I feel better that the 2% is going to pay their fair share in taxes!

[imanamerican63]

[Angry Dragon]

1. ..........

[HeroBrand]

2. .

The 2% already pay much more than the average citizen.

At what point will you stop chanting the tired mantra of "tax the rich for the benefit of society?"

[snooper2]

3. that's the best username you could come up with?

[yardwork]

4. I have a question for you.

I doubt that you earn more than $450,000 per year. Why are you defending those who do?

[sabrina 1]

15. And what did we get from those who benefited by over 2 trillion dollars

from the Bush tax cuts over the past 12 years? That incentive, as you call it, did not work. Where are the jobs we gave them 2 trillion dollars to create?

Could you explain what you mean by 'incentive'? Giving them huge tax breaks as we have, is an incentive to do what?

[HeroBrand]

18. .

To a neutral observer, the threat of increased taxation at a higher level of success would cause a tendency to avoid success as a means of avoiding higher taxes.

[EOTE]

23. They've had 12 YEARS to create jobs.

They've given us 2 recessions instead. I'm pretty sure that's undeniable proof that the voodoo economics you espouse is ridiculous bullshit. But so long as there are ridiculous bullshitters like yourself to defend the wealthy at all costs, there will be morons who buy it.

[buzzroller]

29. You are advocating supply side economics

that has been discredited over and over, even by David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, who admitted later that is was just an excuse for tax cuts for the rich. Also the Bush tax cuts were paid for by money the government did not have and is part of our debt. How do you justify borrowing for those breaks.

[smirkymonkey]

42. How unbelievably stupid.

I can't even get into it.

[HangOnKids]

47. Save Your Energy

He had a post hidden and can't post in this thread for 24 hours.

[sabrina 1]

56. Are you kidding? Lol, well, I'll take a million dollars a year and pay

even 40% in taxes right now if someone were to offer me that opportunity. That would still leave me with $600,000 a year. I'll take it. In fact I'm motivated at the very thought of making that much money a year.

Are you seriously suggesting that people will refuse to make a million because they might only take home more than half of that and would rather make $50, 000 and take home only a little more than half of that?

Where does this logic come from?

If everyone is taxed at the same rate, it is absolutely ludicrous to say that people will just stomp their feet and refuse to make a higher amount because we won't give them MORE tax breaks than we give the guy making a fraction of that.

[yardwork]

25. Despite the seeming negative incentive, the wealthy have a much higher share than before.

Look how much wealth the top 1% control in the U.S., compared to how little is divided among everybody else:

[img]

[imanamerican63]

34. You are R Troll and listen to Rush to much!

[PA Democrat]

5. As long as FOX News viewing dupes keep repeating the myth

of how much the wealthiest are over-taxed.

[HeroBrand]

8. .

That they are taxed more is a fact.

Next.

[EOTE]

14. Then how do you explain Romney paying 12% on his many millions of income?

While I make 1/100th of that and pay more than twice that rate? I've got a little bit of helpful information for you, champ. The wealthy already have enough people sucking their dicks, they don't need your help as well.

[SomethingFishy]

52. A fact? Do you know the definition of the word?

Do you know what an accountant is? Loopholes?

I pay a higher rate of taxes than my boss does. Explain how that is "fair".

[PA Democrat]

55. Aw. Someone sent him home to his buddies at FAUX News.

I guess they don't teach people like him about percentages. Last time I checked I paid a significantly higher percentage of MY income to the government than Mitt Romney.

[Fumesucker]

6. That's because the 2% make much more than the average American

The Bush tax cuts primarily for the wealthy passed early in his first term was supposed to invigorate the economy, the exact opposite happened, the economy went in the toilet and has stayed there.

At what point will you stop chanting the tired mantra that tax cuts for the wealthy benefit the rest of society?

Oh, and welcome to DU!

[HeroBrand]

9. .

So you blame the entire economic downturn on tax cuts for the rich?

Good one.

At no point did I state that the wealthy should have their taxes cut. I just want everyone to pay their fair share.

[EOTE]

12. The great bulk of it IS due to the Bush tax cuts.

We've been fed this voodoo economics bullshit for more than 30 years. It's failed every time. If we give the already wealthy even more obscene amounts of wealth for a decade with the promise that it will stimulate employment and job growth and we receive two recessions instead, I'm pretty sure that's all we need to know that the wealthy don't need that extra cash. Really, it wouldn't hurt very much to think about these issues.

[HeroBrand]

16. .

Why don't the wealthy need more cash? You sound jealous.

Are you against capitalism? They should not be penalized just because their business is more successful than yours.

[EOTE]

19. Wow, not terribly bright, are you?

We live in a capitalist society, one which has a progressive tax system. Tax cuts which unequivocally favored the wealthy were scheduled to expire a while ago and they're finally expiring now in spite of the hissy fit the wealthy are throwing.

[hfojvt]

28. unfortunately, they are not expiring

the vast majority, about 85%, are remaining

Guess who is favored by the parts that are remaining?

Which party was it that made sure they would not expire?

[EOTE]

30. I'll take it as a partial victory.

The wealthy are going to continue to have their way until citizens get fed up enough, unfortunately.

[hfojvt]

48. apparently citizens are never gonna get fired up

when they get placated by a partial "victory".

[EOTE]

49. I'm not placated, just willing to accept this as a positive change.

2 years ago it was decided the tax cuts would be extended period. At least now the top 2% are picking up slightly more of the tab. It's not perfect by a long shot, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

[hfojvt]

53. no, is some cases it is even worse than 2010

back then at least the Bush tax cuts had another expiration date.

Now these regressive changes to the tax code have NO expiration date.

To undo them we need 60 progressive votes in the Senate. 35 Republicans and 5 conservadems can stop any increase in the tax rate for dividends.

Romney, et. al. get permanent tax cuts of 19.6% on their unearned dividend income.

[Lex]

36. Taxes aren't a penalty. Taxes are paying your fair share in contributing to our great country.

If you don't want to pay your fair share, go live somewhere else where they don't tax you.

[smirkymonkey]

43. Thank YOU!

Some people will never get it.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

37. The government borrows the money for the tax cuts from the Chinese and then they pay interest on it,

you got to be a dimwit if you don't understand it is a losing proposition for the average American, also we have to invade other countries to protect the billionaires and millionaires holdings which is off the books and they don't even have to help pay for!

[Fumesucker]

22. Do you deny that the Bush tax cuts were touted as being great for the economy?

Do you deny that the economy actually got *worse* after the tax cuts?

I was pointing out the difference between the touted benefits to society of the tax cuts for the wealthy and what actually happened.

Who derives the most benefit from our society, the poor or the wealthy?

[EOTE]

10. As well they should, we do have a PROGRESSIVE tax system.

Not nearly as progressive as it should be, but it's a start. It's obvious that our tax system should become more progressive as we have the most inequal distribution of wealth of all first world countries. They may be paying more in absolute numbers, but they're not paying nearly enough. Comprende?

[HeroBrand]

13. .

Who are you to determine what is enough?

You are someone who earns less than 450K who automatically assumes that they can "afford to pay more" because it's "their fair share."

[EOTE]

17. They can afford to pay more because they choose to live in America, where we have a progressive tax

system. The tax cuts were always supposed to be temporary, did you forget that? They were already extended, if the wealthy don't like it, they can get the fuck out of this country, they don't contribute a damned thing to the economy anyway.

[hfojvt]

27. it's pretty obvious that they can afford to pay more

not because it is "their fair share" but because they have $450,000 with which to pay it.

The disgusting Bush tax cuts made sure people like that got huge tax cuts.

That was the "unfairness" that we were trying to rectify here, at least, we the voters.

Our elected Democrats made sure that the wealthy still got a disproportionate share of the tax cuts - maybe because so many of them ARE wealthy themselves, and/or because so many of their donors are.

After all, who can afford to donate $2,000 to a Senate campaign. Somebody who makes $40,000 a year or somebody who makes $200,000 a year?

Thus, even though there are far, far more people making $40,000 or less, our scumbag politicians, even in the useless Democratic Party will serve those making $200,000 or more, and only pretend to serve those making $40,000 or less.

[yardwork]

32. Instead of focusing on those making $450,000, focus on those making $500 million.

The math becomes very stark. A person making $500 million can afford to pay $5 million more in taxes. They still have $495 million of their own, in which to buy more elections. And that's only part of the story. A person making $500 million income is assuredly a billionaire, controlling an even larger pot of money.

The person making $50,000 can't well afford to pay $5,000 more in taxes. Anybody should be able to see this logic.

It's sad that the billionaires get people to carry water for them. As the 99%, the rest of us would have a lot more power if many of us weren't being paid pennies to ensure that the billionaires hang onto their billions.

[hfojvt]

46. fuck the 99%

what is sad is when people who make $20,000 a year carry water for those who make $200,000 a year, as if we are all one in the 99%.

Those making over $10,000,000 a year had 5.1% of the national income in 2005.

Those making from $200,000 - $500,000 had 10.6% of the national income. And only 2.67% of tax filers had income over $200,000. Meanwhile, 43% (!!!) had income below $25,000. That over $200,000 club is a pretty elite group.

The bottom 50% has a tiny share of the national income, not just because of the top 1%.

Take away the top 1% and divide the rest of the pie equally and every taxpayer gets $48,620. The average income of the bottom 50% of taxpayers is $15,287.

[yardwork]

51. Yes, it's terrible. And this is the reason our country has so little money for infrastructure.

Think of the excellent schools that could be built and repaired, the health care that we could afford for everybody (that would in turn raise our nation's productivity and make it possible for many people and their caregivers to go back to work), the decent housing and repaired bridges and opportunities for entrepreneurship if opportunity was somewhat more equal. Instead, the wealthy have grabbed most of the pie, and instead of waking up and taking back their fair share, everybody else is fighting among themselves.

I live in the state with the least union presence in the country. Basically, there is simply no organized labor in my state. It's illegal. Despite this, I heard a young man talking about how we need to "crush the unions." This person is looking for a permanent job! He's living hand to mouth working in a temp pool, making minimum wage with no benefits. And he's mad at the nonexistent unions?!

[hfojvt]

54. it is the top 50% that has 80% of the pie

the top 1% only has about 20%.

The other 49% has the other 60%.

The top 9% (meaning the top 10% without the top 1%) gets 25% of the pie.

Imagine the schools we could build if THOSE prosperous fuckers would give up some of their pie.

Instead, they cry and whine "we don't have enough. We're not rich. We need more (for ourselves and to hell with the bottom 20%)"

The top 24% has 46% of the pie. Twice as much as the top 1%. They can afford to help society too.

I am in the bottom 40% and besides paying taxes, I gave about $4,000 to charities and about $700 to my nieces and spent about $1500 to run for office, and put $6,000 in my IRA.

[imanamerican63]

26. Is that a questions?

I don't see your point? Let me explain it to you very easily! If I make a dollar and pay 32% in taxes, why should the rich only 18%, on the same dollar they made from me, because I work for them or bought their product? A dollar is a dollar, no matter if you make $15,000 or a million! Just because you make more than I do you or I make less than you do, the percentage of taxes should be the same!

[yardwork]

35. The percentage of taxes should not be the same. The very wealthy should pay a higher percentage.

Consider a person making $50,000 a year. If they are taxed at 20%, that is $10,000 of their money gone, leaving them only $40,000. That's a significant blow.

In contrast, consider the person making $5 million per year. Twenty percent of $5 million is $1 million. The person still have $4 million. They're not going to be hurting.

[imanamerican63]

41. I agree, I was trying keep my point simple to him!

My point is that they, the 2%, were getting a benefit from my dollar and it is same dollar they made! The more you make the more you should pay in taxes! There a lot me's out there and that adds up to a lot money!

[yardwork]

44. I agreed with your point that the 1% actually pay a lot lower percent in taxes, due to tax dodges

that the legislators that the 1% put in office pass into law to benefit the incredibly wealthy.

[Harmony Blue]

50. Enjoy your short stay on DU!

I really mean it!

[madokie]

11. I'm not sure its going to be a fair share

but I am happy they're going to have to pay some more

[buzzroller]

24. You are right

They will pay a little more in income taxes, but the very wealthy still got continued low capital gains rates and a favorable estate tax. Even on income tax, their rate on the first $400.000-$450,000 is lower than the Clinton rates and much lower than the Eisenhower rates. What is a fair share is still an open question.

[yardwork]

38. The tax rate on the very wealthy is so much less than it was in the 1960s and 70s.

We've allowed the gap between the incredibly wealthy and everybody else to expand so much since 1980, and let those fabulously wealthy people pay less and less of a percent of their incomes, leaving our nation in debt, our infrastructure unrepaired, our health system in shambles, and yet many people continue to buy the lie that giving so much to so few will
trickle down to prosperity for the rest of us, some day.

Pie in the sky by and by.

[hfojvt]

20. I would too, if it was true

But Obama made sure they would get $20,000 a year in tax cuts with his bad deal.

And I would like to see the rest of the top 10% pay their fair share too.

[L0oniX]

21. The homeless are celebrating n/t

[NCTraveler]

31. Not even close to a "fair share"

But it is a start and the conversation(about taxes) over the last couple of years has moved in the right direction.

[imanamerican63]

33. Good point!

They'll still have more loop holes to juml thru!

[imanamerican63]

39. I was trying to make a joke about the tea baggers!

And look what you all did? My 1st milestone thread!

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. More like the .5% nt

[johnnyrocket]

45. We'll see, at that level, they're good at hiding income, and besides, isn't it...

...more 'carried interest' and other incomes that barely get taxed at all. I still support a millionaires/billionaire's surtax. Someone making $ 401,000 should have the same rate as someone making $50 million??