Post a reply
Security Image:
 Last 10 Posts (In reverse order)
Originally Posted by: Skywheelrider 

Here are questions for our liberal left friends....you all say that the so-called 'rich' need to pay their 'fair share.' Okay, well, what exactly is their 'fair share?' Is it a dollar amount? Is it a percentage? What exactly is it? And what exactly makes a person 'rich?' Who makes the determination that someone is 'rich?' Again, is it a specific dollar amount that they are worth or what they earn each year, and if so, what is the cut off number? And in paying their 'fair share,' where exactly should that money go, to whom should it go? Please be specific. Let's see if any of you can answer these questions. (The same questions have been asked of liberal columnists, folks protesting at occupy protests, liberal congressmen/women, and none of them, NONE, could come up with answers, or the same answers, showing they are not on the same page.)

Oh, and why is it okay for someone on the left to call out wealthy conservatives or wealthy folks in general, but when it's pointed out to them that they, too, are wealthy (AHEM, Michael Moore), they call the reporter who does it a 'punk' and a 'liar' when the reporter has his facts in order, with figures?



I consider myself more in the middle but I will answer your questions:


Definitions of rich (or poverty) should be defined in terms of average income levels. There can be various degrees of being rich. One level of rich may be twice the average income, while medium rich may be 3 times, and dirty rich may be 4 times. Same with low income and poverty. Levels may be 75%, 50%, and 25% of average incomes.

I support something similar to the current system. My complaint was the Bush tax cuts. I didn't feel we could afford it as a nation with our huge national debt. Also, the high tax bracket got a greater percentage drop then the medium tax brackets which I did not support. Also, spending has gone through the roof by both Obama and Bush. Both thought they had endless bank accounts.

As far as paying the fair share, tax rates need to be set, and deductions need to be capped. Everyone needs to pay. For example, I don't agree with mortgage interest deduction on second homes. If you are rich enough to afford a second home, you shouldn't get that luxury. Also, the amount of 1 million dollar homes is crazy. I think the deduction should be capped at something far less. These are just examples. Wealthy companies deduct costs of expensive cars, vacations (they call them retreats or business trips), etc. The richer you are the easier it is to find deductions which I feel they need to be capped or eliminated.

I also, want to talk about welfare. The welfare program has gone too far. I think there are many lazy people that have accepted welfare as a way of life. I don't think it should be eliminated but things like the welfare having fancy cell phones, cable TV, large TV's game consoles, name brand foods, manicures, fancy hair, jewelry, name brand cloths, etc. needs to stop. I can't afford many of these things but how can they?

The other thing I want to say is Chris said "NONE, could come up with answers, or the same answers, showing they are not on the same page.". This is one really big problem with politics. The media tries to group everyone as black or white when there are shades of gray in there. The media doesn't want to see the grays because that can lead to compromise and the media doesn't want to see that. They want to see the divide of the nation because that sells news.

It is what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
I'm against income tax on low earners. Once they pay their 20%, they won't have enough to live on, and we'll end up giving it, and more, back to them anyway.

20% of 40,000, for instance, is a lot to someone who makes 40K a year, but to the government, it's meaningless.

For the record, GE paid billions in taxes. They just didn't owe federal income tax.
Every crowd has a silver lining - PT Barnum
Originally Posted by: Bowler Roller 

I'd say 20% for high earners is fair.

On a related topic, and friend of mine, who drives a hi-lo for Ford, just got his 6G's for a signing bonus. After the government and union were done with it, he got just over 3G's. Almost 50% for a guy who makes under 100G's.



A flat, or fair, tax of 20% for EVERYONE, regardless of income level, sounds fair to me. No deductions, no loopholes, no allowances up to $600, everyone pays their share. No more stories like GE earning billions of dollars and not paying any income tax. That 47% of Americans who don't pay income tax? DONE, NO MORE. Of course liberals will probably froth at the mouth at this idea....

On Ford, sure, that's why the UAW wanted high signing bonuses, so they could get their chunk to use in 2012 to try and get their king re-elected, and Dems elected/re-elected. And 'bonuses' are taxed at a much higher rate than regular income, I found that out when I worked at a plastic factory and we would get a CHRISTmas 'bonus' check each year. Again, the government feels the need to get their hands on more of that money. And those on the government dole of course were hoping this would happen, they need their gravy train to keep on rollin'....

"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first." -- Mark Twain
I'd say 20% for high earners is fair.

On a related topic, and friend of mine, who drives a hi-lo for Ford, just got his 6G's for a signing bonus. After the government and union were done with it, he got just over 3G's. Almost 50% for a guy who makes under 100G's.
Every crowd has a silver lining - PT Barnum
Here are questions for our liberal left friends....you all say that the so-called 'rich' need to pay their 'fair share.' Okay, well, what exactly is their 'fair share?' Is it a dollar amount? Is it a percentage? What exactly is it? And what exactly makes a person 'rich?' Who makes the determination that someone is 'rich?' Again, is it a specific dollar amount that they are worth or what they earn each year, and if so, what is the cut off number? And in paying their 'fair share,' where exactly should that money go, to whom should it go? Please be specific. Let's see if any of you can answer these questions. (The same questions have been asked of liberal columnists, folks protesting at occupy protests, liberal congressmen/women, and none of them, NONE, could come up with answers, or the same answers, showing they are not on the same page.)

Oh, and why is it okay for someone on the left to call out wealthy conservatives or wealthy folks in general, but when it's pointed out to them that they, too, are wealthy (AHEM, Michael Moore), they call the reporter who does it a 'punk' and a 'liar' when the reporter has his facts in order, with figures?

"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first." -- Mark Twain
Originally Posted by: indianacarnie 

Wars is the short answer. Unwarranted subsidies... you know where it goes. Money is the only thing that doesn't roll downhill.

This is the CBO by the way.

http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/ 

Lot of interesting stuff there if you take the time to wade through it.


You have to be careful with what the CBO scores. They are given stict guides on how to score something and their scoring is static, not dynamic. Case in hand would be Obamacare. It was scored to save money but according to the HSS Sec. the part where 40% of the savings was to occur will cost money, not save it. They almost always come up up short reguardless of which party submits the bill. No business would ever rely on their projections.
I'm there, Old, Tired, Broke and Henpecked
Wars is the short answer. Unwarranted subsidies... you know where it goes. Money is the only thing that doesn't roll downhill.

This is the CBO by the way.

http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/ 

Lot of interesting stuff there if you take the time to wade through it.
An end, even with terror, is better than terror without end. F.Neitzsche
I don't know what the numbers are but I know in the 40s and 50s there were very few dual income families, those numbers changed in the 60s and early seventies. Back then credit wasn't so easy and people lived within their means. Mom not being home has had an adverse effect on families. Again look at the gvt spending, they lead the way. The more they spend the more they tax the less we have to keep the economy going. And just where does all that money go?
I'm there, Old, Tired, Broke and Henpecked
You have a point there. I started working in 1998 at even after my pay cut I will be getting twice of what I started with. I have invested in a master's degree, certificates, and licenses so that may be some of it.

Maybe the numbers are a little skewed because people especially the lower class may expect something for nothing and are lazy. The other thought I had was how many people in 1979 were two income households compared to 2007.
It is what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
If you stay at an entry level job and never progress your wages won't increase by much. If you move from entry level up the ladder to jobs requiring higher skill sets your income reflects that. That skill set advances with experience. I started as a production painter 2@ $1.80 an hour, as my skill sets increased my hourly rate reflected the same. When I retired I was getting $18 an hour in the lower bracket for my field. But over all my hourly rate went up more than 10 times what I stated at. Far above the inflation rate. This is what was not included in that study. How does Bill Gates and his income figure into this?
I'm there, Old, Tired, Broke and Henpecked