Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich”

[jficquette]

[quote=Borat]The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

Sure, no one here is arguing otherwise. If you start with nothing and want to become rich, you’re going to have to work hard, especially considering all of the taxes you’re going to have to pay on your way to the top.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

Again, it depends on your definition of “rich”. The only truly rich people earn all of their money from passive investments, so they’re not doing any productive work anyway. Give them tax breaks and they’ll continue not working — they’ll just make more money doing it.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

What does that have to do with anything?

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

I agree 100%. What the data show is that the middle and upper-middle classes are carrying more than their fair share of the load, and that their load is increasing. Note that you won’t see any WSJ articles like this that look at the statistics of those whose income is derived from passive investments rather than productive labor, because it would show a very different picture; one of the main reasons that the WSJ exists is to make sure that we don’t get to see that picture.[/quote]

“People who work for others have no way of understanding this.”

“What does that have to do with anything?”

It has everything to do with it because the vast majority of whining Libs work for others and have no apperication for what it takes to have your own business and get ahead. They are always looking for someone else to pay for needless government crap.

The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting but not surprising.

The top 50% pay 97& of the tax. Great system we have.

BTW, what is your definition of “productive” work?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=HiItsMe]Something smells here; I don’t buy the argument. The artical under review ends with this quote:

“The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week’s IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.”

Are we to conclude that the rich, with all the economists they want to hire, all the politicians they want to support, all the media they own, i.e., those that wanted the tax cuts and likely helped design them, raised their own taxes for the good of the rest of us! I think not. Somehow, and I don’t know how, wealthy supports of the president benefitted.[/quote]

The objective of the tax code is to maximize revenue, not punish people for being productive nor reward those who are not.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=HiItsMe]Something smells here; I don’t buy the argument. The artical under review ends with this quote:

“The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week’s IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.”

Are we to conclude that the rich, with all the economists they want to hire, all the politicians they want to support, all the media they own, i.e., those that wanted the tax cuts and likely helped design them, raised their own taxes for the good of the rest of us! I think not. Somehow, and I don’t know how, wealthy supports of the president benefitted.[/quote]

The objective of the tax code is to maximize revenue, not punish people for being productive nor reward those who are not.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=HiItsMe]Something smells here; I don’t buy the argument. The artical under review ends with this quote:

“The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week’s IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.”

Are we to conclude that the rich, with all the economists they want to hire, all the politicians they want to support, all the media they own, i.e., those that wanted the tax cuts and likely helped design them, raised their own taxes for the good of the rest of us! I think not. Somehow, and I don’t know how, wealthy supports of the president benefitted.[/quote]

The objective of the tax code is to maximize revenue, not punish people for being productive nor reward those who are not.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=HiItsMe]Something smells here; I don’t buy the argument. The artical under review ends with this quote:

“The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week’s IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.”

Are we to conclude that the rich, with all the economists they want to hire, all the politicians they want to support, all the media they own, i.e., those that wanted the tax cuts and likely helped design them, raised their own taxes for the good of the rest of us! I think not. Somehow, and I don’t know how, wealthy supports of the president benefitted.[/quote]

The objective of the tax code is to maximize revenue, not punish people for being productive nor reward those who are not.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=HiItsMe]Something smells here; I don’t buy the argument. The artical under review ends with this quote:

“The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week’s IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.”

Are we to conclude that the rich, with all the economists they want to hire, all the politicians they want to support, all the media they own, i.e., those that wanted the tax cuts and likely helped design them, raised their own taxes for the good of the rest of us! I think not. Somehow, and I don’t know how, wealthy supports of the president benefitted.[/quote]

The objective of the tax code is to maximize revenue, not punish people for being productive nor reward those who are not.

John

[Borat]

The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting.

John, see my earlier post about the way the definition of “rich” changes depending on who you’re talking to. You’re using definition 2 of “rich” which actually means middle-class to upper-middle-class. By that definition we are in agreement, those people are getting raped with taxes (and I’m in that group!) However, the people that run the show, the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts and the financial institution bailouts and on and on don’t define “rich” in the same way, they use definition 1 (most if not all income earned through passive investment). They are saving tons of money with these tax cuts and we know that for sure by the fact that they’re funding articles like this in the WSJ.

Oh, and here are some examples of what I would consider productive jobs:

* Entrepeneur/business owner
* Attorney
* Doctor
* Engineer
* Sanitation worker
* Welder
* Truck driver
* Soldier
* Waitress
* Professional athlete
* Artist/Musician
* Firefighter/Policeman
* Biotech scientist
* House rehabber/flipper/real estate investor
* Plumber

Basically, any actual job or profession I would consider to be productive work.

[Borat]

The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting.

John, see my earlier post about the way the definition of “rich” changes depending on who you’re talking to. You’re using definition 2 of “rich” which actually means middle-class to upper-middle-class. By that definition we are in agreement, those people are getting raped with taxes (and I’m in that group!) However, the people that run the show, the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts and the financial institution bailouts and on and on don’t define “rich” in the same way, they use definition 1 (most if not all income earned through passive investment). They are saving tons of money with these tax cuts and we know that for sure by the fact that they’re funding articles like this in the WSJ.

Oh, and here are some examples of what I would consider productive jobs:

* Entrepeneur/business owner
* Attorney
* Doctor
* Engineer
* Sanitation worker
* Welder
* Truck driver
* Soldier
* Waitress
* Professional athlete
* Artist/Musician
* Firefighter/Policeman
* Biotech scientist
* House rehabber/flipper/real estate investor
* Plumber

Basically, any actual job or profession I would consider to be productive work.

[Borat]

The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting.

John, see my earlier post about the way the definition of “rich” changes depending on who you’re talking to. You’re using definition 2 of “rich” which actually means middle-class to upper-middle-class. By that definition we are in agreement, those people are getting raped with taxes (and I’m in that group!) However, the people that run the show, the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts and the financial institution bailouts and on and on don’t define “rich” in the same way, they use definition 1 (most if not all income earned through passive investment). They are saving tons of money with these tax cuts and we know that for sure by the fact that they’re funding articles like this in the WSJ.

Oh, and here are some examples of what I would consider productive jobs:

* Entrepeneur/business owner
* Attorney
* Doctor
* Engineer
* Sanitation worker
* Welder
* Truck driver
* Soldier
* Waitress
* Professional athlete
* Artist/Musician
* Firefighter/Policeman
* Biotech scientist
* House rehabber/flipper/real estate investor
* Plumber

Basically, any actual job or profession I would consider to be productive work.

[Borat]

The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting.

John, see my earlier post about the way the definition of “rich” changes depending on who you’re talking to. You’re using definition 2 of “rich” which actually means middle-class to upper-middle-class. By that definition we are in agreement, those people are getting raped with taxes (and I’m in that group!) However, the people that run the show, the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts and the financial institution bailouts and on and on don’t define “rich” in the same way, they use definition 1 (most if not all income earned through passive investment). They are saving tons of money with these tax cuts and we know that for sure by the fact that they’re funding articles like this in the WSJ.

Oh, and here are some examples of what I would consider productive jobs:

* Entrepeneur/business owner
* Attorney
* Doctor
* Engineer
* Sanitation worker
* Welder
* Truck driver
* Soldier
* Waitress
* Professional athlete
* Artist/Musician
* Firefighter/Policeman
* Biotech scientist
* House rehabber/flipper/real estate investor
* Plumber

Basically, any actual job or profession I would consider to be productive work.

[Borat]

The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting.

John, see my earlier post about the way the definition of “rich” changes depending on who you’re talking to. You’re using definition 2 of “rich” which actually means middle-class to upper-middle-class. By that definition we are in agreement, those people are getting raped with taxes (and I’m in that group!) However, the people that run the show, the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts and the financial institution bailouts and on and on don’t define “rich” in the same way, they use definition 1 (most if not all income earned through passive investment). They are saving tons of money with these tax cuts and we know that for sure by the fact that they’re funding articles like this in the WSJ.

Oh, and here are some examples of what I would consider productive jobs:

* Entrepeneur/business owner
* Attorney
* Doctor
* Engineer
* Sanitation worker
* Welder
* Truck driver
* Soldier
* Waitress
* Professional athlete
* Artist/Musician
* Firefighter/Policeman
* Biotech scientist
* House rehabber/flipper/real estate investor
* Plumber

Basically, any actual job or profession I would consider to be productive work.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Borat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.

You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.

I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Borat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.

You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.

I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Borat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.

You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.

I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Borat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.

You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.

I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.

[Author]

Posts