Boring?
Fox News Sucks.
No Pussy.
Printable View
Boring?
Fox News Sucks.
No Pussy.
Esten, nice move with the "raise the taxes on the Rich" pitch from your poll.
Obama's recent speech pegged "Rich" as anyone making more than $250K while your own poll showed the vast majority of Americans believe "Rich" begins at $1 Million, which sets up my next point nicely.
Polls ask the general question 'Would you favor raising the taxes on the rich? ', but fail to designate what income level constitutes 'Rich', which rigs the poll from the outset, see the statement above on your cited poll.
I'm going to search for a more honest poll with these perimeters and see what the results are, but I can bet you now it won't be Obama's $250K.
Nice try though, I will give you that, but totally intellectually dishonest!
The polls clearly show reduction of government spending and services are at the top of the list to reduce the deficit.
Did you happen to see the movie "Best Little Wh*re House in Texas"? Your little faint with the "Rich" reminded me of the Governor's Dance. "Do a Little Side Step" in which every time the governor is asked a question after a long, rambling, almost unintelligible statement the only conclusion reached by those hearing the governor's response was 'it was a possible maybe'! That is you Esten to a "T"
By the way Texas is addressing its deficit and closing the gap with SPEMDING CUTS and NOT RAISING TAXES, we have to live within our means. Texas also does not have a state income tax!
By the way, still waiting on your response to;
1. Johnson's Entitlement Program called Welfare
2. Why a majority of whites believed their taxes were fair and a majority of non-whites believed their taxes were unfair.
It seems to me, that Bill Clinton, back in 1993 defined the 'Rich" as those making more than $250, 000. You'll recall that was his millionaire's tax. That is if you made $250, 000, Bill Clinton and the Democrats thought you were a millionaire and were rich and therefore you had to pay more in taxes so that they could spend more.
Now, eighteen years later, BHO is trotting out the same dead horse. Only it is worse this time and more deceitful because he is using the nominal figure that Clinton arbitrarily chose way back when, and is taking advantage of the fact that most Americans don't understand what inflation has done to the value of their dollars. $250, 000 today doesn't buy what it used to. In fact, It takes $380K today to purchase the same amount as $250K did back in 1993. Further, $250K today is equivalent to about $165K in 1993. Therefore, Obama's definition of "Rich" is 34% lower than Clinton's. I thought Clinton's definition was supposed to protect middle class (democrat terminology) Americans from the soaking intended for just the "rich." How did all the people making between $250K and $380K become rich in Obama's world, while not even reaching the measurement set by Bill Clinton in 1993?
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416771]It seems to me, that Bill Clinton, back in 1993 defined the 'Rich" as those making more than $250,000. You'll recall that was his millionaire's tax. That is if you made $250,000, Bill Clinton and the Democrats thought you were a millionaire and were rich and therefore you had to pay more in taxes so that they could spend more.[/QUOTE]You guys are stepping all over these definitions.
A "millionaire" as someone who has a net worth of more than a million dollars, not an individual with an annual income in excess of a million dollars.
The liberal assumption (not entirely without merit) is that an individual with an income in excess of $250,000 per year most likely has a net worth in excess of one million dollars, and thus they are a millionaire.
Thanks,
Jackson
Jackson, while the strict definition of a Millionaire is any person who amasses assets worth a million or more of a specific monetary unit, I don't think that is truly applicable in this case. I can also assure you when the polls are asking folks about rasing the taxes on Millionaires the folks answering the question are thinking in annual income and not total asset worth.
To be a millionaire in Argentina would not mean a whole lot, hell I would be willing to bet you are millionaire using Argentine Pesos.
But since we are talking about taxing current income, I like the earning a million + per year option. Just because an individual has amassed a million in assets over a life time does not mean he / she needs to get screwed by the government on his annual income. Let me give you some excellent examples of this, family farms and family businesses.
Are these people really 'millionaires' when the bulk of the assets are neither liquid and nor easily converted? While the total of all assets maybe greater than a million (dollars since we are talking about the US) most of these folks are lucky to make 1/10th of that in income each year. This was one of the reasons the death tax limits were raised, to keep the person's inheriting the family farms and businesses from having to sell off the assets to settle the bill with the IRS and keep a viable business in business instead of killing it off for taxes.
Also asset value does not take into account the affects of appreciation or inflation. What was $500K in 2000 is well over that in 2011, see my point? Since others have brought up Clinton and his assumption $250K was Rich in 1995 please consider this: $250K in 1995 when adjusted for inflation and the decrease in the buying power of the dollar would be equal to about $380K in todays dollars, a 52% increase since 1995.
Regarding the deficit, there is no way we can tax our way out of this mess. We got here due to fettered government spending and reducing that spending is the only way we are going to get out.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 416775]You guys are stepping all over these definitions.
A "millionaire" as someone who has a net worth of more than a million dollars, not an individual with an annual income in excess of a million dollars.
The liberal assumption (not entirely without merit) is that an individual with an income in excess of $250, 000 per year most likely has a net worth in excess of one million dollars, and thus they are a millionaire.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Jax:
I know what a millionaire is. Someone with a net worth between $1million and $999, 999, 999 (more would be a billionaire).
Bill Clinton declared that he would only tax millionaires. As it turns out, he then increased income taxes for those making $250K or more (we'll leave out the other regressive taxes that he put on everyone). The hurdle was one year's income not net worth. Therefore, if you earned $250k, you were subject to the millionaire's tax. This was acceptable to the liberal elites not because the assumption that those affected had amassed a million or more in net worth but that the number of people earning more than $250k per year was much smaller than the number of people who earn less than $250k per year. Therefore they could use this as fodder in their hopes to fuel class warfare.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 416770]Esten, nice move with the "raise the taxes on the Rich" pitch from your poll.
Obama's recent speech pegged "Rich" as anyone making more than $250K while your own poll showed the vast majority of Americans believe "Rich" begins at $1 Million, which sets up my next point nicely. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Doppelganger;416707]Esten, according to your last post 81% of Americans think $1 million is "rich" now not $200K. Perhaps you should get a grip buddy because those lunk heads who fall in the $200K to $999K bunch are small business owners and if you bother to check it is small business that produces the most jobs, far more than "big" business. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Doppelganger;416733]Esten, according to the poll you cited 81% of Americans believe $1 Million is "Rich", maybe you should give your guy Obama a clue since he is still stuck with the $250K figure as "Rich".[/QUOTE]Doppelganger,
3 times you have repeated this claim that my poll shows that Americans define "rich" as $1 Million. But the poll I posted simply stated that 81% agreed with "placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year".
The poll question does not ask what Americans consider rich, in fact the word "rich" isn't even mentioned. It also does not tell us what level of support a surtax would have for incomes < $1 million.
You make stuff up, and then accuse [i]me[/i] of being intellectually dishonest?
Get real man.
There are millionaires, and there are multi-millionaires. And then, there is me, a millionaire in my dreams.
Esten, you are an avowed redistribution guy and believe the “rich” have too much and it needs to be taken from them and spread around to the “less fortunate”. As I recall most of your posts support Obama's belief $250K in annual income as “rich”, an idea he resurrected from Clinton circa 1995, see the previous post regarding purchasing power of $250k from 1995 to 2010.
Now try to follow the train of thought here, since you are always harping on raising the taxes on the “rich” which is why you posted the poll results indicating a majority of Americans support raising taxes on individuals earning more than $1millon in annual income, the logical conclusion one could draw from your posting the poll was Americans believe $1Millon in annual income is “rich” which would tend to refute you $250k idea. Now that was not too difficult was it? Its called connect the dots.
By the way that $250k in annual income figure is for a couple filing a joint return. Got any nifty polls showing a majority of Americans believe that is “rich”. Go do the math on what it costs to send kids to a good college today and you will find out just how little $250K a year will get you.
When the top 25% of tax payers are paying 86% of the taxes but you still don’t consider that enough social engineering and want to take more. Now I consider that a bit lopsided.
Still not answering the whites belived their taxes were generally fair but non-whites generally believed their taxer were unfair question or the Johnson's Welfare question I notice.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416803]Esten, you are an avowed redistribution guy and believe the “rich” have too much and it needs to be taken from them and spread around to the “less fortunate”. As I recall most of your posts support Obama's belief $250K in annual income as “rich”, an idea he resurrected from Clinton circa 1995, see the previous post regarding purchasing power of $250k from 1995 to 2010.[/QUOTE]There are varying degrees of "rich" and everyone has their own definition. Why get hung up on the definition? The point is some people can afford to pay more taxes, and some people can afford to pay a lot more taxes. I don't support taxation for its own sake. I support it when it can address a valid purpose - such as to reduce poverty, or make housing more affordable, or fund college scholarships, or build infrastructure, or balance budgets and pay off debt, etc.
[QUOTE]Now try to follow the train of thought here, since you are always harping on raising the taxes on the “rich” which is why you posted the poll results indicating a majority of Americans support raising taxes on individuals earning more than $1millon in annual income, the logical conclusion one could draw from your posting the poll was Americans believe $1Millon in annual income is “rich” which would tend to refute you $250k idea. Now that was not too difficult was it? Its called connect the dots.[/QUOTE]It's fair to say Americans likely consider $1 Million rich. But that says nothing about whether Americans also consider 750K rich, or 500K rich, or 250K rich, etc. The poll didn't ask what was the threshold for "rich". Get it?
I never said before whether I personally think 250K income is rich. Here is my opinion:
100K - well off
250K - very well off
500K - rich
1M - very rich
Something like that. And I also think all these groups can and should pay more taxes. I do well, and I could easily afford another 1-2% in taxes. Those 250K+ could probably afford another 3-4% in taxes. Those 500K+ could probably afford another 5-6% in taxes. And maybe a little more for millionaires. So perhaps a top tax bracket of 45%. And you've got to tax capital gains at those rates too (at least for higher incomes). Rich folks paying 15% on capital gains just ain't right.
[QUOTE]By the way that $250k in annual income figure is for a couple filing a joint return. Got any nifty polls showing a majority of Americans believe that is “rich”. Go do the math on what it costs to send kids to a good college today and you will find out just how little $250K a year will get you. [/QUOTE]Somehow I don't think the wealthiest 2% are struggling.
[QUOTE]When the top 25% of tax payers are paying 86% of the taxes but you still don’t consider that enough social engineering and want to take more. Now I consider that a bit lopsided.[/QUOTE]The taxes may appear lopsided because the INCOME IS LOPSIDED.
[QUOTE]Still not answering the whites belived their taxes were generally fair but non-whites generally believed their taxer were unfair question or the Johnson's Welfare question I notice.[/QUOTE]Maybe later, I'm more interested in discussing how you feel you shouldn't have to pay more taxes. But a quick comment, I gather your point here is that tax revenue isn't spent wisely - it is "handed out" to people who are lazy or otherwise don't need or deserve it. If so, then make your case. How much money is the federal government spending to help people that don't need or deserve it? Data please.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416733]I earn over $250K, own my own business, employ 22 accountants / CPAs / office staff, drive a 5 year old car and an 11 year old truck, live in a nice home but believe me I am damn sure not 'rich'.[/QUOTE]Doppelganger is a member of the "Top 2%", and his argument for not raising his taxes is as follows.
He wants the definition of "rich" to be $1 Million. And then, only the "rich" should have their taxes increased.
Clever huh?
Since when is $250K in the top 2% ?
Now you consider $500K in annual income "rich"
If tax payments are lopsided because income distribution is lopsided isn't this what you want to correct all the "earnings injustice" or is it you want more? You want more, I know.
I guess you are back to the "social compact" which requires the individual to surrender all or most of his rights to the state for safety and welfare - my friend it's called socialism and it always fails.
I guess the next thing I will hear from you is "Mother Earth" should be afforded the same civil rights as a natural person, you and Evo Morales must be having coca together every morning.
Still not answering the questions regarding race and taxes nor about Welfare.
If you want a waste of money by the federal government, EPA, IRS, Welfare, the list goes on.
From the IRS:
The top 1% of taxpayers pay 38% of all income tax collected.
The top 5% of taxpayers pay 58. 7% of all income tax collected.
The top 10% of taxpayers pay 69. 9% of all income tax collected.
The top 25% of taxpayers pay 86% of all income tax collected.
The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 2% of all income tax collected.
In my opinion, federal government activity and spending should be as follows:
-The federal government should do only those things that the private sector can't (national defense, etc) , which includes supplementing private, charities so that as a just and moral society we can take care of those who truly can't fend for themselves (whether temporary or long-term). That's it.
I estimate that this should be about $1. 7T for FY 2011 (before we really start cutting and winding down long-term programs). That would leave an annual surplus of $500B which could be used to pay down the national debt. If we did that for 15 years in a row (and interest rates remained steady) we could pay off the national debt. So, if we cut the budget in half, we could payoff our accumulated debt in 15 years. That is f*cking staggering.
If we go with liberal tax & spend policies, we can continue spending and just tax the rich some more. In 2010, the IRS collected $899B in income taxes (contributed by only slightly more than 50% of Americans). If we use a rough thumbnail of estimate of 30% for the average federal tax, actually paid by taxpayers, that means that the productive half of America made approximately $3T in 2010. If we doubled the marginal tax rate to 60, the federal tax coffers would only increase by $899B or a little more than half of the annual deficit. Therefore, we are continuing to add to the national debt. If we took 100% of the income earned by productive Americans, we would theoretically increase the receipts by approximately $2T which would get us into a surplus of $300B, in fantasy land. Everyone would quit and become a ward of the state. Instead of 50 million people on food stamps it would be 300 million.
We also know that it is pure fantasy to think that Congress won't spend more next year. Every year federal spending grows faster than GDP and personal wealth. How will we ever catch the moving target?
The left is always shrieking about 'sustainability' when the put more regulation on businesses and unnecessarily drive up the cost of living and restrict our choice. Where is the left in pointing out that this simply isn't sustainable.
There are far too many instances where the government is doing something unnecessary. Every instance has a related cost.
Why is it 'fair' that any Americans pay for someone else's share of necessary federal spending let alone unnecessary federal spending?
[QUOTE=Esten on 12-11-10;414458][i]It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes. [/i][/QUOTE]There's your answer.
[QUOTE=Esten]It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Jackson;416842]There's your answer.[/QUOTE]This fits perfectly with Esten's world view: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.". Karl Marx.
But, remember, Esten is not a communist, and he certainly is not a socialist. He can't be. If he accepted that label, it would mean that his whole world view has been a demonstrable failure.
So, we can call him a "redistributionist" or a "liberal" or a "taxocrat" or even a spade. But don't call him a socialist. It shatters his fragile self-image. And, do we really want to see Emperor Esten with no clothes?