Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Headshot

51% Don't Pay Taxes

Recommended Posts

InternetTough

Have you heard of the Laffer curve? It is worth a look.

 

Who pays the taxes in the US..............

 

Top 1% pays 38% of taxes

top 5% pays 58%

Top 10% pays 69%

Top 25% pays 86%

Top 50% pays 97.3%

 

The book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is worth a read!

 

The fact is the evil rich are paying more then their fair share of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay no federal taxes and yet too many are first in line to complain and demand government handouts, rebates, earned income credits, free babies, health care, food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized utilities,,,,,,,,,,,,the list goes on.

 

"Atlas Shrugged" was much loved by Alan Greenspan. He forgot that John Galt needed lots of government financial regulation or he(Galt) was going to screw up the economy due to his own short-sighted greed and dishonesty. Atlas Shrugged was filled with bad Russian economic ideas---this time from the right. Faith in the specialness of the rich is a pretty slender reed.

 

 

As for your tax figures...I have no idea where they came from. They must not include State and Municipal taxes. They beg the question of how much the rich SHOULD pay in taxes. If you turn half or more of the population into landless agricultural laborers paying rent in kind to their feudal masters, the poor could be said to be paying no taxes at all---even while working on their master's lands ten days a month.Things aren't that bad, yet. When a man marries his maid, the Gross Domestic Product decreases. There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. If you are now working hard at an extremely low-paying job you are helping a richer man get richer---even while still not paying Federal Income Tax. No, you are not a serf---yet. You are contributing to the McConomy---more than any fine statistics might reflect. You can't pay taxes on what you never got paid in the first place!

 

Again, with Warren Buffett. He was recently found to have been obliged to pay a smaller percentage of his income than his secretary had to. Sure, his gross payment was huge, but his percentage payment was less. This is a common situation in the USA. Even Buffett spoke out against it and said that it was wrong. Why are others defending the pro-rich tax regime in the USA? What do they expect to get out of this servility?

Edited by InternetTough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smokey

The USA needs to look closely at a "value added tax" (VAT) or "goods and services tax" (GST).

It's a straight out, easy to understand "you use it, you pay" or "consumption" tax.

 

The Philippines VAT is 12.5%.

Rich guy buys a Mercedes S class for 9,000,000 pesos, he pays 1,125,000 pesos tax at 12.5%.

Pinoy Pete buys a Yamaha bike for 50,000 pesos, he pays 6,250 pesos tax at the same 12.5%.

Like I said, you use it, you pay.

Australia is 10%, Denmark is 25%.

 

KonGC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

from what i read you take SM they buy 1000 tv sets from samsung they dont pay tax because they are not the end user i can see a nice loophole if your rich .... then you can say well sm buys a bunch of new cars and gives them to the owners so they dont belong to people but the company loophole for the rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Mike

"Atlas Shrugged" was much loved by Alan Greenspan. He forgot that John Galt needed lots of government financial regulation or he(Got) was going to screw up the economy due to his own short-sighted greed and dishonesty. Atlas Shrugged was filled with bad Russian economic ideas---this time from the right. Faith in the specialness of the rich is a pretty slender reed.

 

 

As for your tax figures...I have no idea where they came from. They must not include State and Municipal taxes. They beg the question of how much the rich SHOULD pay in taxes. If you turn half or more of the population into landless agricultural laborers paying rent in kind to their feudal masters, the poor could be said to be paying no taxes at all---even while working on their master's lands ten days a month.Things aren't that bad, yet. When a man marries his maid, the Gross Domestic Product decreases. There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. If you are now working hard at an extremely low-paying job you are helping a richer man get richer---even while still not paying Federal Income Tax. No, you are not a serf---yet. You are contributing to the McConomy---more than any fine statistics might reflect. You can't pay taxes on what you never got paid in the first place!

 

Again, with Warren Buffett. He was recently found to have been obliged to pay a smaller percentage of his income than his secretary had to. Sure, his gross payment was huge, but his percentage payment was less. This is a common situation in the USA. Even Buffett spoke out against it and said that it was wrong. Why are others defending the pro-rich tax regime in the USA? What do they expect to get out of this servility?

 

Plus or minus a few points, the percentages are pretty close depending on the source, and only includes federal income taxes. I do not propose the rich should be idolized and treated with kid gloves, nor do I believe they should be demonized and plundered because they excelled and became rich. The rich, have the vision, the drive, take the risks and provide jobs that in many cases make millions of other people rich, or at least very comfortable. This evil rich, class warfare mindset is becoming way too comfortable/popular in the United States, and all too often serves as a convenient excuse for the lazy parasites to remain lazy and shift the blame for their life's failures upon someone else.

 

According to Forbes magazine, less than 19% of the Fortune 500 richest individuals inherited their wealth, the rest are self made millionaire and billionaires. Of the 60 richest people in the world, 53% are from the US,,,,,,,,and we are less than 5% of the worlds population.

Edited by Mr. Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InternetTough

If you moved from millionaire to billionaire did you inherit your wealth, or are you a "self-made man"?

 

If your family made hundreds of thousands a year and you moved to making millions a year, are you a heroic pioneer?

 

Wealth has a huge momentum.

 

 

 

 

I remember reading (in National Review) in the 1980s about a black businessman who went to speak at a poor high school. He was going to give a nice speech of encouragement, but decided that that wasn't enough. What he did instead was offer a full scholarship to every kid in one class (or maybe it was the whole school) who could get into a college. Grades shot up. What a surprise. There is nothing like knowing that your best efforts aren't going to be nullified by your economic situation. Many rich kids do well in school. Their achievements aren't exactly against the odds. And the best(most lucrative) jobs go to those from the best (most expensive) universities, etc.

Edited by InternetTough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Mike

If you moved from millionaire to billionaire did you inherit your wealth, or are you a "self-made man"?

 

If your family made hundreds of thousands a year and you moved to making millions a year, are you a heroic pioneer?

 

Wealth has a huge momentum.

You might ask Bill Gates! Yes, wealth does have a multiplier effect. The more you earn and accumulate, the more opportunities you can explore. If you make sound business decisions your wealth will grow. There is nothing heroic about it. Simply put, the self-made person just works harder and longer, makes better personal decisions, and is driven not so much by $$$,but by achieving his/her goals. They lead and others follow.

 

.I might add that there are thousands of Microsoft employees that do consider Gates, the entrepreneur, a bit of a hero

Edited by Mr. Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KID

This evil rich, class warfare mindset is becoming way too comfortable/popular in the United States, and all too often serves as a convenient excuse for the lazy parasites to remain lazy and shift the blame for their life's failures upon someone else.

 

maybe you better look around mike.

 

it is class warfare, and its international

 

the cooperations are in control, they control our politics,economy and military !!!

 

Record breaking profits from gas/energy/food companies go unchecked while the worlds governments do nothing about the fleecing of their people?????

 

who owns the cooperations-- the rich

who is in control of the worlds governments---- the rich

who is in control of the worlds natural resources--- the rich

 

back to taxes,

The only truly fair solution is for every man to pay the same amount per dollar earned on their income.

 

does not help that the average politician in the states earns so much more than the average person.

 

boost these salaries with speaking engagements,etc.etc. I guess we could say that the average politician is doing rather well on the economic scale !!!

 

Congress Members (Representatives and Senators): $174,000

Senate and House Majority/Minority Leaders: $193,400

Cabinet Members: $199,700

Speaker of the House: $223,500

Vice President: $230,700

President: $400,000M

My link

Edited by KID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sinbad

Good old Eisenhower wasn't a Marxist, but Wow! the US Federal Government sure taxed the rich under his government!

According to some people quoted favourably on this board he was a Communist agent.

 

I agree with you about the tax rate in previous years. The Golden Years for the US are generally thought to have been the 50s-70s. That happened to be a time when the tax rate was a lot higher than now. Of course, pouring trillions and trillions of dollars into the black hole of military spending, exactly what Eisenhower warned against, has played its part in bankrupting America. And I would say that the economic policies pursued in terms of free movement of capital, loose exchange rate controls, export of jobs and production to whichever country pays the least for labour, tax breaks and massive loopholes for moving money around and the underwriting of bad debt by the government has helped the 'self-made' millionaires much more than it ever helped the average working family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sinbad

On June 5th in a topic about Florida drug testing new applicants for public assistance I wrote the following. I think that it is the only fair way to end welfare.

 

A problem I see with that is that it produces an unreliable labour supply. If people are put to work cleaning streets etc if they are trying to claim benefits and cannot find another job, who cleans the streets when they do find a job? Similarly with the idea of women doing daycare in place of a job. I'm not sure I'd want someone looking after my kids who was only doing it because they needed an unemployment cheque. And if they got another job and didn't turn up to work for me, who'd look after my kids that day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond

A problem I see with that is that it produces an unreliable labour supply. If people are put to work cleaning streets etc if they are trying to claim benefits and cannot find another job, who cleans the streets when they do find a job? Similarly with the idea of women doing daycare in place of a job. I'm not sure I'd want someone looking after my kids who was only doing it because they needed an unemployment cheque. And if they got another job and didn't turn up to work for me, who'd look after my kids that day?

We are talking about welfare benefits, not unemployment. The first group is not looking for work only a free ride. You are going to have the whole group of government workers who are doing some of these jobs now that will supervise the unreliable workers and fill in as needed. If the workfare recipients don't preform, you fire them. Also remember that in my original suggestion I exempted those who are not physically or mentally capable of preforming work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fanboat

According to some people quoted favourably on this board he was a Communist agent.

 

I agree with you about the tax rate in previous years. The Golden Years for the US are generally thought to have been the 50s-70s. That happened to be a time when the tax rate was a lot higher than now. Of course, pouring trillions and trillions of dollars into the black hole of military spending, exactly what Eisenhower warned against, has played its part in bankrupting America. And I would say that the economic policies pursued in terms of free movement of capital, loose exchange rate controls, export of jobs and production to whichever country pays the least for labour, tax breaks and massive loopholes for moving money around and the underwriting of bad debt by the government has helped the 'self-made' millionaires much more than it ever helped the average working family.

 

 

Good point...also I'm sure the military pays well over retail prices for all the gear(you can buy surplus stuff for pennies on the dollar if you need some))

China is gettig damn tired of loaning us money too(just so they can sell their junk to us)

 

but times are a changing my friend

 

we are just going to print up a bunch of money(our debt will triple)the dollar will drop way down.

 

than the rest of the world can scope you the cheap properties here(and live like kings)

 

and we can start selling our junk to you.

 

win win.......american jobs for all(just got to work for a foreign boss)

 

ps....if the exchange rate goes bad for you in the phils,best come on home!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sinbad

We are talking about welfare benefits, not unemployment. The first group is not looking for work only a free ride. You are going to have the whole group of government workers who are doing some of these jobs now that will supervise the unreliable workers and fill in as needed. If the workfare recipients don't preform, you fire them. Also remember that in my original suggestion I exempted those who are not physically or mentally capable of preforming work.

 

What if they already have a job but they are still claiming welfare benefits? Do you force them to give up that job and do one of the others instead? Stop the benefits if they have a job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro
....unrestrained capitalism ....

This is usually a phrase socialists use to describe something that is not capitalism. For capitalism to work collusion and other anti-competitive behaviors have to be proscribed.

 

 

 

 

 

The Golden Years for the US are generally thought to have been the 50s-70s. That happened to be a time when the tax rate was a lot higher than now.

It never hurts to be the only major manufacturing economy still standing and having huge factories ready to produce goods.

 

 

 

 

I would be quite happy with a program which demanded some sort of work from able bodied people who wished to claim benefits.
A problem I see with that is that it produces an unreliable labour supply. If people are put to work cleaning streets etc if they are trying to claim benefits and cannot find another job, who cleans the streets when they do find a job?

We are talking about welfare benefits, not unemployment. The first group is not looking for work only a free ride. You are going to have the whole group of government workers who are doing some of these jobs now that will supervise the unreliable workers and fill in as needed. If the workfare recipients don't preform, you fire them.

Workfare is a bad idea by and large IMO. There are probably many reasons but the one that's most obvious is simply that if you do that you are moving to a socialist system where people are working for the government. You don't want them leeching, but you want them OUT paying taxes, not working for a government agency.

 

It sounds brutal but the only solution is to simply make welfare demeaning and uncomfortable. Only supply basic, and I mean basic, needs. Make them stand in line to get it, or whatever. Make it very not nice, and people who can find something else will. At the same time, by supplying only basics, costs per person are cut dramatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
broden

 

 

It sounds brutal but the only solution is to simply make welfare demeaning and uncomfortable. Only supply basic, and I mean basic, needs. Make them stand in line to get it, or whatever. Make it very not nice, and people who can find something else will. At the same time, by supplying only basics, costs per person are cut dramatically.

people use to do this on their own, way back in the day when my parents were kids they didn't have welfare now they had something called home relief which in ways was similar but most people refused to be on it, then as years passed people accepted it but were embarrassed and didn't want others to know, more years passed and people because more accepting of it and it wasn't so embarrassing anymore then not at all, now days it's totally reversed and people not only feel entitled but are often down right rude and pushy about it.

 

this is the way of the world, goes for many things. remember when the word damn in Gone With The Wind was a big huge deal?

 

i don't think it's just the states, i think the world as a whole is getting more and more in to that welfare mentality, let someone else do the work just give me mine and give it to me now damn it. and it's not just with money it's with all things, i've worked jobs where i would go in early sacrificing my own time so i could gather up the equipment i would need to work or whatever and there would always be those who saunter in late and expect me to give them the stuff i had just went to the trouble to get, suffice to say, i don't give welfare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
broden

i should ad the government also did their part to

they would from time to time check on those who were on government aid

and if they found a radio hidden in your closet

well you were off the dole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro
The poorer people in the USA all pay sales taxes.

Not true, actually, and not a cent of that is Federal in any case. Hate sales tax that much, relocate.

 

 

 

Instead of charging everyone 10% just print more money and increase the treasury by 10% that devalues the dollar so everyone feels the same pinch and the gov't has the cash they need without the bother of collecting it. . . er. . . unless they are doing that now in addition to charging taxes.

Nice to see someone who understands that printing money is essentially a tax on everyone.

 

 

 

The problem with a consumption tax or VAT is that the rich actually spend very little of their over all earned income percentage wise, their money goes into the bank or investments.

In a big mattress? Where do they put it, do you imagine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..