Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

You must be a special case, for its my understanding that most if not all of the lower class end of workers pay no taxes at all, and its common knowledge that the top 5% or so of taxpayers are paying some 75% of all the taxes. Do you really think like that rtwingfraud dude does that these poor are blaming all their woes on the wealthiest, or that the reason they can't succeed in life is because those wealthy people are somehow keeping them down?

 

Sounds like the government ...

Let's book another GSA trip to Vegas ... Or maybe 2700 holes of golf for President Obama every year.
Let's pass out another $100 million in bonuses to IRS officials over the next 4 years ... Like the last four years ... You know, reward them for doing your dirty work, and then put them in charge of healthcare.
Let's fly some folks down to the Caribbean for a junket ... And hook up the Secret Service with some prostitutes.

Lets add a few more approved locations that government employees can use their Government cars to visit.
I mean the bank, grocery store, dry cleaners, restaurants, barber shops ("any place of sustenance, comfort or health of the employee") are already approved.
We really need to start letting them use the government vehicle to take vacations on the taxpayer's dime as well.

Corporate raiding is no problem for government, they do it all the time ... Let's pass more fees, regulations and taxes.
And better yet ... We can make the public hate successful people enough, that we can make them pay for it all ... That's the government for you ... Hit the nail on the head there RtWngaFraud.

Freedom for the Elite, and slavery/tyranny for everybody else ... Sounds just like the government in the United States (where 68% of the Americans polled say the government is completely out of control).

 

What are you talking about?
Income tax rates increase with income ... not the other way around?
You are required to pay less of a percentage in Capital Gains taxes, than someone who makes $100 million pays in Capital Gains taxes (unless like them, you make over $400,000 a year in Capital Gains).

Either way ... You are required to pay a lower percentage in taxes.
If you want to argue with that ... then just accept that you are wrong.

 

The wealthy pay for the majority of taxes. The top 1% covers 36% of revenue, they do not make that much of total revenue. The myth the rich don't pay taxes is something politicians tell the ignorant to get votes.

What is your favorite social plan and how is it better then the private sector alternative?

 

How so? Different income source? Then change how you make your income. You will have less taxes that way then someone making more from that income stream. Capital gains taxes have special treatment because the money was already taxed once, often subject to double taxation, and inflation is unaccounted for on a long term investment. Add the corporate tax rate to capital gains and no one makes more money off of a corporation then the government does without any risk. That is enough money for them. We don't need them rewarding their friends with more taxpayer money we need jobs and prosperity.

 

First of all most of the people who makes that much money they are already contributing to the economy by employing people.. I think I can safely say that they contribution can end there that is the greatest contribution anyone can do in any economy. Even if they pay only 1% tax, they contributed more then you paying 30%. If you think that is so easy to go out there and create jobs, then why don't you go and do it and pay voluntarily 50% in taxes.. Show us how it gets done... If paying tax is so Nobelian and so awesome why everybody is trying to get out of it? What is the point to give your money to an institutions who blows it on unconstitutional wars and useless bureaucrats instead of let rich people expend they businesses and create jobs?

 

Some people are greatly misinformed. Social Security/Medicare equals about 1/3rd of federal expendatures and these programs are almost exclusively funded by low and middle income individuals. People like Mitt Romney don't contribute one dime to either Social Security or Medicare funding because capital gains isn't subjected to FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxation. Social Security/Medicare are the only federal programs that have consistantly paid for all expendatures and have even generated a surplus in the trillions of dollars and it's funded by low and middle income workers and small business owners paying FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes. Investors don't pay FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes.

The maximum tax rates for "workers" with "earned" income is 39.6% this year which is virtually double the maximum tax rates on capital gains taxed on "unearned" income. When we address state taxes then low income workers have up to 16-times the tax burden relative to income when compared to those with high incomes.

What "Republicans" like Mitt Romney did last year is they pointed out that we have welfare programs that often provide financial aid to Americans where the tax codes impose such a heavy tax burden on them that it literally drives them into poverty. Romney pointed out the 48% of taxpayers that are so poor that the tax burden literally takes the food off their table. These people are paying taxes and they can't afford to while wealthy investors are paying a fraction of the tax rates that the poor and middle income workers are paying. As a small business owner this year I will pay 15.3% in self-employment taxes alone not including me earned income taxes. As I noted if I clear a $100,000 this year I'll be paying over $37,000 in federal taxes alone. Wealthy investors like Mitt Romney will only pay about 1/2 that tax rate on tens of millions of dollars in income and some will pay no federal taxes at all.

How sweet it must be to create a paper corporation in the Cayman Islands, have $100 million in income, and pay zero in taxes on that income under the Capital Gains tax loophole. The UK doesn't tax that income and the US doesn't tax that income. Literally trillions of dollars in income for Americans goes untaxed because of the Capital Gains tax loophole and even when it is taxed it's taxed at a maximum rate that's only 1/2 of the maximum rate that earned income is taxed at.

Workers in American are getting the shaft when it comes to taxation in American and they have the highest tax burden relative to income than anyone else. The average worker in American has over twice the tax burden relative to income when compared to the wealthy in the United States. And Republicans support this unfair taxation!!!

 

No program steals more wealth from the worker then social security. Without a doubt that has harmed the middle class and working poor. I can never understand how anyone would defend that policy.

 

Its guys like you that keep envying the wealthy for whatever tax breaks they may or may not receive. My wish and I'm guessing the wish of close to 100% of we Republicans/Conservatives is to eliminate govt programs like Social Security and Medicare. But you still haven't answered my question. Do you think that the tax breaks/loopholes that the wealthy may or may not get is in any way responsible for or a reason why the poor should remain poor and or remain unable to reach the plateau that those movers and producers have reached? That is, considering whether those poor actually want to progress and grow or not, or just to stay mired in or comfortable with their present lot in life.

 

But Mitt Romneys 1/2 is still more then your $37,000 and he employs more people then you.. So he contribute a lot more by getting out there instead of sitting at home playing video games...

 

Two things:

1. The IRS measures effective Tax rates. They say you're wrong, the rich do pay more. As does the Tax Foundation.

2. The reason you are wrong, is that Capital Gains is taxed twice. If all you're going by is the initial marginal rate, you're estimate is off by about... well, do you know what Corporate rate is? As you have to combine that one, with Capital gains, to get into the ballpark of what it is the Rich actually pay.

Add in State taxes, many pay in excess of 60%, far more than the average.

 

Our drug war is worse; yet, it is still not a "no brainer" for the fiscal chopping block.

 

Go for it as long as I don't have to pay welfare to someone who decides to do meth all day. Deal? You can get high, I don't have to subsidize crack rocks?

 

Ok. You pay for the drug war and I will pay for social spending for the least wealthy, as a liberal, moral of "goodwill toward men".

 

Your programs do not yield results. There is nothing moral about what liberalism has done to Detroit.

 

Both links ignore the tax burden for working Americans imposed by FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxation pretending that working Americans, not investors, pay these taxes. Sorry, all of the taxes must be compared in calculation of the tax burden imposed under the federal tax codes.

When looking at the Tax Foundation tables and story the Tax Foundation has excluded the FICA/Payroll taxes on Earned Income that aren't imposed on Capital Gains. ADD 10.4% to every worker's tax rates as that is what they pay in combined FICA/Payroll tax on GROSS INCOME (not net income) up to over $100,000/yr.

With the addition of the FICA/PAYROLL/SELF-EMPLOYMENT tax burden imposed for working Americans on gross income (and not imposed on investors) every household with a net income of over about $20,000/yr (after standard deductions) paid a higher federal tax rate than Mitt Romney.

No, there isn't double taxation related to investments subjected to Capital Gains. Most revenue related to investments is derived from the secondary stock market that is unrelated to any taxation paid by the enterprise. The sale of stock from one person to another person is does not represent any funds from the enterprise that might have been previously taxed. Of course the fact that the corporation is taxes on its net profits doesn't have anything to do with dividends anymore than the fact that a company is taxed on it's net has to do with the employee's income taxes. Taxation is imposed based upon the "tax entity" whether it's a business, the employees, or the owners of the business. Dividends aren't even deterimined based upon "after-tax" dollars by the enterprise and are fundamentally unrelated.

The belief in "double-taxation" related to investment income by the individual is a myth. A person's investment in a corporation is based upon the after-tax profits and/or the increase in the stock value of the corporation based upon the tax codes in the United States.

Most wealthy investors seek permanent residence in a non-income tax state to avoid paying state taxes. Additionally the 60% number cited only relates to state income taxes and not all state taxes. For example the "property tax" rate is the same for the $100,000 home and the $10 million home. Sale taxes are the same for both the low income worker and the high income investor. The difference is that the low income worker has a much greater percentage of income subjected to property taxes and sales taxes than the wealthy investor. A low income worker may pay sales taxes on 50% of their net income while a wealthy person may only pay sales taxes on 5% of their net income. The tax burden in this example would reflect the low income worker being subjected to 10-times the sales tax burden relative to net income.

The only "fair" comparison for taxation is the "tax burden relative to income" and low/middle income working households have a far greater tax burden than the high income investor or worker.

 

There was nothing moral about what conservatives did to bail out the banks and wealthy investors with TARP either.

Social welfare programs that provide assistance for food and shelter do yield results. People don't starve and people aren't homeless. They do not eliminate poverty and were never intended as a means to eliminate proverty. These programs were designed to mitigate the effects of poverty and they have been fundamentally successful in achieving that goal.

If "conservatives" want to end these programs then we must address "poverty" and by reducing it and then we can reduce the need to mitigate the effects of poverty with "welfare" programs. Republicans haven't proposed anything that would reduce poverty that predominately relates to retirees, minorities, and women. Republicans are actually proposing cutting Social Security benefits in the future which will create more poverty for retirees and Republicans refuse to address discrimination in employment that denies equality of opportunity for racial minority and women that is well documented.

If Republicans want to do something they must address increasing income for retirees and ending discrimination against minorities and women in hiring practices, compensation, and promotion which would reduce poverty in America. These are not issues I see Republicans jumping onboard to address.

 

Who ran congress during tarp?
Bush is no economic "conservative" other then tax cuts.
Social security is a horrible scheme, end it not expand it you are going the wrong way now. Don't extend it to taxing retirement investments that actually produce security. There are many workers who sell stock and are in the 1% for a year. Don't buy the myth it is the same people every year.

 

Your conservative programs are worse, yet they continue to be funded while clamoring for reducing social spending for the least wealthy in our republic.

 

US didn't have a an economically conservative president for more then 100 years now.. Not even Reagan.... Because the entire century was about competing for secular groups to get votes and not about fixing the currency bubble.. It was about putting a temporary patch on it and kicking the can down to the next president. Bush signed in 40000 new regulations even more then Obama in to the economy. US used to be the 2nd most Economically free country in 2000 slipping back to the 10th place under Bush and the 18th place under Obama accordingly CATO. Canada is a head of us imagine that...

 

So your programs are bad? Fair enough. You can axe all "conservative" programs you want. Lets start with everything Nixon did. Now can we get rid of the war on poverty programs? New deal? Etc..,

- - - Updated - - -

Reagan was a conservative. You do why you can and he stopped the financial insanity of the 70s.

 

If we looking at that Paul Volcker (Reagans Fed Chairman) saved the country from runaway inflation by raising the interest rates.. yes Reagan did the conservative thing.. But on the other side he stared the borrowing addiction to build a huge military state. That is still big government... I am for a strong military but not out of borrowing... Our borrowing what made China another supper power on the world one of our main significant threat. What I am saying is that a big military is just another big Government and not necessarily a strong defense. The debt is a biggest national threat to this country currently caused by both the welfare and the warfare state.

 

First low income earners do not. Most of them pay very little. Second I totally agree with you. The problem isn't democrat vs Republican here. BOTH parties are equally responsible for the mess the tax code is in. Most high income earners pay a higher rate than middle income earners. The few who do not get away with it because of capital gains taxes. The government decided that investment was a good thing. Again Democrats are equally responsible for this if not more. Therefore capital gains taxes ie taxable profits from investments is much lower. The few people who are filthy rich like Warren Buffet make most of their money off capital gains.

There are a lot of reasons capital gains is lower. First and foremost is retirement. The government wanted people of all income brackets to invest in the marketplace to provide for their retirement plans. Higher capital gains probably wouldn't effect someone like Buffet but it would certainly do a lot of harm to middle income earners trying to build a nest egg. So there are legitimate reasons to keep capital gains low. Most of the debate surrounding this issue is pure rhetoric and class warfare.

The central problem with the tax code is a lack of simplicity. Simple laws are hard to twist. Simple laws are difficult to manipulate for the benefit of a person or party. Neither party wants to shift to a fair/flat tax because they BOTH want the power to manipulate the market. You have no idea how much power exists in the tax code. The more complicated it is.... the easier it is to corrupt. That's how GE can via donations and their support of Democrats via MSNBC ect can get away with paying no taxes on a billion dollars in profit annually. They make minimal investments into green energy and get a pass. It's corrupt. Republicans have their own little dog and pony show with other corporations. The fact of the matter is both sides are incredibly corrupt and Washington in general has far too much power. Therefore their corruption seriously effects the lives of everyday Americans much in the same way an amplifier boosts signal output on a stereo.

The answer IMO is a shift toward libertarian ideas. Simplify the tax code. I personally believe it should be LAW that it can be no longer than one page. That forces them to shift to some kind of fair/flat tax and it will stop this infighting and political corruption. Even if we maintained a progressive tax code it would still be much better if the rules were very clear and written on one page. 0-25,000 per person pays x amount. 25,000-50,000 pays x percentage ect ect ect. No more corporate tax rates. No more loopholes. JUST simplicity. No party will have the power to sling deals for money. That alone will eliminate most political corruption in Washington.

BTW I was shocked when Romney of all people proposed something similar. I wish more Americans understood what he was saying. We can be revenue neutral and lower rates while eliminating ALL loopholes and things will be much better. No more Obama using class warfare as a platform when he damn well knows he has no intention of changing anything. He is as much responsible for the corruption as anyone and he will never do anything to fix it. Why? Because it's helped Democrats win elections for decades. They had a super majority and a general majority for almost 2 years and did NOTHING to solve these problems. In fact they made them worse. Yet when election day rolls around he gets to act like he fighting for the little guy when what he really wants is to destroy the opposition. The goal of each party is not to "fix" anything but protect their own spheres of corruption while destroying the others.

Nothing will ever change until the American people DEMAND simplicity from their govt. How can we be a free society when NO ordinairy American can read and understand 10,000 pages of tax law. If we are to be a representative democracy then every American to include children should be able to understand our laws. Especially tax law. I can understand expansive bills on border control ect ect. I cannot understand it with things like tax law because it effects all of us.

 

Sure; only alleged conservatives would prosecute a war on anything on a for profit basis instead of merely solve the exigencies of the times.

We could be lowering our tax burden by drawing participants from more expensive means tested social programs while using existing legal and physical infrastructure in every State and the federal districts.

 

"Only alleged conservatives would prosecute a war" - What? If you look at history the Liberals were envolved in more wars then the Republicans.. You are being a hypocrite. Obama is Bush on steroids if we look at his war record. Well yet all the Liberal war protesters from the Bush era vanished... The Democrats did nothing about stoping the war on drugs either.. So you have no bases to call out Conservatives on war.