How does taxing the "rich" more help the middle class and lower class? How does it help my situation and those in the middle class and those in the lower classes?

Is it class envy?

 

From my perspective, I have a lovely wife and two wonderful kids and reside in the middle/middle class, I would venture to say.

 

How does taxing the rich help me or any other tax bracket below us? Why such venom towards that group? The top 5% pay more than a 1/3 of all income taxes, and the top 50% pay over 95%.

 

What more do the Democrats want in increasing taxes and rolling back to the present tax system? I love the child tax credits I receive and not being penalized for being married.

I don't quite understand it.

 

I think this is it, and I'm just stating my opinion. I think most voters that the dems get on this are the ones that get their checks and are disgusted by the taxes,.. feeling as though they've been "cheated" and not that they're actually contributing to society and will actually get some of that back. Also, I believe it has to do with being educated on the facts and the numbers which you just presented. I think it'd make for a good survey of the middle to lower classes to see who actually knew this, and it wouldn't just be dems getting it wrong. Just like many issues in politics the single biggest issue is MISINFORMATION, or more commonly, MISCONCEPTION.

 

In my opinion everyone should be able to vote, no matter their age, gender, or race as long as they're a US citizen, however I think they should also know what in the heck they're actually voting for as well.

You have to reach your tax base from somewhere. If tax structure takes less from one group it needs to take more from another. I wouldn't mind seeing a flat 10% across the board for everyone, including corporaitons if it was tied in to controlled spending and closing loopholes. What is the payroll of the IRS anyway? Could save billions just trying to collect it. It will never happen though.

 

I agree, I'd LOVE 10% right now lol, and wouldn't even ask for a tax return!!! I just don't see taxing heavy here and lighter there. Sorry I didn't make as much as him, I guess he earned it or got luckier than I did, but I don't think it's right to punish him for my shortcomings....

Huh??

 

i am just saying that the top 1% of the wealthy control 95% of the wealth in the country. should they not pay 95% of the taxes?:confused:

 

Controlling, and having an influence upon are a bit different. So where'd you get these #'s as well, I'd like to check em out..

Honestly this is my only problem with alot of the dems talk about taxes.

 

I'm a college student, from a middle income family, with 5 siblings. My parents provide a roof, running water, and ocasionally a midnight snack. That's it and it's been that way sense i was 16, no insurance, or spending money or whatever, I pay for EVERYTHING. My job, which just change less than a month ago used to include sales bonuses.

 

Now talk about getting taxed to crap and back. My checks, which cames twice a month would be around $850 or so, and at the end of each month I got an additional bonus. Last month my sales check was $1075 total. I made over $650 in sales bonus, yet after everything came out of it I only came ahead $200. I even said "The gov't really got me good on this one"(that's the edited version) However I didn't run out and say, this is rediculous why'd they tax me so hard, why not get my Boss's boss who makes 20 times what I do.

 

What I'm saying is all I ever hear about out of liberals and dems with taxes(for the most part) is that they're the victim. That's garbage, if you're unhappy with the way things are, do something about it.... A two month year old baby can whine and can whine and cry....

The dems are saying nothing about rolling back the child tax credit (that is yoru misinformation) they are talking about rolling back the tax breaks that went to wealthiest 5% WHILE WE ARE AT WAR.

 

War in and of itself is a economy booster (see Great Depression and WWII) why were the ones least inconvienced by sacrifice actually given more money in a time when that money should have been going to the military instead of the gov't borrowing that money on the back of my 9 year old.

The dems are saying nothing about rolling back the child tax credit (that is yoru misinformation) they are talking about rolling back the tax breaks that went to wealthiest 5% WHILE WE ARE AT WAR.

 

War in and of itself is a economy booster (see Great Depression and WWII) why were the ones least inconvienced by sacrifice actually given more money in a time when that money should have been going to the military instead of the gov't borrowing that money on the back of my 9 year old.

What specific tax breaks are you talking about?

Either # works for the sake of discussion. If 1% has 34% of the wealth should they pay 34% of the taxes?

 

No. We tax income, not wealth.

What specific tax breaks are you talking about?

Most of the tax breaks I can think of aren't available to high-income earners.

Just for the sake of it, I thought I'd throw this quote from Warren Buffett into the mix:

http://rc3.org/2005/10/warren_buffett_on_tax_rates.php

"I wouldn’t support it. We have, in my view, a taxation system that’s much too flat already. If you look at the payroll tax—which is over 12% now, and that applies on the first $80,000 or $90,000 of income—Bill and I pay practically none of that in relation to our income. For the people that work for us, their tax rate in many cases is the same or even higher than my own, since the rate on capital gains and dividends was cut to 15%. What has gone on in this country in recent years is a huge benefit to the very rich and not that much relief to people down below. Frankly, I think that Bill and I should have a higher tax rate on the income we get. We pay less than half the rate that I was paying 25 years ago when I was making a lot less money. They have really taken care of the rich."

 

The "Bill" he is talking about is Bill Gates. I saw this interview on TV a couple of days ago, and I was fascinated by the point of view that the two wealthiest men in America had, regarding the tax rates of the wealthy.

 

Now, I'm no genius, but when you have the two wealthiest men in America openly saying that the tax structure is woefully out of balance, and it is prohibitively slanted to the wealthy - well - I'm listening to what they have to say.

 

 

 

Frances

Just for the sake of it, I thought I'd throw this quote from Warren Buffett into the mix:

http://rc3.org/2005/10/warren_buffett_on_tax_rates.php

"I wouldn’t support it. We have, in my view, a taxation system that’s much too flat already. If you look at the payroll tax—which is over 12% now, and that applies on the first $80,000 or $90,000 of income—Bill and I pay practically none of that in relation to our income. For the people that work for us, their tax rate in many cases is the same or even higher than my own, since the rate on capital gains and dividends was cut to 15%. What has gone on in this country in recent years is a huge benefit to the very rich and not that much relief to people down below. Frankly, I think that Bill and I should have a higher tax rate on the income we get. We pay less than half the rate that I was paying 25 years ago when I was making a lot less money. They have really taken care of the rich."

 

The "Bill" he is talking about is Bill Gates. I saw this interview on TV a couple of days ago, and I was fascinated by the point of view that the two wealthiest men in America had, regarding the tax rates of the wealthy.

 

Now, I'm no genius, but when you have the two wealthiest men in America openly saying that the tax structure is woefully out of balance, and it is prohibitively slanted to the wealthy - well - I'm listening to what they have to say.

 

 

 

Frances

 

Frances, the only problem with his thinking is that it could stifle investments which would be bad for the economy. Maybe there's a fair compromise but IMO you cannot tax investment income the same way you do earned income.

Frances, the only problem with his thinking is that it could stifle investments which would be bad for the economy. Maybe there's a fair compromise but IMO you cannot tax investment income the same way you do earned income.

 

To be totally honest, CSHS, I do not have nearly enough education or experience in the area of macro economics to be able to form a valid opinion of how to distribute the tax burden. Like most of us on this board, all I can do is make statements based on what my sense of "fairness" is, regarding how our country funds it's programs.

 

I understand economics well enough to invest in the stock market, and I have an excellent grasp of many of the lesser known ways that money can be made at that particular game. With all of that, though, as I said in my first post - if Warren Buffet and Bill Gates make the statement that (effectively) "we aren't being asked to shoulder our fair share of the burden", then that's good enough for me.

 

 

Frances

 

PS - on a side note - Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway stock is now valued at over $100,000 per share. That is the first time that a publicly traded stock has ever topped that figure.

To be totally honest, CSHS, I do not have nearly enough education or experience in the area of macro economics to be able to form a valid opinion of how to distribute the tax burden. Like most of us on this board, all I can do is make statements based on what my sense of "fairness" is, regarding how our country funds it's programs.

 

I understand economics well enough to invest in the stock market, and I have an excellent grasp of many of the lesser known ways that money can be made at that particular game. With all of that, though, as I said in my first post - if Warren Buffet and Bill Gates make the statement that (effectively) "we aren't being asked to shoulder our fair share of the burden", then that's good enough for me.

 

 

Frances

 

PS - on a side note - Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway stock is now valued at over $100,000 per share. That is the first time that a publicly traded stock has ever topped that figure.

With your residuals from all of the "Andy Griffith" reruns, how many shares do you own?

PS - on a side note - Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway stock is now valued at over $100,000 per share. That is the first time that a publicly traded stock has ever topped that figure.

 

With your residuals from all of the "Andy Griffith" reruns, how many shares do you own?

 

How would a workin' stiff get into the residuals game?