Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Yahoo.com: Fact Check, Are rich taxed less than secretaries?


stevenaa

Recommended Posts

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries.

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this include capital gains, payroll taxes, and income tax or are we just looking at money classified as income and the tax rate that applies to that?

Nothing is stopping Buffet from writing a check to the government, giving his Secretary a significant raise or stock options so she can have the same taxes on profits from investing money.

Capital Earnings? People's money that was already taxed in that particular tax bracket which was invested, and prosperity allowed them to enjoy the fruits of risk taking.

Back in my day not only did we walk 5 miles in the snow to go to school, but people also looked at the rich with a goal to become somewhat successful as them not steal money from others to the point that becoming a millionaire could become a disincentive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you cannot achieve "Equality" by bringing everyone up, you have to achieve it by dragging the successful down.

People hear Obama spout of "Millionaires and Billionaires" and don't realize that he is talking about a MUCH MUCH lower annual income with who will feel the pain from his "revenue enhancements"

I for one don't see the "fairness" of confiscating a larger percentage of someones "Earned Income" simply because they make more.

I don't see the "fairness" in taxing the accumulated "Post-tax" wealth of a person simply because they died.

I don't see the "fairness" taxing someone because their possessions have become more valuable.

Don't misinterpret what I say as being a "No Tax" stance as "some" level of taxation is needed for the Federal Government to operate within it's constitutional bounds, unfortunately, those we have elected seem to have forgotten that those bounds exist and think that our Government should be Robin Hood.

---------- Post added September-20th-2011 at 08:54 AM ----------

As long as cap gains are taxed lower than income taxes then this is all just smoke and mirrors, because most of these millionaires will show little to no income tax paid, because their income is their cap gains.

Capital Gains is INCOME!

And somehow you think that the person who took the risks to get a "capital gain" does not "deserve" the fruits of his own labor and that the "windfall" belongs to the Government.

We simply disagree. I cannot change your mind on this. and you cannot change mine. HTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you cannot achieve "Equality" by bringing everyone up, you have to achieve it by dragging the successful down.

:blahblah:

I thought rising tides raised all ships...I thought it was trickle down. We are seeing the fruit of the rich controlling the economy in this country, and they absolutely hate having anyone destroy the perfect illusion they have created.

Although, they love it when the peons (the poor and middle class) defend their right to do less and contribute to a lesser degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blahblah:

I thought rising tides raised all ships...I thought it was trickle down. We are seeing the fruit of the rich controlling the economy in this country, and they absolutely hate having anyone destroy the perfect illusion they have created.

Although, they love it when the peons (the poor and middle class) defend their right to do less and contribute to a lesser degree.

Do you honestly believe that all people have the same abilities?

Should Reed Doughty "earn" the same paycheck as Laron Landry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How has cutting everyone's income taxes worked out for us? Are things better now than they were 10 years ago?

I know it's a difficult concept for some on this board, but the tax strategy during the Clinton years is not what drove our economy. Our tax strategy now is also not what has led to our economic issues today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And somehow you think that the person who took the risks to get a "capital gain" does not "deserve" the fruits of his own labor and that the "windfall" belongs to the Government.

That's a lie and you know it, I NEVER once said that they don't deserve what they earn...NEVER...but that does not mean that capital gains is any different for the rich than a paycheck is for the middle class and poor...it is their income, it should be taxed as such.

---------- Post added September-20th-2011 at 09:05 AM ----------

Do you honestly believe that all people have the same abilities?

Should Reed Doughty "earn" the same paycheck as Laron Landry?

Are you just going to make things up about what I'm saying all day or are we going to have a discussion?

Because if you're going to make things up then feel free to just rewrite my posts to fit your argument.

I NEVER once said that all have the same abilities, but all should be taxed equally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The secretary probably pays little to no income taxes. The rich pay less in income taxes than they used to.

How has cutting everyone's income taxes worked out for us? Are things better now than they were 10 years ago?

While cutting taxes was a great idea, the problem was the explosion in spending. You hear liberals talking about going back to Tax rates during the Clinton era, if that was to be considered will they agree with going back to the Clinton era government spending levels?

---------- Post added September-20th-2011 at 08:18 AM ----------

I know it's a difficult concept for some on this board, but the tax strategy during the Clinton years is not what drove our economy. Our tax strategy now is also not what has led to our economic issues today.

The GOP controlled Congress reigned in Spending. Remember Welfare Reform, etc?

---------- Post added September-20th-2011 at 08:20 AM ----------

I NEVER once said that all have the same abilities, but all should be taxed equally.

A Flat Tax? I'm okay with that as long as it includes everyone.

---------- Post added September-20th-2011 at 08:23 AM ----------

As long as cap gains are taxed lower than income taxes then this is all just smoke and mirrors, because most of these millionaires will show little to no income tax paid, because their income is their cap gains.

Capital Gains is INCOME!

So successful people should not invest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in my day not only did we walk 5 miles in the snow to go to school, but people also looked at the rich with a goal to become somewhat successful as them not steal money from others to the point that becoming a millionaire could become a disincentive.

Back when you were walking to school in the snow uphill both ways the top tax rate was around 70%. More than twice what it is now.

Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Flat Tax? I'm okay with that as long as it includes everyone.

A flat tax would certainly be better than what we have now, but it would HAVE to include capital gains.

Seriously though, for an investment banker who's yearly income is dominated by what he/she earns on their investments rather than based on an hourly rate or yearly salary...someone has to explain how that "capital gains" is not income. Saying it is anything different is pure semantics.

---------- Post added September-20th-2011 at 09:25 AM ----------

Back when you were walking to school in the snow uphill both ways the top tax rate was around 70%. More than twice what it is now.

Go figure.

And everyone could do it if they just tried hard enough....man the lies told to generations never cease to amaze me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprised people ignored this question. This does not include capital gains taxes, just income and payroll.

Yep, and that's the problem, somewhere along the line those who make their living off of capital gains convinced the world that their investment earnings wasn't really their income, sadly we bought it....and subsequently paid for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Best" tax would be a national sales tax on everything (Yes EVERYTHING). It taxes the use of money and those who spend more are taxed more but my first dollar spent is taxed at the same rate as my billionth dollar spent. What I find interesting is that this "most fair" method of taxing is painted as being unfair because it includes people who are under our current system paying ZERO in Federal Income Tax.

The problem I have with the National Sales Tax is that there is no way that our Federal Government would make it a "replacement" for the current system, they would insist that it were "in addition to" our current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you cannot achieve "Equality" by bringing everyone up, you have to achieve it by dragging the successful down.

I really do not see anything wrong with alleged economic inequality looking at it from the POV that if you became successful thru hard work and initiative while the not so successful did not take advantage of education opportunities in school and sat around as though they are owed something. There will always be winners and losers, mega rich and ditch diggers.

How would liberals feel if you could take this mindset of wealth redistribution to the academic realm and all of those allegedly super smart Ivy League types had to have their grade point averages lowered so failing students in Appalachia, West Va or Community colleges are now getting a gentleman's C or are above average?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do not see anything wrong with alleged economic inequality looking at it from the POV that if you became successful thru hard work and initiative while the not so successful did not take advantage of education opportunities in school and sat around as though they are owed something. There will always be winners and losers, mega rich and ditch diggers.

How would liberals feel if you could take this mindset of wealth redistribution to the academic realm and all of those allegedly super smart Ivy League types had to have their grade point averages lowered so failing students in Appalachia, West Va or Community colleges are now getting a gentleman's C or are above average?

Sweet jeebus...that's so not what is being argued for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Best" tax would be a national sales tax on everything (Yes EVERYTHING). It taxes the use of money and those who spend more are taxed more but my first dollar spent is taxed at the same rate as my billionth dollar spent. What I find interesting is that this "most fair" method of taxing is painted as being unfair because it includes people who are under our current system paying ZERO in Federal Income Tax.

The problem I have with the National Sales Tax is that there is no way that our Federal Government would make it a "replacement" for the current system, they would insist that it were "in addition to" our current system.

That certainly has the quality of simplicity, but "most fair"? I disagree that it is fair that the poverty-level family gets taxed the same rate for putting food on the table as the wealthy scion with inherited family money pays on his Lamborghini. If the tax forces the millionaire to downgrade to a Mercedes, and the family to downgrade from two eggs a week to one, I don't see it on a pure "fairness" level.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Class warfare and Wealth redistribution are not being argued for? Heck we have people looking at Capital Earnings as more loot to steal from those who took the risk to invest money that was already taxed.

There's no class warfare. Frankly, if there is, the wealthy won that war a long time ago, and still have not removed their foot from the middle class' neck.

The point of Obama's bill is that while investment is good, the fact that the wealthy are the ones who have enough money to invest means they get to have income taxed at a better rate. IT IS a windfall. No matter what anyone says. Its an advantage in the tax code to simply have money.

I'm not sure raising the capital gains rate is smart at this point in the economic cycle. But, let's stop acting like Obama is trying to punish only the wealthy. The point of the bill is to make sure that the tax code is fair to those with and without wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That certainly has the quality of simplicity, but "most fair"? I disagree that it is fair that the poverty-level family gets taxed the same rate for putting food on the table as the wealthy scion with inherited family money pays on his Lamborghini. If the tax forces the millionaire to downgrade to a Mercedes, and the family to downgrade from two eggs a week to one, I don't see it on a pure "fairness" level.

Life isn't supposed to be fair. Since when has Americans begun hatin on the successful instead of striving to achieve that level? Wealth redistribution has only led to people being dependent on government and Govt becoming the daddy or hubby in single family homes. And where is there a family in the USA that would have to downgrade to 1 egg a week? Why aren't they working two jobs to avoid that type of situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...