A little History test, not sure if all the Qusetions are real

[mnealtx 0]

A quick perusal of the IRS tax tables and some calculations gives the following.

Someone making 20k will pay (assuming 1 deduction) $1296.25, or 6.48% of their adjusted gross income in tax.

Someone making 20B will pay (assuming 1 deduction) $6,999,976,011.75, or 34.99% of their adjusted gross income in tax.

I would submit that 35% of AGI is much greater than 6.5% of AGI.

"And it's not a disparity, it's part of making that much money."

WTF?? Spoken like a true socialist.

There's multiple studies out there that put the lie to the old saw about "the rich not paying their share"... maybe you should look them up?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

You presented an opinion. You proved nothing

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Treasuries are perfectly viable. The problem is that the owner of them is selling them to himself.

Taking an equity loan on your own house doesn't increase your net worth any.

How is that the fault of Social Security, as opposed to being the fault of slimy accounting practices in general by the federal government?

SS and the federal government are the same thing; one is merely a single program within. And when the time comes, SS will only function if the feds pay for it.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I haven't noticed any elderly people starving on the streets recently.

No. They are well-fed on dog food.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

I'll try again:

You really should learn what the Founding Fathers meant by "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare", before trying to use those phrases to defend your position.

You're better off using literal text..............as trying to guess "what people really meant" by what they wrote isn't going to get you anywhere. (example: George Bush said that we found the weapons of mass destruction, but what he really meant was that we hadn't found them yet but he hoped we would).

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Tax Breaks only available to the wealthy:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E2DC1631F933A2575AC0A9649C8B63

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2006/04/warning_tax_cut.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/business/11cuts.html


So there's just a couple articles from sources like the NY Times about how the tax breaks help the wealthy.

And yes, there's different ways to save some money from taxes such as IRA's, but will they save you $1 million a year in taxes?

I definitely agree with you on your points about the expenses in healthcare............but what or who is going to regulate that and drive prices to a realistic level? And a tax cut for people paying cash is once again going to reward the wealthy that are able to afford to pay the $60k in cash for Chemo, but your average american isn't gonna be able to afford that. So they're screwed and out of luck? People end up having to sell their houses and everything they own and after the price of treatment and meds they're still broke and need more treatment. So what do we do about that............get healthcare for everybody or reward the rich for being able to pay their own bill?

Once again, I completely agree with you.........the politicians are gonna have a field day with this. Money lost here, money misappropriated there......but in the end you know what? These are the guys who are supposed to be taking care of this stuff, if they're not doing their job..........then get somebody who can to do it. That's where accountability comes in, which we seem to be missing right now.


By "big boys", I meant the politicians not the wealthy.......sorry I should've made that a bit clearer.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

A quick perusal of the IRS tax tables and some calculations gives the following.

Someone making 20k will pay (assuming 1 deduction) $1296.25, or 6.48% of their adjusted gross income in tax.

Someone making 20B will pay (assuming 1 deduction) $6,999,976,011.75, or 34.99% of their adjusted gross income in tax.

I would submit that 35% of AGI is much greater than 6.5% of AGI.

"And it's not a disparity, it's part of making that much money."

WTF?? Spoken like a true socialist.

There's multiple studies out there that put the lie to the old saw about "the rich not paying their share"... maybe you should look them up?

Ok.....think about it this way.

You make $20k a year..........your monthly expenses:

$500 rent
$200 car
$100 car insurance
$250 health insurance
$50 renter's insurance
--------------------------
$1,100 total
--------------------------
$13,200 a year*
+$1,296 tax
--------------------------
$14,496

*that doesn't include things like food, fuel, clothing, going to do things like skydiving or seeing a movie, or putting any money aside in a savings account.


Now let's say you wanted to own a house, your payments are pretty much going to double...........add $6k onto your expenses, you just exceeded your income.




Now let's look at our individual making $20billion a year:

$20,000,000,000 income
-$6,999,976,012 taxes
------------------------------
$13,000,023,988

Do you think they'll be able to pay rent or buy a house with that income while paying for all the other expenses?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Do you think they'll be able to pay rent or buy a house with that income while paying for all the other expenses?

Depends on how well they can budget and save. A smarter move would be to get a better paying job before buying a house.

Why do you think it's the other person's responsibility? You're quite good at championing causes...as long as it's someone ELSE'S money that pays for it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Tax Breaks only available to the wealthy:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E2DC1631F933A2575AC0A9649C8B63

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2006/04/warning_tax_cut.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/business/11cuts.html

Did you actually read these columns you posted? The third one listed noted nothing that was "exclusive" to the rich. In fact, here's a quote that reiterates my position (and from the NYT, a shady source at best):

Quote

Current law limits Roths to married couples who make less than $160,000 and single people making less than $110,000.

Quote

One provision would expand eligibility for Roth IRA investment accounts to anyone

The other two links seem to complain about the taxes on capital gains from investments and how those taxes may be avoided if those gains and principal are reinvested. Ironically, those rules exist on a smaller scale for lower wage owners who may, in fact, be home owners.

Quote

but what or who is going to regulate that and drive prices to a realistic level?

The market will do it itself. Competition drives pricing down. Regulation does not guarantee equality. The mere fact that a doctor will give a cash discount is proof of the free market setting the goals.

Again, the system is not the problem with American healthcare. It's our fat-butts.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

I'll try again:

You really should learn what the Founding Fathers meant by "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare", before trying to use those phrases to defend your position.

You're better off using literal text..............as trying to guess "what people really meant" by what they wrote isn't going to get you anywhere. (example: George Bush said that we found the weapons of mass destruction, but what he really meant was that we hadn't found them yet but he hoped we would).

Comparing the Preamble to the United States Constitution to some spin by President Bush???

What a stupid analogy.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I'll try again:

You really should learn what the Founding Fathers meant by "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare", before trying to use those phrases to defend your position.

You're better off using literal text..............as trying to guess "what people really meant" by what they wrote isn't going to get you anywhere. (example: George Bush said that we found the weapons of mass destruction, but what he really meant was that we hadn't found them yet but he hoped we would).

Ah, no guessing going on here. Before you chalenge this you may want to read the Federalist Papers

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sv3n 0]

Things like this quote don't ring a bell?

Quote

Another provision in the bill would extend to 2010 the 15 percent tax rate on most dividends and capital gains, a benefit heavily favoring those who make $1 million or more a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Joint Committee on Taxation, which makes the official tax estimates, has said this provision will save investors almost $51 billion through 2010.

This is just one point how things are geared towards people that are wealthy and hav extravagent incomes. And there's tons more in all three of those articles. Seriously now, the "but there's one sentence in one of the three articles that on my side" is getting really tired. Oh and yeah, the "oh that source is so shady" junk is getting tired as well. It's the new york times not some liberal journal.......it's an actual newspaper. Just because they wrote an article that doesn't agree with your point doesn't mean they're not a viable outlet for information. I seriously thought you were past that petty junk and up for some serious conversation.

And no, the market is not regulating itself.............health insurance for instance, there's six main companies that run health insurance in this country and prices aren't dropping while they're competing................the prices are rising. When does this miracle effect take place, is it before or after the magic beans are planted? Great example is oil..............there's several large oil companies that deal in the same products..........are prices dropping due to competition? Nope they just keep rising. The demand hasn't changed.............but they keep the supply down to keep the prices up. Same thing happens with healthcare............the companies keep the healthcare prices high so that they can get discounts on the rates from the providers and charge large amounts for their policies. They're not stupid, this is their business..........they make more profits if they keep the prices up.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you think they'll be able to pay rent or buy a house with that income while paying for all the other expenses?

Depends on how well they can budget and save. A smarter move would be to get a better paying job before buying a house.

Why do you think it's the other person's responsibility? You're quite good at championing causes...as long as it's someone ELSE'S money that pays for it.

Did I say that anybody should pay their house payments or rent? No, I didn't. But there's a great difference between 5% from this person and 35% from that person as far as taxes are concerned. A billion from Bill Gates doesn't mean crap to him......but a billion to most of us is more money than we will ever see unless we work in a bank.

Some people can't just pick up a new career and make an extra $10k next year..........they didn't inherit millions or their daddy's didn't buy them oil companies for birthdays. Yes there's always the going back to school thing, and people do that as well. But if you're only making $20k a year and scraping by.........what's the likelyhood that you're going to drop your hours down so you can go back to school and survive off of even less money each year with more expenses? Or you keep the same hours, but your expenses go up because of tuition, books, school supplies? I'm not saying these things are impossible, but they're easier said than done and that's just a single person. Let's say they had a child.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'll try again:

You really should learn what the Founding Fathers meant by "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare", before trying to use those phrases to defend your position.

You're better off using literal text..............as trying to guess "what people really meant" by what they wrote isn't going to get you anywhere. (example: George Bush said that we found the weapons of mass destruction, but what he really meant was that we hadn't found them yet but he hoped we would).

Ah, no guessing going on here. Before you chalenge this you may want to read the Federalist Papers

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

and where is this "no need to guess" proof.........come on, point it out.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'll try again:

You really should learn what the Founding Fathers meant by "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare", before trying to use those phrases to defend your position.

You're better off using literal text..............as trying to guess "what people really meant" by what they wrote isn't going to get you anywhere. (example: George Bush said that we found the weapons of mass destruction, but what he really meant was that we hadn't found them yet but he hoped we would).

Comparing the Preamble to the United States Constitution to some spin by President Bush???

What a stupid analogy.

really, stupid? "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

...and you're in violation of your face!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Things like this quote don't ring a bell?

Quote

Another provision in the bill would extend to 2010 the 15 percent tax rate on most dividends and capital gains, a benefit heavily favoring those who make $1 million or more a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Joint Committee on Taxation, which makes the official tax estimates, has said this provision will save investors almost $51 billion through 2010.

Just because the article says it favors those making 1M annually doesn't mean it is true. As I told you earlier, this benefits anyone that is in the 25% ($31,850 AGI) or higher brackets. Those people want to increase their wealth too, and it's all about the marginal tax rate. It benefits all investors, not just the wealthiest of them.

And cut it out with the counter examples of the 20k salary person. That person is barely paying income taxes, and the 7.65% for FICA will be generate a much better return than for those paying 7.65% on a much higher salary.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Did I say that anybody should pay their house payments or rent? No, I didn't.

Neither did I - but you seem to imply that the rich person should pay out even MORE of his money than he already is, since that other person can't afford to buy a house.

Quote

But there's a great difference between 5% from this person and 35% from that person as far as taxes are concerned. A billion from Bill Gates doesn't mean crap to him......but a billion to most of us is more money than we will ever see unless we work in a bank.

And this is germane to the conversation, how?

Quote

Some people can't just pick up a new career and make an extra $10k next year..........they didn't inherit millions or their daddy's didn't buy them oil companies for birthdays. Yes there's always the going back to school thing, and people do that as well. But if you're only making $20k a year and scraping by.........what's the likelyhood that you're going to drop your hours down so you can go back to school and survive off of even less money each year with more expenses? Or you keep the same hours, but your expenses go up because of tuition, books, school supplies? I'm not saying these things are impossible, but they're easier said than done and that's just a single person. Let's say they had a child.

Then perhaps owning their own home isn't feasible at their income level. I was 35 before I signed my mortgage - I couldn't afford it before that, so I rented.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Things like this quote don't ring a bell?

Quote

Another provision in the bill would extend to 2010 the 15 percent tax rate on most dividends and capital gains, a benefit heavily favoring those who make $1 million or more a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Joint Committee on Taxation, which makes the official tax estimates, has said this provision will save investors almost $51 billion through 2010.

Just because the article says it favors those making 1M annually doesn't mean it is true. As I told you earlier, this benefits anyone that is in the 25% ($31,850 AGI) or higher brackets. Those people want to increase their wealth too, and it's all about the marginal tax rate. It benefits all investors, not just the wealthiest of them.

And cut it out with the counter examples of the 20k salary person. That person is barely paying income taxes, and the 7.65% for FICA will be generate a much better return than for those paying 7.65% on a much higher salary.

Let's put it this way..........just like the article says, the higher your salary the more you're going to benefit. So it favors the wealthy, which is BS. It should be the other way around.........it should favor the low end of the income scale. And to that person that according to you "is barely paying taxes", he's giving everything he's got. He's living paycheck to paycheck and stuck. With that in mind, why would someone who's income is in the billions need to benefit from this while the person just scraping by doesn't get any benefits from it?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Things like this quote don't ring a bell?

Quote

Another provision in the bill would extend to 2010 the 15 percent tax rate on most dividends and capital gains, a benefit heavily favoring those who make $1 million or more a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Joint Committee on Taxation, which makes the official tax estimates, has said this provision will save investors almost $51 billion through 2010.

Just because the article says it favors those making 1M annually doesn't mean it is true. As I told you earlier, this benefits anyone that is in the 25% ($31,850 AGI) or higher brackets. Those people want to increase their wealth too, and it's all about the marginal tax rate. It benefits all investors, not just the wealthiest of them.

And cut it out with the counter examples of the 20k salary person. That person is barely paying income taxes, and the 7.65% for FICA will be generate a much better return than for those paying 7.65% on a much higher salary.

Let's put it this way..........just like the article says, the higher your salary the more you're going to benefit. So it favors the wealthy, which is BS. It should be the other way around.........it should favor the low end of the income scale. And to that person that according to you "is barely paying taxes", he's giving everything he's got. He's living paycheck to paycheck and stuck. With that in mind, why would someone who's income is in the billions need to benefit from this while the person just scraping by doesn't get any benefits from it?

Dude - you're shooting yourself in the foot, here.

You're using the example of someone that can't afford a mortgage as needing MORE benefit from a tax on dividends and capital gains???

You REALLY need to do some more research on this... especially when (as shown) the advantages are equally available to those with an AGI of ~32k/year or above.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Did I say that anybody should pay their house payments or rent? No, I didn't.

Neither did I - but you seem to imply that the rich person should pay out even MORE of his money than he already is, since that other person can't afford to buy a house.

Quote

But there's a great difference between 5% from this person and 35% from that person as far as taxes are concerned. A billion from Bill Gates doesn't mean crap to him......but a billion to most of us is more money than we will ever see unless we work in a bank.

And this is germane to the conversation, how?

Quote

Some people can't just pick up a new career and make an extra $10k next year..........they didn't inherit millions or their daddy's didn't buy them oil companies for birthdays. Yes there's always the going back to school thing, and people do that as well. But if you're only making $20k a year and scraping by.........what's the likelyhood that you're going to drop your hours down so you can go back to school and survive off of even less money each year with more expenses? Or you keep the same hours, but your expenses go up because of tuition, books, school supplies? I'm not saying these things are impossible, but they're easier said than done and that's just a single person. Let's say they had a child.

Then perhaps owning their own home isn't feasible at their income level. I was 35 before I signed my mortgage - I couldn't afford it before that, so I rented.

If there are tax breaks that only affect the super wealthy, as there seem to be............then yes. They don't need those tax breaks............an extra million in the bank for bill gates is gonna do what for him?

And good word usage, look at the big brain on mnealtx. Germane, well it's relavent to the conversation because you seem to have some notion that the top 1% of our income payscale need tax breaks while the low end of that scale doesn't get them. And it's a prime example of why they don't. There is a big difference in the worth of a million dollars to someone that has a sum of several billions in the bank and to someone else that has a couple hundred or thousand in the bank. Which do you think can afford to pay more in taxes? And which needs the tax breaks? Obviously the person with more money can pay more in taxes and the person with less money needs all the tax breaks he can get. Then why has the system changed over the last 7 years to one that has given extra tax breaks to the people with very large sums of money that doesn't affect the people that really need it? Where exactly does the logic come into that?

Of course, let's not make the "american dream" feasible to anyone except the wealthy because the billionaire wants that extra million a year in tax break savings. Sounds logical. At one time the economy here would have allowed a father to work at an average job and be able to support a family, a house, and a car. Nowadays there's no way, now everybody in the family needs to work..........inflation vs pay raises are nowhere in balance. So rather than giving breaks to the guy trying to struggle we give breaks to the guy who's already well off?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Things like this quote don't ring a bell?

Quote

Another provision in the bill would extend to 2010 the 15 percent tax rate on most dividends and capital gains, a benefit heavily favoring those who make $1 million or more a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Joint Committee on Taxation, which makes the official tax estimates, has said this provision will save investors almost $51 billion through 2010.

Just because the article says it favors those making 1M annually doesn't mean it is true. As I told you earlier, this benefits anyone that is in the 25% ($31,850 AGI) or higher brackets. Those people want to increase their wealth too, and it's all about the marginal tax rate. It benefits all investors, not just the wealthiest of them.

And cut it out with the counter examples of the 20k salary person. That person is barely paying income taxes, and the 7.65% for FICA will be generate a much better return than for those paying 7.65% on a much higher salary.

Let's put it this way..........just like the article says, the higher your salary the more you're going to benefit. So it favors the wealthy, which is BS. It should be the other way around.........it should favor the low end of the income scale. And to that person that according to you "is barely paying taxes", he's giving everything he's got. He's living paycheck to paycheck and stuck. With that in mind, why would someone who's income is in the billions need to benefit from this while the person just scraping by doesn't get any benefits from it?

Dude - you're shooting yourself in the foot, here.

You're using the example of someone that can't afford a mortgage as needing MORE benefit from a tax on dividends and capital gains???

You REALLY need to do some more research on this... especially when (as shown) the advantages are equally available to those with an AGI of ~32k/year or above.

No, nice try though. I'm using the example that some making gazillions of dollars doesn't need tax breaks while the guy scraping by at $20k does need them............regardless of where they come from.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Things like this quote don't ring a bell?

Quote

Another provision in the bill would extend to 2010 the 15 percent tax rate on most dividends and capital gains, a benefit heavily favoring those who make $1 million or more a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Joint Committee on Taxation, which makes the official tax estimates, has said this provision will save investors almost $51 billion through 2010.

Just because the article says it favors those making 1M annually doesn't mean it is true. As I told you earlier, this benefits anyone that is in the 25% ($31,850 AGI) or higher brackets. Those people want to increase their wealth too, and it's all about the marginal tax rate. It benefits all investors, not just the wealthiest of them.

And cut it out with the counter examples of the 20k salary person. That person is barely paying income taxes, and the 7.65% for FICA will be generate a much better return than for those paying 7.65% on a much higher salary.

Let's put it this way..........just like the article says, the higher your salary the more you're going to benefit. So it favors the wealthy, which is BS. It should be the other way around.........it should favor the low end of the income scale. And to that person that according to you "is barely paying taxes", he's giving everything he's got. He's living paycheck to paycheck and stuck. With that in mind, why would someone who's income is in the billions need to benefit from this while the person just scraping by doesn't get any benefits from it?

I still don't understand why you're complaining. The wealthiest are still paying most of the taxes. Why do you want them to pay more? I guarantee you that they didn't get rich because the government took their money and told them how to spend it.

Everyone thinks that trickle-down-economics doesn't work. Guess what - it's the engine of capitalism, and if a business owner (remember, small businesses employ 85% of the population and constitute 90%+ of the economy) doesn't have to pay taxes on a financial gain if he re-invests it, that is good for everyone.

Yes, he still pays taxes on his income, but if you amp it up too much, it only gets passed on to the little guy anyway.

Remember, the "rich" in the eyes of the more liberal-wealth-redistribution-crowd have salaries starting at about $60,000/yr.

Why does anyone think they are entitled to someone else's money? For any reason? Fairness?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If there are tax breaks that only affect the super wealthy, as there seem to be............then yes. They don't need those tax breaks............an extra million in the bank for bill gates is gonna do what for him?

Show me a law cutting income taxes ONLY for the wealthy, please - I've not heard of any, but then again, I'm not obsessed with making sure that someone else pays for my share of anything, which is exactly what you're advocating.

Quote

And good word usage, look at the big brain on mnealtx. Germane, well it's relavent to the conversation because you seem to have some notion that the top 1% of our income payscale need tax breaks while the low end of that scale doesn't get them. And it's a prime example of why they don't. There is a big difference in the worth of a million dollars to someone that has a sum of several billions in the bank and to someone else that has a couple hundred or thousand in the bank. Which do you think can afford to pay more in taxes? And which needs the tax breaks? Obviously the person with more money can pay more in taxes and the person with less money needs all the tax breaks he can get. Then why has the system changed over the last 7 years to one that has given extra tax breaks to the people with very large sums of money that doesn't affect the people that really need it? Where exactly does the logic come into that?

I'm still waiting for something besides democrat.gov talking points - do you actually have any FACTS on this? And again, explain WHY it is the responsibility of the rich to pick up the tax tab for someone else, especially given the fact that they (the top 10%) already pay something on the near order of 90% of all taxes?

Quote

Of course, let's not make the "american dream" feasible to anyone except the wealthy because the billionaire wants that extra million a year in tax break savings. Sounds logical. At one time the economy here would have allowed a father to work at an average job and be able to support a family, a house, and a car. Nowadays there's no way, now everybody in the family needs to work..........inflation vs pay raises are nowhere in balance. So rather than giving breaks to the guy trying to struggle we give breaks to the guy who's already well off?

Ah, there's the argument to emotion again...

You argue as to "need" - yet you say that the system isn't "fair" to Joe Sixpack. The basis of good law is benefit to ALL - not just some chosen demographic. Please explain why the rich NEED to pay for Joe Sixpack, and why it is FAIR that they do.

Oh - and don't forget about that 'tax cut only for the rich' thing, too.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Dude - you're shooting yourself in the foot, here.

You're using the example of someone that can't afford a mortgage as needing MORE benefit from a tax on dividends and capital gains???

You REALLY need to do some more research on this... especially when (as shown) the advantages are equally available to those with an AGI of ~32k/year or above.

No, nice try though. I'm using the example that some making gazillions of dollars doesn't need tax breaks while the guy scraping by at $20k does need them............regardless of where they come from.

Dude, you really still don't get it, do you? Where do you think the JOBS that provide Joe Sixpack's money come from? Oh yeah...those rich folks and the companies they own/run.

What do you do when money's tight? That's right - you take care of the essentials and get rid of non-essentials. Do you REALLY think companies don't do the same thing?

The basis of good law is benefit to the entire public, not benefit to one certain demographic at the expense of another - you have not YET shown harm to Joe Sixpack from a break on dividend and capital gains tax that JOE HIMSELF CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF. The fact that Warren Buffet will get more gain out of the break than Joe Sixpack is immaterial.

So - you want to take away those benefits that "only the rich get"? No problems, but your own argument about fairness says you also have to take away those benefits that the rich DON'T get.

So - no earned income credit payments, no child care expense deductions, etc.... all of those tax breaks that "the poor" get that "the rich" don't - gone.

Now, there's Joe Sixpack. He just got laid off, because the company that he worked for had to lay off 12% of the workforce in order to meet budget due to the increased taxes. The rest had to take a 10% cut in pay, and will end up paying more in taxes since they don't get the earned income credit or the childcare expense deductions anymore. They're also having to pay more at the store, since the companies passed on part of THEIR increased cost of doing business on to the customer, just like they always do.

But you sure showed those rich fuckers...didn't you?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,174]

From "Tax Evasion by Small Business", from the US Treasury (1998)

"the Internal Revenue Service (IRS, 1988) estimates that the voluntary reporting
percentage for wages and salaries is over 99 percent for filers, while the percentage for all
other income is 80 percent. In large part this disparity in reporting compliance is attributed to
the lower probability of detecting unreported self-employment income; or conversely stated,
the higher cost of detecting unreported self-employment income due to the absence of thirdparty
reporting of income and income tax withholding. In contrast, we observe nearly
complete reporting of wage income which is subject to third-party reporting and withholding.
There are also substantial differences in the rates of voluntary reporting compliance
among sources of self-employment income. For example, the IRS (1988) estimates that the
voluntary reporting percentage for filers ranges from approximately 41 to 84 percent for
proprietorship, and rent and royalty incomes, respectively. By analogy to the disparity in wage
and business income reporting compliance, one could conclude that reporting compliance
disparities among sources of self-employment income are due to differences in detection
probabilities as well. Although there are certainly some differences in the probability of
detecting unreported self-employment income by source, it is important to recognize that their
federal tax treatment varies as well."

In other words, Joe Sixpack the worker is paying his taxes, while a lot of small business owners are tax cheats. Which is even worse when you consider that small business owners have the ability legally to take deductions that employees cannot take.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.