Very good question!


Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

A couple more points, you note charitable contributions are deductible from taxable income. You complain about the taxation rate, but seem to fail to likewise question how many people in said income brackets donate almost 18% of their income to charity?

Together those two figures amount to almost a third of income going to government or charity. How many people at said income level engage in those actions?

Likewise a third of all income is going to help others. Why isn't that enough? Is the problem with it going to charity rather than government?

He shoots! He scores!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #8 of 49
Thread Starter 
Meanwhile you haven't answered any of my questions.

I'll answer two of yours.

1) "Why did I choose $100k?" Because it's a fair amount with which one can live extremely comfortably, but not really rich. In other words, what should be considered "middle class" even though those earning 100k are well above median income.

2) "Why can't we have charitable donations instead of taxes?" Because charitable donations greatly favor the "cause of the day" and neglect less popular causes. The government manages spending in broad areas. Some of those areas that the government aids people with get 0% help from donations, and without government management it would be a disaster for people who benefit in those areas.

Taxes also pay for "Conservative" causes like the military, national security, immigration control, criminal justice, which pretty much also get zero from charitable donations. These are all things that need management to maintain proper funding. We cannot rely on "market forces" or "self-correction" to provide management. What you would then have, once again, is anarchy.
post #9 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

1) "Why did I choose $100k?" Because it's a fair amount with which one can live extremely comfortably, but not really rich. In other words, what should be considered "middle class" even though those earning 100k are well above median income.

Everywhere? For everyone?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

2) "Why can't we have charitable donations instead of taxes?" Because charitable donations greatly favor the "cause of the day" and neglect less popular causes.

Translation: They don't give to what you think they should give.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The government manages spending in broad areas. Some of those areas that the government aids people with get 0% help from donations, and without government management it would be a disaster for people who benefit in those areas.




Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Taxes also pay for "Conservative" causes like the military, national security, immigration control, criminal justice, which pretty much also get zero from charitable donations.

Interestingly, these are actually things that, constitutionally-speaking, the government is supposed to be doing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

These are all things that need management to maintain proper funding. We cannot rely on "market forces" or "self-correction" to provide management. What you would then have, once again, is anarchy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #10 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Everywhere? For everyone?

Yes. Everyone can live comfortably on $100k. EVERYONE. Where they choose to live, and how they choose to live, that's their choice. Like the poster (who ironically was working for the Federal government, being paid by taxes) who implored that he couldn't live comfortably unless he lived in a gated community.
post #11 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


Good answer... and one that deserves a in response.
post #12 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Translation: They don't give to what you think they should give.

Not quite. The correct translation would be they don't give to all the areas that need giving, and in the right amounts.
post #13 of 49
Thread Starter 
So, where's the top 5% to 60-65% comparison? Where's the example that disproves that 17% for a $2m earner is lower than usual?

* crickets *
post #14 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Honestly, do you think the rich pay their fair share of taxes?

In a fair and equal nation, one in which Dr. Martin Luther King suggested that all are equal, those who are ambitious should pay the same percentage of taxes as those that are lazy since taxes pay for local, state, and federal services! For far too long, the wealthy have paid a greater percentage of taxes in this nation while the poor often do not pay any at all, yet both use government services.

Our tax code is broken when the ambitious are penalized and forced to pay a larger percentage of the tax burden while the non-ambitious often pay none at all. Such a broken system encourages laziness and stifles ambition.

I would be in favor of a flat tax where everyone paid a fair share. The current tax code is discriminative and unfair. Equality needs to be applied to taxes and those that pay them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes. Everyone can live comfortably on $100k. EVERYONE.

Not true if you choose to live in an affluent area; matter of fact, this amount wouldn't allow you to pay the minimums in may areas if you had children in schools. Moreover, who are you to determine - if I might be so bold - what people choose to earn and ambition in work they express? $100K might be rich in the Ninth Ward of Louisiana but dirt poor in Rockville Maryland! It is a matter of perspective and the freedom that America offers is that ambition is not stifled by those dictating socialistic pay scales.
post #15 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So, where's the top 5% to 60-65% comparison? Where's the example that disproves that 17% for a $2m earner is lower than usual?

* crickets *

This is your assertion and as such is up to you to prove for your opening post. I have seen more facts from MJ then you have been willing to admit and your argument is seeming to fall apart. For example. People who earn 100,000 can live comfortably anywhere is bogus. You know it so you alter the guideline and say, if they can't they need to move to where they can. Your whole premise is based on the fact that they don't pay what you think they should to where you think they should pay it for the reasons you want them to pay. Hard hitting.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #16 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

It is a matter of perspective and the freedom that America offers is that ambition is not stifled by those dictating socialistic pay scales.

We have a brainiacist dude.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #17 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not quite. The correct translation would be they don't give to all the areas that need giving, and in the right amounts.

First this is your assumption for which you have not provided any evidence or facts. Second, this still boils down to your opinion about what needs to be funded through donations.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #18 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So, where's the top 5% to 60-65% comparison? Where's the example that disproves that 17% for a $2m earner is lower than usual?

* crickets *

Where is the definition of "fair share?"

* crickets *

Along with this, you will have to define "the rich" reasonably objectively.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #19 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So, where's the top 5% to 60-65% comparison?

Look it up yourself. I'm not your research bitch.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Where's the example that disproves that 17% for a $2m earner is lower than usual?

I don't know. What I do know is that you have referred to an aggregate group ("the rich") which you have not defined and used a single example and run this up against an undefined standard ("fair share").

You are the one making the claims that a) "the rich" (however you have defined that group) is , b) not paying a "fair share" (however you have defined that), and that c) the example you gave proves both of these claims.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #20 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Not true if you choose to live in an affluent area

Did anyone notice the word he used there?

Here, I'll point it out to you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Not true if you choose to live in an affluent area

Does that help?

You can't afford to live in an affluent area on $100k a year? Well then choose to live somewhere else, damn it!

I repeat. Everyone can afford to live comfortably on $100k per year. EVERYONE.
post #21 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Where is the definition of "fair share?"

* crickets *

Along with this, you will have to define "the rich" reasonably objectively.

Well to begin with, "fair share" would mean at least as much as a percentage as the middle class.

$2m per year is rich. We had a whole thread on the subject. Look it up.
post #22 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Meanwhile you haven't answered any of my questions.

Not to be rude but your opening post actually only contains one question and it is a personal one. Do you want the thread confined to those who earn $100k or more or not? The rest of it is statements, not questions. You answer my questions because I asked questions.

Quote:
I'll answer two of yours.

Why thank you. I was kind enough to ask them. You are kind enough to answer them.

Quote:
1) "Why did I choose $100k?" Because it's a fair amount with which one can live extremely comfortably, but not really rich. In other words, what should be considered "middle class" even though those earning 100k are well above median income.

This simply isn't true around any coastal area. The cost of living goes up very quickly and I'm not talking single family home versus multiunit dwelling. I'm talking just living.

Quote:
2) "Why can't we have charitable donations instead of taxes?" Because charitable donations greatly favor the "cause of the day" and neglect less popular causes. The government manages spending in broad areas. Some of those areas that the government aids people with get 0% help from donations, and without government management it would be a disaster for people who benefit in those areas.

So then is the problem the percents or the places? It sounds like you prefer government over private charities. You should then be advocating the removal of the deduction. Shouldn't the thread then be, should charities be tax deductable?

I'm sure plenty of folks would disagree with you though. Those causes de jour are pretty powerful for a reason. People gave to Katrina because it was important at that time for example. You would honestly prefer the government be the single source for all assistance?

Quote:
Taxes also pay for "Conservative" causes like the military, national security, immigration control, criminal justice, which pretty much also get zero from charitable donations. These are all things that need management to maintain proper funding. We cannot rely on "market forces" or "self-correction" to provide management. What you would then have, once again, is anarchy.

The reason people take issue though is the claim of conservatives hating all taxes and all government is just a caricature. The Constitution outlines very clear areas where the common interest demands we come together and taxes and so forth be spent for those purposes. Controlling borders, national security, maintaining an army, those are legitimate areas as defined by the Constitution. I'm not being a rhetorical ass here and just disqualifying your view. Clearly areas like health care are not outlined in the Constitution and most would argue that most redistribution programs are not constitutional as well. They create conflict when parties are bid against each other in a vote buying scheme whereby very few people end up controlling trillions in spending.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes. Everyone can live comfortably on $100k. EVERYONE. Where they choose to live, and how they choose to live, that's their choice. Like the poster (who ironically was working for the Federal government, being paid by taxes) who implored that he couldn't live comfortably unless he lived in a gated community.

I would suggest you visit San Francisco or most of Northern California and most coastal areas in Southern California. You would find this simply isn't true and you would also find that much of it is due to environmental concerns and limitations, not markets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not quite. The correct translation would be they don't give to all the areas that need giving, and in the right amounts.

So who could perfectly determine this for everyone, everywhere, real time forever?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #23 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

People who earn 100,000 can live comfortably anywhere is bogus.

Except that I didn't say that. Read again.
post #24 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Well to begin with, "fair share" would mean at least as much as a percentage as the middle class.

$2m per year is rich. We had a whole thread on the subject. Look it up.

So "fair" (in your opinion) means "the rich" paying a net tax rate that is the same percentage (or higher) as that paid by those in the "middle class?"

Now we're getting somewhere. I don't necessarily agree, and this is your opinion. But we're getting to some clearer definitions. Now...who are "the rich" and who are "the middle class?"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #25 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Except that I didn't say that. Read again.

That's right, you qualified it in way that fit your claim. More to the point, you have disconnected your claim from reality in order to make it work.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

That's right, you qualified it in way that fit your claim. More to the point, you have disconnected your claim from reality in order to make it work.

Bullshit. I'm not the one who qualified it. At all.

You are the ones who added "anywhere" to the statement. That is a qualification.

You can't afford to live in Downtown San Diego? Move the fuck to National City (15 minutes away). Or get a job inland. It's not brain surgery.
post #27 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So who could perfectly determine this for everyone, everywhere, real time forever?

No one. But I didn't say "everywhere" and I didn't say "forever".

The only way you guys can argue is to lie about what I said.
post #28 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So who could perfectly determine this for everyone, everywhere, real time forever?

There's no perfect answer to that question. But someone (or a consortium of someones) has to take responsibility. And "free market", it ain't.

The best we can do is to leave management to a representative group of elected officials. If you have a better solution then go ahead and talk to your congressman about it.

The problem with selective charity is that during a Katrina, everyone gives to Katrina. No one gives to the "drug abusers support network". 'Who the fuck wants to help drug abusers get off drugs? I say let the fuckers die!'
post #29 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Bullshit. I'm not the one who qualified it. At all.

You are the ones who added "anywhere" to the statement. That is a qualification.

Well I did not add "anywhere." I asked for clarification of your claim which you provided with further qualification:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes. Everyone can live comfortably on $100k. EVERYONE. Where they choose to live, and how they choose to live, that's their choice.

In this statement you've acknowledged that where someone lives will affect the required amount to income to live "comfortably." This is an acknowledgment of reality, which is good. You are right, to a degree that people have choices where to live. And what it costs to live in San Diego vs. National City might be substantially different without being a substantially different geographic location. I don't have the data to verify this claim.

But your arbitrary amount ($100k) is just that...arbitrary. BTW, you have also failed to define "live comfortably" but I'm sure it will be defined only from your point of view without any regard for the individual values and desires and opinions of the other people who might have that level of income.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #30 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There's no perfect answer to that question. But someone (or a consortium of someones) has to take responsibility. And "free market", it ain't.

The best we can do is to leave management to a representative group of elected officials. If you have a better solution then go ahead and talk to your congressman about it.

The problem with selective charity is that during a Katrina, everyone gives to Katrina. No one gives to the "drug abusers support network". 'Who the fuck wants to help drug abusers get off drugs? I say let the fuckers die!'

Thanks for being so honest about your affinity for centralized planning. As well as your affinity for outlining caricatures of people who don't do the things you think they should do. As well as your affinity for making claims (No one gives to the "drug abusers support network".) that you have not supported with any facts.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #31 of 49
Thread Starter 
I believe I've made my point here. I've wasted too much time on this already. Perhaps if I ever write a thesis on the subject I'll provide you with all the research you're demanding.

Be reminded that Carly Fiorina pays less percentage of her income in taxes than you do, and leave it at that. I guess she contributes more. Creates more jobs. So it's okay. Or whatever.

Oh... by the way, while CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina made the decision to contract most of their work out of the US, and cut thousands of American jobs. But still, she's rich, so she contributes more!
post #32 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I believe I've made my point here.

Sometimes we believe things that aren't true. Here is an example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I've wasted too much time on this already.

Waaaahhhh.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Perhaps if I ever write a thesis on the subject I'll provide you with all the research you're demanding.

Duck and run. Later.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Be reminded that Carly Fiorina pays less percentage of her income in taxes than you do, and leave it at that.

How do you know that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I guess she contributes more. Creates more jobs.

Actually this is probably quite true compared to me. She has donated more money (but roughly the same %*) as me. She has probably been involved with creating more jobs than I can claim credit for.


*I went back and calculated and she gives a higher % of her income than I do.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #33 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

2) "Why can't we have charitable donations instead of taxes?" Because charitable donations greatly favor the "cause of the day" and neglect less popular causes. The government manages spending in broad areas. Some of those areas that the government aids people with get 0% help from donations, and without government management it would be a disaster for people who benefit in those areas.

Are you advocating that the government would do a better job than charities? You don't think politicians will use that money to help increase their voting base and to further their political power and influence? I don't think more bureaucracy and money for politicians to squabble over is the answer. The recent buyout of GM shows exactly the sorts of problems that come from government helping out.

Don't you see that if you keep putting the thumbscrews to high income earners that they will work harder and harder to find loopholes, or just move money out of the country altogether?
"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
Reply
"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
Reply
post #34 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Beardsley View Post

Are you advocating that the government would do a better job than charities? You don't think politicians will use that money to help increase their voting base and to further their political power and influence? I don't think more bureaucracy and money for politicians to squabble over is the answer. The recent buyout of GM shows exactly the sorts of problems that come from government helping out.

Don't you see that if you keep putting the thumbscrews to high income earners that they will work harder and harder to find loopholes, or just move money out of the country altogether?

Quote:
The recent buyout of GM shows exactly the sorts of problems that come from government helping out.

Which problems are you refering to? The fact that they're repaying back their loan early and are starting to do business again?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #35 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Which problems are you refering to? The fact that they're repaying back their loan early and are starting to do business again?

Some of the problems he might be referring to is that a) they're allegedly paying back the loans with other bailout or stimulus money, or b) the way that the entire bailout was very politically engineered to benefit a specific, politically well-connected group (the UAW) at the expense of less politically well-connected people (the bondholders). That's probably just a start though.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #36 of 49
AAAAAAAAAAAHHJHHHHHHH! Ignore!

Someone just doesn't get it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #37 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

AAAAAAAAAAAHHJHHHHHHH! Ignore!

As someone else aptly suggested to you once before. Just ignore. No need to tell everyone you're ignoring. It just looks silly.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #38 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Some of the problems he might be referring to is that a) they're allegedly paying back the loans with other bailout or stimulus money, or b) the way that the entire bailout was very politically engineered to benefit a specific, politically well-connected group (the UAW) at the expense of less politically well-connected people (the bondholders). That's probably just a start though.

Seriously. Why do you hate the poor so much? It's obvious that you think they are the scum of the Earth. Everything that comes out of you is about how terrible it is to help people who have less (in this case the UAW) and not to help people who have more (in this case the people who sit in their multi-million dollar homes or in Wall Street offices with huge stock portfolios).

I'd love you to point to one society, of any size, where free-market supply-side economics without any sort of regulation or social safety net has worked. Yet, without any data, and though having failed wherever tested, you act as though anything less than cutting all taxes for the rich (so that they can theoretically afford to hire more people -- though that's never happened in the past) is some sort of sickness.

I think your hatred for the poor is a sickness.
post #39 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

She has probably been involved with creating more jobs than I can claim credit for.

You missed the part about her cutting thousands of jobs when she moved them out of the country. Try again.
post #40 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Which problems are you refering to? The fact that they're repaying back their loan early and are starting to do business again?

No, I was referring to the buying of UAW votes by giving them a larger stake in the new GM than the private bondholders. However it was the private Bondholders that were owed more money than the UAW.

(Amazing how GM can turn a near 4 billion dollar loss in the previous quarter to having an extra 6 billion to pay off loans. Oh wait, they didn't use money they made from selling cars, they just used more TARP money. rofl)
"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
Reply
"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Honestly, do you think the rich pay their fair share of taxes?