lawrocket 3 #26 April 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotethere should be minimum flat fee for general services What about the disabled, elderly, students, you know, PEOPLE WITH NO INCOME? We have people like that in the USA? They are just a burden to the billionaires! Elderly have no retirements upon which they pay taxes? I think differently. Disabled don't pay taxes? Depends on the amount of disability, I guess. But how many are on disability that can't work something? Students. Most students I knew had jobs. I had three my last two years of college so I could pay for it. And according to you they aren't a burden on billionaires, but a burden on the middle class. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #27 April 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotethere should be minimum flat fee for general services What about the disabled, elderly, students, you know, PEOPLE WITH NO INCOME? We have people like that in the USA? They are just a burden to the billionaires! Elderly have no retirements upon which they pay taxes? I think differently. Disabled don't pay taxes? Depends on the amount of disability, I guess. But how many are on disability that can't work something? Students. Most students I knew had jobs. I had three my last two years of college so I could pay for it. And according to you they aren't a burden on billionaires, but a burden on the middle class. Don't confuse facts with right wing rhetoric. It's the billionaires that need coddling according to the GOP, or they'll (metaphorically) take their ball and go home. Funny how they stayed when they were taxed at higher rates in, say, 1998, and the economy didn't lapse into deep recession.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 April 17, 2012 QuoteFunny how they stayed when they were taxed at higher rates in, say, 1998, and the economy didn't lapse into deep recession. Funny how the top 1% paid 23.3% of the taxes in 1998 and 28.3% in 2006.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #29 April 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteFunny how they stayed when they were taxed at higher rates in, say, 1998, and the economy didn't lapse into deep recession. Funny how the top 1% paid 23.3% of the taxes in 1998 and 28.3% in 2006. 30% would be even better.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #30 April 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm sure they all paid sales tax and gas tax and property tax and capital gains taxes and other taxes. Like the rest of us have to pay, too. Equally applicable to the other side of the argument, where you bring up all those taxes as a counter to almost half the country having no income tax liability. www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 April 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteFunny how they stayed when they were taxed at higher rates in, say, 1998, and the economy didn't lapse into deep recession. Funny how the top 1% paid 23.3% of the taxes in 1998 and 28.3% in 2006. 30% would be even better. Already covered in 2009 by the top 0.5%, who paid 29.79% of the taxes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 April 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'm sure they all paid sales tax and gas tax and property tax and capital gains taxes and other taxes. Like the rest of us have to pay, too. Equally applicable to the other side of the argument, where you bring up all those taxes as a counter to almost half the country having no income tax liability. www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/ Thanks for proving my point...again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #33 April 18, 2012 QuoteHow to pay (almost) no tax if you are very rich Thanks! this might come in handy some day... now, where are those fuckin' lottery tickets?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #34 April 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'm sure they all paid sales tax and gas tax and property tax and capital gains taxes and other taxes. Like the rest of us have to pay, too. Equally applicable to the other side of the argument, where you bring up all those taxes as a counter to almost half the country having no income tax liability. www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/ Thanks for proving my point...again. Depends how you define "almost", Weasel.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #35 April 18, 2012 You are soooooooo jealous it is funny anyway QuoteRomney’s Taxes: Too Little or Too Much? J.D. Foster, Ph.D. January 24, 2012 at 4:15 pm (20) Much has been made of Mitt Romney’s asserted 15 percent or so tax rate. There is both a material error and an irony to this story. The release of Romney’s tax returns for 2009 and 2010 and a preliminary assessment for 2011 shows a remarkably consistent picture. First, he makes a pretty penny, but we knew that. His income is about $20 million a year, and he consistently pays about 15 percent in federal income tax. Most of his income is either dividends or capital gains, which are each taxed at 15 percent. The governor appears not to be a big fan of bonds, which are taxed at much higher rates, and appears to have earned relatively little wage income, which is hardly surprising given his political campaign. A 15 percent rate on capital gains and dividends is the law, and no one credibly disputes that Romney paid what was owed under the law. Those who argue for higher taxes believe that those who make more should pay more. Well, in addition to paying about 15 percent in taxes, Romney consistently donates about 15 percent of his income to charity. These are sums that need not be squeezed out of taxpayers by threat of penalty but are given voluntarily to support efforts that the government acknowledges via the tax law are worthy of special consideration. So, combining these two direct measures, about 30 percent of his resources are made available to the community at large, half of which is done voluntarily, half through the national government. The “fair share” brigade should be more than satisfied To put these figures into perspective, the average federal income tax burden according to the Congressional Budget Office is about 9.3 percent. The irony in all this, despite the catterwalling of the mainstream media—and even some of his opponents—about tax fairness and is that President Obama has consistently proposed raising the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to all of 20 percent. Any increase in these rates would be foolish and harmful to the economy, but even if the rates had been 20 percent and Romney had then paid about 20 percent of his income in taxes, would the media respond less rabidly? Not likely. Why would it be an outrage under those circumstances for Romney to pay 20 percent and yet perfectly fine for Obama to propose that Romney pay 20 percent? Put another way, has President Obama just been a softy all along when it comes to wealth redistribution? Or does he recognize, all heated political rhetoric notwithstanding, that high tax rates on capital hurt the economy, meaning it hurts workers and their families? It’s just one of those inconvenient truths that we can’t have a 15 or 20 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains without collecting only 15 or 20 percent from the Mitt Romneys of the country. That leads to the material error. He didn’t pay around 15 percent. There are at least two levels of tax; the 15 percent component is just one of the two. At the very least, he paid nearly 45 percent, but a chunk of this tax was collected before he even saw the remainder. Income from capital gains and dividends means the income was first earned by businesses, most likely corporations, which pay tax at 35 percent. So Romney paid his 15 percent only after the government had taken its 35 percent cut. That leaves Romney with a combined tax of 45 cents on the dollar of corporate earnings. (Warren Buffett, are you listening?) And, in all likelihood, even before he invested the money where it is currently, some had been subjected to taxes on capital income repeatedly in the past—tax level three. And at some point a good chunk of it, perhaps all, was taxed at the individual rate as wage or salary income—tax level four. While these additional levels of tax are incalculable without knowing the governor’s entire financial history, it surely raises the tax above 50 percent and likely much higher. With capital income subjected to two, three, four, or more levels of tax, consider again President Obama’s proposal to raise the tax on the last level of tax—the tax on dividends and capital gains—to 20 percent. By only raising it to 20 percent, Obama implicitly acknowledges the importance of private saving and investment. But as we see, the true rate is not 15 percent but something much higher. Either equity finance and business formation really matter, in which case Obama should propose to zero-out these taxes altogether, or they don’t matter, in which case raising the rate to only 20 percent is inexplicable. Obama should explain this conflict in views, but don’t hold your breathe. Rather than exposing an example of an unfair tax system in which the rich appear not to pay their fair share, the recent Romney episode demonstrates in headline type the heavy true burden that falls on saving and investment in America and why we need tax reform to fix it. And for those who still seek that pound of flesh, watch those charitable contributions. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #36 April 18, 2012 QuoteYou are soooooooo jealous it is funny anyway QuoteRomney’s Taxes: Too Little or Too Much? J.D. Foster, Ph.D. January 24, 2012 at 4:15 pm (20) Much has been made of Mitt Romney’s asserted 15 percent or so tax rate.... Asserted? It's what's on his return. Is his return a LIE? It's easy to donate a lot to charity when you make $20MILLION a year. This article is just plain stupid, pretty much as expected from the Heritage Foundation.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #37 April 18, 2012 Income: $21.6 million for 2010, mostly from investments, and an estimated $20.9 million for 2011. Capital gains taxes: $12.5 million paid in 2010 and an estimated $10.7 million for this year. Charitable donations: $3 million in 2010 and and estimated $4 million in 2011. Foreign investments: There are several investments in funds that are organized in the Cayman Islands, a noted tax haven. Swiss bank account: Romney did have a Swiss bank account that Malt set up in 2003. Malt said he decided to close the account in 2010 because "it wasn't serving any particular purpose." Malt emphasized that the Cayman Island funds are taxed at the same rate as if they were organized in the United States. He said "every dime" of tax is reported in Romney's returns. Malt said it is "inaccurate" to suggest that Romney is "somehow evading taxes" through these offshore investment funds."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #38 April 18, 2012 QuoteIncome: $21.6 million for 2010, mostly from investments, and an estimated $20.9 million for 2011. Capital gains taxes: $12.5 million paid in 2010 and an estimated $10.7 million for this year. Charitable donations: $3 million in 2010 and and estimated $4 million in 2011. Foreign investments: There are several investments in funds that are organized in the Cayman Islands, a noted tax haven. Swiss bank account: Romney did have a Swiss bank account that Malt set up in 2003. Malt said he decided to close the account in 2010 because "it wasn't serving any particular purpose." Malt emphasized that the Cayman Island funds are taxed at the same rate as if they were organized in the United States. He said "every dime" of tax is reported in Romney's returns. Malt said it is "inaccurate" to suggest that Romney is "somehow evading taxes" through these offshore investment funds. Who claimed he was a tax evader? The issue is that he gets to keep 86% of his (very large) income, while folks making only 1/100 as much only get to keep 79% of their modest incomes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #39 April 18, 2012 I wish earned what he pays in taxes But at least now the straw man you and Obama are spewing it getting debunked daily Now if you can just stop worrying about having less than someone else Your life would be much happier"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 April 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'm sure they all paid sales tax and gas tax and property tax and capital gains taxes and other taxes. Like the rest of us have to pay, too. Equally applicable to the other side of the argument, where you bring up all those taxes as a counter to almost half the country having no income tax liability. www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/17/everything-about-this-drudge-headline-is-wrong/ Thanks for proving my point...again. Depends how you define "almost", Weasel. Nice PA.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #41 April 18, 2012 Your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #42 April 19, 2012 Who the fuck cares? 23% of 1 million dollars contributes a WHOLE lot more to the pot than 28% of $30,000. Buncha greedy whiners!---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #43 April 19, 2012 Quote The issue is that he gets to keep 86% of his (very large) income, while folks making only 1/100 as much only get to keep 79% of their modest incomes. Ding, ding we have a winner. It doesn't matter how many DOLLARS one gives, the left's idea is the PERCENTAGE. The left can't argue anyother way. More % doesn't sound as bad as more money. What pisses me off beyond reason is when I hear pay your fair share. THEN they (the left) want to make it sound like they aren't talking about small business owners - there talking about Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. They aren't. They are talking about small business owners. They WILL NOT stop at the 1,000,000 mark. Obama has made it clear the $250,000 is the number. But yet they want it to sound like we all pay 14% taxes...... What a load of shit that is being sold. Hope and change. Yeah that worked out great so far. Rant overKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #44 April 19, 2012 They actually pay a lot less than that. If you tok their gross income; without all of the credits, and loopholes, and bogus losses - my guess is that there effective tax rate (actual tax paid on actual income) is more like 5 or 10%, and for many of them - even less. I would not be surprised if there are millionaires paying nothing in income tax. That should be no surprise in a social structure that has decided to let rich people buy legislative influence. And the Supreme Court thinks this is a good thing." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
