This is tax policy brilliance

[skipbelt 0]

there's no such thing as corporate welfare , only government , which libs love !

[wmw999 2,589]

Can you explain that statement (not the part about libs -- that was just a gratuitous bash).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

there's no such thing as corporate welfare...

What term do you prefer then? Tithing?

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

there's no such thing as corporate welfare...

What term do you prefer then? Tithing?

Well a tithe would be voluntary

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

Well a tithe would be voluntary

Probably depends on the church. "Tithe or go to hell" doesn't sound real voluntary to me

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mirage62 0]

Can one of the well educated Libs here cut this to pieces and explain that it is all wrong? I'm being serious:

"The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes. The next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing." -Dinesh D'Souza

If these numbers are close to true why would you ask that group to pay even more? 10% are paying 70% of the taxes - is it nothing more than a liberal idea that they should pay more no matter how hard they work?

Seems to me we have a spending problem not a taxing more problem.

Also the number seems to be a 700 billion dollar cost to not tax the "rich" and 2 trillon dollar to not tax the middle class.

Does the liberal class (I'm being serious here) really believe that everyone who makes $250k a year got it unfairly? If the above numbers are correct what is the real justification to asking 10% to pay even more than 70%?

Is it a simple they have more to give because they have more so they should? They already are giving more.

Closing. The middle class does need a break, it is the engine of our country. If the gov. would spend the money wisely (which they won't) and I knew that additional taxes would go directly to a tax break for the middle class....perhaps this could make some sense....but it won't and it doesn't.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[wmw999 2,589]

The bottom 40% combined has .2% of the wealth in the nation. How much do you propose they contribute?

The 70% taxes paid by the top 10% corresponds roughly to the wealth they control (source. That may not be the only way to do things, but it's at least one.

Remember, too, that someone who nets (as an example) $250,000, and pays 30% of it in taxes (let's stick with easy numbers) has $125,000 to spend.

Someone who nets $1,000,000 and pays 35% of it in taxes has $650,000 to spend.

Someone who nets $50,000 and pays 10% of it in taxes has $40,000 to spend.

Which income would you rather have?

Don't forget that people with more limited incomes tend to spend a larger percentage of it on items with sales tax, so they're still taxed on stuff.

I'd like to see more opportunities for people on various forms of welfare to contribute (i.e. work plans), while making sure that children have adequate daycare and the like. It'd highlight the folks who really are deadbeats, as opposed to the ones who, by luck of birth and nature, just don't do as well. Yeah, not everyone is equally intelligent or full of drive. Of course, it sucks worse to be that way when your parents are poor, rather than rich.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The bottom 40% combined has .2% of the wealth in the nation. How much do you propose they contribute?

The 70% taxes paid by the top 10% corresponds roughly to the wealth they control

But wealth is not the same thing as cash flow (iow, income). And we're primarily talking about income tax.

A big problem with having half the population not pay incomes taxes means that they have little sense of value of spending. Why wouldn't they support deficit spending to go to war or to give college kids 'free' dorms? It's not costing them anyway.

We saw what happens with home owners (well, mortage owners) that put no money into the investment. They're quite willing to walk away.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Can one of the well educated Libs here cut this to pieces and explain that it is all wrong? I'm being serious:

"The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes.

Thanks to failed "trickle down" economics, the top 1% owns 40% of the entire nation's wealth.

Let that sink in for a minute.

1% of the people own almost half the money of the United States.

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Can you explain that statement (not the part about libs -- that was just a gratuitous bash).
Wendy P.

yes , a corporation is an artificial person with no designated expiration , all it's expenses are taxed, not all are deductible , any profits over and above expenses are taxed at the corporate rate. the term corporate welfare comes from incentives , tax and otherwise to attract or retain corporations. where the vast majority of tax liability resides is in payroll . state local , federal withholding , fica , ssi , etc. the net taxes a corporation generates far exceed any incentives or corporate welfare .
as to lib if you love government welfare , be proud of it , or , don't be a lib. any bashes by me are not to include wendy , who(m) has been very decent as of yet !

[billvon 3,119]

>But wealth is not the same thing as cash flow (iow, income).

Of course. But someone who loses his job, but has $2.4 million in the bank, is in a very different situation than someone who loses his job and has nothing in the bank. From a purely economic perspective, the guy with the millions is going to keep spending and supporting our consumer economy; the guy with no savings will not.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>But wealth is not the same thing as cash flow (iow, income).

Of course. But someone who loses his job, but has $2.4 million in the bank, is in a very different situation than someone who loses his job and has nothing in the bank. From a purely economic perspective, the guy with the millions is going to keep spending and supporting our consumer economy; the guy with no savings will not.

So shouldn't that guy that has nothing have worked harder and spent more time getting education to get more money? Or even perhaps managed his money better?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

Can one of the well educated Libs here cut this to pieces and explain that it is all wrong? I'm being serious:
"The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes.

Thanks to failed "trickle down" economics, the top 1% owns 40% of the entire nation's wealth.
Let that sink in for a minute.
1% of the people own almost half the money of the United States.

we don't tax wealth directly , yet !

[mirage62 0]

Hey Wendy,

Basically your saying, if I really understand your post that the person(s) who make the $250,000 30% CAN more afford to pay it.

I'm really not trying to be argumentive but but sales tax is sales tax, chances are a person who makes more will pay more in sales tax...as a % of what they have it will be lower but it will be more dollars.

So really your postion boils down to they make more they should pay more. My point is they DO a lot more.

As for your "rich parents" wealth in America last (big wealth) about three generations...then the people that do have drive take it from the dead beats.

I admire your stance I truely believe you are one of the few people who would gladly pay more in taxes as she makes more! (Note for all I know Wendy makes several million a year already and smiles as she hands it over)

Thanks for a serious reply

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[skipbelt 0]

by definition progressive taxes are redistributive !

[billvon 3,119]

>So shouldn't that guy that has nothing have worked harder and spent
>more time getting education to get more money?

Sure, if that's what he wants to do.

>Or even perhaps managed his money better?

Sure.

In the meantime, from a purely economic perspective, the guy who has more money in the bank will get hit less hard (and will harm the economy less) than the guy who has nothing in the bank - if both lose their jobs, that is.

[skipbelt 0]

almost without exception that net worth enables retirement from earned income !

[billvon 3,119]

>almost without exception that net worth enables retirement from earned income !

Agreed.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>So shouldn't that guy that has nothing have worked harder and spent
>more time getting education to get more money?

Sure, if that's what he wants to do.

>Or even perhaps managed his money better?

Sure.

In the meantime, from a purely economic perspective, the guy who has more money in the bank will get hit less hard (and will harm the economy less) than the guy who has nothing in the bank - if both lose their jobs, that is.

Whose fault is that, and whose resposibility is it to make up for his mismanagement? Who is it that is accountable? I know who it IS that is held accountable, my question is who SHOULD be.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

>almost without exception that net worth enables retirement from earned income !
Agreed.

diary entry , dear diary , billvon agreed with me today , a BANNER day !

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>But wealth is not the same thing as cash flow (iow, income).

Of course. But someone who loses his job, but has $2.4 million in the bank, is in a very different situation than someone who loses his job and has nothing in the bank. From a purely economic perspective, the guy with the millions is going to keep spending and supporting our consumer economy; the guy with no savings will not.

There are many "purely economic perspectives." I asked about their stake in our government. What incentive does half our population have to exercise any financial restraint when it comes to government spending? The other half pays for it, in entirety.

BTW, not too far off your scenario is the 40some year old engineer or other tech worker who loses his job to an offshoring project. He may have a worth of a few hundred thousand, or perhaps even a million, but he also has a mortgage of a few hundred thousand, and needs that principle for an early retirement.

[billvon 3,119]

>Whose fault is that

His.

>and whose resposibility is it to make up for his mismanagement?

His.

>Who is it that is accountable?

He is.

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

>Whose fault is that
His.
>and whose resposibility is it to make up for his mismanagement?
His.
>Who is it that is accountable?
He is.

who should be ?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>Whose fault is that

His.

>and whose resposibility is it to make up for his mismanagement?

His.

>Who is it that is accountable?

He is.

Ok, now who is it that ends up paying for it?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,119]

>who should be ?

He should be.