Bernie Sanders .... Tax rate 90%

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2015, 11:27 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think if whatever President and Congress came out with a plan and said "we need to raise this much money, and we are going to use it to do this, and if successful, we will re-examine the tax rate and lower it if possible" instead of, "You people suck and are stealing from hungry children and we are going to take your money and do with it as we please", you may actually get a movement.  But a guy paying a couple hundred thousand in taxes being told he isn't paying his fair share is thinking "F U."

You are very correct in this. Their marketing when it comes to taxes sucks on both ends. The problem is that so much of that political rhetoric is flying around that even if someone does come out and say that, someone from the other side will come out and bring the rhetoric. If a Dem recommends this then it will be "class warfare" and "socialism". If a Rep suggests it the left will scream that they are hurting the poor and placating the wealthy and/or the corporations (depending on the suggestion).

I just want, for once, people to shut up, forget about the letter next to their name on CSPAN, and do their job as an elected official in the best interests of the country on things that actually matter.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-02-2015, 11:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You are very correct in this. Their marketing when it comes to taxes sucks on both ends. The problem is that so much of that political rhetoric is flying around that even if someone does come out and say that, someone from the other side will come out and bring the rhetoric. If a Dem recommends this then it will be "class warfare" and "socialism". If a Rep suggests it the left will scream that they are hurting the poor and placating the wealthy and/or the corporations (depending on the suggestion).

I just want, for once, people to shut up, forget about the letter next to their name on CSPAN, and do their job as an elected official in the best interests of the country on things that actually matter.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 11:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: Not dollars...rates.

It doesn't matter to the guy.  If someone has a gross income of sat $1 million, and he is paying say $250,000 in federal taxes alone, and you tell him he's not paying his fair share he will tune you out.  He's going to look at you who may not pay that in ten years, and say, 'Who are you to tell me I'm not paying my share?"

[GMDino]

(06-02-2015, 11:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It doesn't matter to the guy.  If someone has a gross income of sat $1 million, and he is paying say $250,000 in federal taxes alone, and you tell him he's not paying his fair share he will tune you out.  He's going to look at you who may not pay that in ten years, and say, 'Who are you to tell me I'm not paying my share?"

And I'd gladly answer that I am the guy working so he can make a profit that he pays himself with to "invest" and pay a lower rate than me.

I happily pay my fair share.  If my rate is good for me, salaried and 40 hours a week + commission, then it is good enough for Joe Investor.  Period.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 11:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: And I'd gladly answer that I am the guy working so he can make a profit that he pays himself with to "invest" and pay a lower rate than me.

I happily pay my fair share.  If my rate is good for me, salaried and 40 hours a week + commission, then it is good enough for Joe Investor.  Period.

What? So you are only talking about investment income? Because when people talk about "fair share", they are talking all income. Plenty of people make $500,000 and up by working, and usually a hell of a lot more than 40 hrs. Are you also irate that your tax rate on capital gains is probably zero?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-02-2015, 12:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What?  So you are only talking about investment income?  Because when people talk about "fair share", they are talking all income.  Plenty of people make $500,000 and up by working, and usually a hell of a lot more than 40 hrs.  Are you also irate that your tax rate on capital gains is probably zero?

Just because you get paid for 40 hours on salary, usually doesn't mean you get to work 40 hours.  I get at least 55 a week, and that's if I don't have to work Saturday....

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 12:31 PM)Wyche Wrote: Just because you get paid for 40 hours on salary, usually doesn't mean you get to work 40 hours.  I get at least 55 a week, and that's if I don't have to work Saturday....

He said he wroked 40 hours a week.  I took him at his word.

DINO...WYCHE IS DOUBTING YOU!!!!  

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-02-2015, 12:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He said he wroked 40 hours a week.  I took him at his word.

DINO...WYCHE IS DOUBTING YOU!!!!  

[xxlt]

(06-01-2015, 04:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Also the world had been blown to pieces and we were the only game in town.  That kinda helped. Not to mention that keeping 90% of any portion of someone's income is plain immoral.

No, not having a progressive tax code is plain immoral.

I realize we will never agree on this, but your assumption that taxation is keeping someone's income unjustly is, in the minds of many, flawed.

I realize you think taxation is akin to government theft of what is "yours" or "mine" and an unjust "redistribution" but that is not the only way to view taxes or the economy as a whole. The fact is taxes or no taxes wealth is redistributed every day and the only question is how is it going to be redistributed. In the 1950's we had a more fair system and broader and deeper prosperity in a thriving middle class and a thriving upper class.

 If you want to have a functioning economy and society, government is necessary and thus taxes are necessary. I imagine you, like Grover Norquist, want to drown it in the bath tub, but that is simply ignorant. Our government, economy, and tax code produced broader prosperity from 1945 to 1980 than from 1980 to 2015. Blame it on WWII all you want.

And, OK, let's credit WWII. We had a big head start on the rest of the world, only to be surpassed in the last few decades by Japan, Germany, China, most of Western Europe, and even some Latin American countries in certain measures. How the hell did we let that happen? Oh, we slashed taxes so rich people could be richer. So, I guess we need another World War to get ourselves back on top? Bring on Armadeddon! Get Rummy and the boys on the line! We can fight our way out of this if we just invade Iran, Mexico, Ukraine, and Canada. Then we shall prosper again against a post-apocalyptic landscape, drop the tax rates to .01% and let the good times roll.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 12:53 PM)xxlt Wrote: No, not having a progressive tax code is plain immoral.

I realize we will never agree on this, but your assumption that taxation is keeping someone's income unjustly is, in the minds of many, flawed.

I realize you think taxation is akin to government theft of what is "yours" or "mine" and an unjust "redistribution" but that is not the only way to view taxes or the economy as a whole. The fact is taxes or no taxes wealth is redistributed every day and the only question is how is it going to be redistributed. In the 1950's we had a more fair system and broader and deeper prosperity in a thriving middle class and a thriving upper class.

 If you want to have a functioning economy and society, government is necessary and thus taxes are necessary. I imagine you, like Grover Norquist, want to drown it in the bath tub, but that is simply ignorant. Our government, economy, and tax code produced broader prosperity from 1945 to 1980 than from 1980 to 2015. Blame it on WWII all you want.

And, OK, let's credit WWII. We had a big head start on the rest of the world, only to be surpassed in the last few decades by Japan, Germany, China, most of Western Europe, and even some Latin American countries in certain measures. How the hell did we let that happen? Oh, we slashed taxes so rich people could be richer. So, I guess we need another World War to get ourselves back on top? Bring on Armadeddon! Get Rummy and the boys on the line! We can fight our way out of this if we just invade Iran, Mexico, Ukraine, and Canada. Then we shall prosper again against a post-apocalyptic landscape, drop the tax rates to .01% and let the good times roll.

I never said anything against a progressive tax.  

[GMDino]

(06-02-2015, 12:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What?  So you are only talking about investment income?  Because when people talk about "fair share", they are talking all income.  Plenty of people make $500,000 and up by working, and usually a hell of a lot more than 40 hrs.  Are you also irate that your tax rate on capital gains is probably zero?

Yes they do.  And if they get a paycheck vs investment "earnings" they will be the rate I pay.

Continued...

[GMDino]

(06-02-2015, 12:31 PM)Wyche Wrote: Just because you get paid for 40 hours on salary, usually doesn't mean you get to work 40 hours.  I get at least 55 a week, and that's if I don't have to work Saturday....

(06-02-2015, 12:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He said he wroked 40 hours a week.  I took him at his word.

DINO...WYCHE IS DOUBTING YOU!!!!  

 

I meant I am paid based on a 40 hour week.  It usually closer to 50.  Sometimes more...rarely less.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 01:29 PM)GMDino Wrote:  

I meant I am paid based on a 40 hour week.  It usually closer to 50.  Sometimes more...rarely less.

If I subtract the time i spend on these boards I put in a solid 20 I think.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-02-2015, 01:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If I subtract the time i spend on these boards I put in a solid 20 I think.

Well.....now that you mention it.......

[Benton]

(06-02-2015, 11:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You are very correct in this. Their marketing when it comes to taxes sucks on both ends. The problem is that so much of that political rhetoric is flying around that even if someone does come out and say that, someone from the other side will come out and bring the rhetoric. If a Dem recommends this then it will be "class warfare" and "socialism". If a Rep suggests it the left will scream that they are hurting the poor and placating the wealthy and/or the corporations (depending on the suggestion).

I just want, for once, people to shut up, forget about the letter next to their name on CSPAN, and do their job as an elected official in the best interests of the country on things that actually matter.

I interviewed a state rep once who said the greatest thing he was taught by an elder statesman he shadowed his first term was how to explain what he was voting on to his constituents, to show them why something is important or why it would have been harmful.

we don't get that kind of hands on representation as much now. Instead its a lot of talking points.

[GMDino]

(06-02-2015, 12:31 PM)Wyche Wrote: Just because you get paid for 40 hours on salary, usually doesn't mean you get to work 40 hours.  I get at least 55 a week, and that's if I don't have to work Saturday....

(06-02-2015, 01:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If I subtract the time i spend on these boards I put in a solid 20 I think.

This isn't work?

[6andcounting]

(06-02-2015, 11:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: And I'd gladly answer that I am the guy working so he can make a profit that he pays himself with to "invest" and pay a lower rate than me.

I happily pay my fair share.  If my rate is good for me, salaried and 40 hours a week + commission, then it is good enough for Joe Investor.  Period.

What is my fair share to your money?

[GMDino]

(06-02-2015, 02:21 PM)6andcounting Wrote: What is my fair share to your money?

The amount I am paying...which is less than they guy who is "investing" his money and not working.

And its not just yours.  It goes to a big fund for everyone.  It builds bombs and feeds children.  It fix roads and catches terrorists.

We can debate what % should go to what...but we are all contributing.  Some more than others.

And I'm paying a higher rate because I work for a living vs already having money and "investing" it.

[*bfine32*]

(06-02-2015, 12:49 AM)Benton Wrote: Isnt the gist of that undertrained and underequipped soldiers asked to stop the spearhead of the NK army? 

Because... if so... that's not really been the problem since 1980ish. We could get by with less training We could get by with fewer bases (although consumer  companies like BP and war service providers like Brown & Root and Supreme would be really disappointed in loosing hundreds of billions of annual profit footed by taxpayers).

Or maybe you're referring to equipment? Because I'm in favor of improvements there, although spending billions for weapons we aren't using during down time is not something I support.

Yes, the taskforce was ill-equpped, ill-trained, and over-ran because of "cutting defense". The easiest thing for most to say is "cut defense". We are closing and realigning bases all the time

[GodHatesBengals]

(06-01-2015, 10:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: flat tax.     

:crazy: