View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 23rd, 2014, 9:48 am



Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Stop Coddling the Super-Rich 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
Deed is done, do the kids now pay for the sins of their parents? Do we let them go malnourished and live in a place where crime is rampant and they likely will then be influenced that direction? The end result of not allowing a place out could put 3 more kids on the street causing much more than $700 in cost to the government each year.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


August 17th, 2011, 10:47 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2715
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
I guarantee at sly's 7.5%, her $30 in taxes each week, out of her $384 a week paycheck, would be less than what she's paying under the current system.

The difference is she's not getting a huge refund at the end of the year, but she now can put away that extra money each week that more than makes up the difference.

Making it into a "omg, the children are going to starve" story doesn't mean you're right. Because you overlooked how little her fair share was. The mentality is that people need the huge refunds to survive, but no, its the people that mold their life around their refund instead of just living accordingly.

Should we also pay for all families with kids to be put in nicer neighborhoods? Since bad neighborhoods make bad kids... The inner commie came out again lol.


August 17th, 2011, 11:35 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
Cost benefit analysis will tell us if we should give them money. Clearly though not taking their money is another way to make sure that it doesn't happen.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


August 17th, 2011, 12:26 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2569
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
You guys do know that nearly every economist, even the most conservative, favor the EIC?

It encourages people to work, rather than to live off the system.

Only the people who actually work qualify for it.

You have to understand the concept of a negative real income. The very poor who have dependent children generally face the prospect of a negative real income: that is to say, all things considered, it is more expensive for them to work, then it is to simply live off welfare. The EIC makes working a more attractive option than sucking off the state.

Now, all things considered, you can argue that the EIC should be abolished along with the welfare state, and I wouldn't disagree in theory.

But, all other things being held equal, the EIC benefits society more than it hurts it.


August 17th, 2011, 8:26 pm
Profile
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
Blueskies wrote:
You guys do know that nearly every economist, even the most conservative, favor the EIC?

It encourages people to work, rather than to live off the system.

Only the people who actually work qualify for it.

You have to understand the concept of a negative real income. The very poor who have dependent children generally face the prospect of a negative real income: that is to say, all things considered, it is more expensive for them to work, then it is to simply live off welfare. The EIC makes working a more attractive option than sucking off the state.

Now, all things considered, you can argue that the EIC should be abolished along with the welfare state, and I wouldn't disagree in theory.

But, all other things being held equal, the EIC benefits society more than it hurts it.


The EIC as an incentive to work is laughable. I don't know how you qualify for it, but I know people that "make" less than the minimum you need to owe anything ($9,700ish?), and take the EIC. Also, the "work" is self-reported. They can claim a salary that they never had, JUST to get the EIC. To say that the EIC somehow creates an incetive to work is laughable at best.


Blue, I kind of agree with you about welfare, but I disagree that it should be a life-long entitelment. Further, screw 'em... I think these idiots should have to be sterialized to get the benefit. Too many of them don't take care of their kids, take the "welfare money" buy drugs, get food stamps and sell them, get their food from food banks and soup kitchens, and neglect their kids. It's ridiculous... And, they have more kids just to get a bigger check. I have literally been in neighborhoods (not one house, the whole damn neighborhood was doing this) where little kids unpotty trained walk around naked, defecating everywhere, because the diaper money goes to buying drugs and booze. It's sick and ridiculous.

You want an incentive to work? How about a grumbling tummy? FYI, if you want to discuss "giving crumbs to the poor"... The ONLY meal you can't get from a soup kitchen in Detroit is lunch on Sunday. Every other day of the week you can get all three meals for free.


August 18th, 2011, 6:13 pm
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2569
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
If people are claiming false incomes, thats a problem with implementation, not the idea itself.

The idea goes like this: Say you are uneducated single mom. If you make less than $1k a month, you get welfare of $500. If you make over $1k, you don't.

Here's the kicker though, you're uneducated, and the only job you can afford pays $1100 per month. The problem is, if you work, you must pay child support. That child support costs you $600 per month.

In this scenario, you are better off not working and accepting the welfare. Either way, you'll be getting $500 per month.

The EIC works to try to fix this. If you work, the government will increase your pay, to say $1200 a month. Now, working is more attractive than welfare, because you get $600 per month, not the $500 per month on welfare.

That is a negative real income: where you are better off not working than working. The EIC tries to fight against that on.

On to my welfare ideas: yes, when the people come into your home and rob you, feel free to try and shoot them. Might be kind of hard when there's 100 of them and some of them probably have guns, too. Google "flash mob robbery".

The way I see it, this is literally 350 AD and we are the Roman empire. We have barbarians camped at our door, and we pay them just enough gold coins every month so that they don't come into our cities and rape our women and steal our food. Of course, we know Rome eventually ran out of money, and the barbarians did just that. But I think its inevitable at this point.


August 18th, 2011, 7:46 pm
Profile
Varsity Benchwarmer
User avatar

Joined: August 9th, 2004, 1:51 am
Posts: 235
Location: kalamazoo,mi
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
Census: they keep sending the form back to me and its now August 2011

In response to the question: "Do you have any dependents ?" I replied -"12 million illegal immigrants ; 3 million crack heads; 42 million unemployable people, 2 million people in over 243 prisons; and 535 IDIOTS in the U.S. House and Senate. Apparently , this was NOT an acceptable answer

_________________
I feel more like I do now than when I first got here.


August 19th, 2011, 1:45 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3026
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
To follow FROK's lead, I went to the doctor where i was asked questions about my exercise habits (carrying the poor), drinking habits, and so on, and wouldn't you know, they wouldn't let me answer MYOB. What's up with that?

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


August 19th, 2011, 8:28 am
Profile
Veteran General Manager
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7124
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
frok wrote:
Census: they keep sending the form back to me and its now August 2011

In response to the question: "Do you have any dependents ?" I replied -"12 million illegal immigrants ; 3 million crack heads; 42 million unemployable people, 2 million people in over 243 prisons; and 535 IDIOTS in the U.S. House and Senate. Apparently , this was NOT an acceptable answer


ROFL.


August 19th, 2011, 8:56 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11841
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
PolitiFact.com wrote:
Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others

It's not often you see someone stand up and say, "Tax me more!"

Yet that's just what famed investor Warren Buffett has done in an op-ed in the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." Buffett says that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than the middle class, thanks to special tax categories for investment income.

"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks," he writes.

As an example, Buffett said he paid an effective tax rate of 17.4 percent, while people who worked in his office made much less but paid higher effective tax rates of between 33 percent and 41 percent, averaging 36 percent.

"If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot," Buffett wrote. "To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."

Buffett's op-ed inspired a reader to write to us and ask how Buffett's numbers could be correct. As our previous fact-checks have shown, about half of all Americans pay no federal income taxes because they are low income. And when you analyze who pays the bulk of federal income taxes, it's people with higher incomes. So we decided to fact-check Buffett's statement that "the mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. ... (The middle class) fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."

Before we get to the heart of the fact-check, it's best if we review a few basics of the tax code that Buffett's op-ed takes for granted. This review proves the point that the federal tax code is extremely complicated, so bear with us.


Income taxes. Federal income taxes are progressive, which means your income is taxed at higher rates as you make more money. Let's take a married couple filing jointly as an example. In 2011, after deductions and exemptions:

• the income between $0 and $17,000 is taxed at 10 percent;
• the income between $17,000 and $69,000 is taxed at 15 percent;
• the income between $69,000 and $139,350 is taxed at 25 percent;
• the income between $139,350 and $212,300 is taxed at 28 percent;
• the income between $212,300 and $379,150 is taxed at 33 percent;
• the income above $379,150 is taxed at 35 percent.

Keep in mind that even if you're in the top bracket of 35 percent, you don't pay that tax rate on all your income. You pay 10 percent on the first $17,000, 15 percent on the money between $17,000 and $69,000, and so on.

Payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are separate from income taxes. If you work for a company, your employer deducts the payroll taxes before you get your paycheck and sends the money on to the federal government. These taxes pay for Social Security and Medicare; it's listed as FICA on your pay stub. Typically, workers pay 6.2 percent of their first $106,800 in earnings for Social Security taxes, and they pay 1.45 percent on all their earnings for Medicare hospital coverage. The employer has to match those taxes, bringing total contributions on behalf of an individual to 12.4 percent for Social Security and 2.9 percent for Medicare. Last year, though, President Barack Obama and Congress knocked 2 percentage points off Social Security taxes for workers, as an economic stimulus measure. So this year, most of us are paying 4.2 percent while employers pay 6.2 percent. Oh, and if you're self-employed, you typically have to pay your share and the employer share for totals this year of 10.4 percent on earnings up to $106,800 and 2.9 percent on all income. Payroll taxes are not progressive -- the rates don't get higher the more you earn. In the case of the Social Security taxes, which disappear once your reach a certain level of earnings, the percentage actually gets smaller if your income is higher than the $106,800 cap.

Head hurt yet? Ours, too.

Taxes on investments. Okay, now we're getting closer to Buffett's main point here, and that's taxes on investments. The tax rates on investments tend to be lower than taxes on regular income. If you make money buying and selling stocks or receiving dividends from stock ownership, those earnings are generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends.

Some hedge fund managers and other finance-sector executives get taxed at this rate on their earnings because their compensation is classified as "carried interest" and taxed as a capital gain. (The Wall Street Journal breaks down how carried interest works.) In fact, some economists believe that the lower rates for capital gains actually encourages tax dodges, because it motivates high earners to look for ways to classify normal income as capital gains. Defenders say the lower tax rate helps the economy because it rewards investors for risk-taking and entrepreneurship. They also argue that taxing dividends amounts to double taxation because corporations pay taxes on their income before investors are paid dividends. We won't settle the argument here, but there's no doubt that investors get lower tax rates on their income than workers.

Getting back to Buffett's op-ed, his claims rest on how these taxes interact with each other. The fact we're checking here is that "the mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes," while middle class taxpayers "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."

He's right that a billionaire whose income is mostly from investments is probably taxed at a lower rate than someone who has an ordinary job. Very little of this taxpayer's income is wage income, so payroll taxes don't take much of a bite. It seems likely that much of this hypothetical person's income would be taxed around the 15 percent rate. And, in fact, as Buffett says, statistics from the Internal Revenue Service show that the 400 wealthiest taxpayers pay tax rates of less than 20 percent.

On the other side of the equation, people who work for a living, especially those who make higher than average salaries, get taxed at higher rates. It gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in income taxes, and it goes up from there, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Buffett slightly glosses over the fact that if you're in the 25 percent tax bracket, your overall tax rate is less than 25 percent. And, the more money you make, the more income taxes you pay, while payroll taxes seem less and less significant as a percentage of income. We're dubious someone would pay as high as a 41 percent tax rate, as Buffett claims someone in his office now pays. (The top income tax rate is 35 percent, but payroll taxes as a share of income decline as income rises, which makes it difficult to get above 37.9 percent, according to the people we ran this by at the Tax Policy Center.) We contacted Buffett's offices as Berkshire Hathaway about this point but didn't hear back.

One final note: People who don't pay any income tax at all tend to have limited incomes, or they qualify for enough deductions -- think of child tax credits and mortgage interest -- that they have no income. When Buffett talks about people in the middle class who pay more taxes than he does, he's thinking of people who make much higher than average salaries.

So when it comes to Buffett's statement, there are two categories: the rich and the really rich. And the evidence tends to point to the conclusion that the really rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of income then their merely well-to-do counterparts -- if their income comes primarily from investments. Overall, we rate Buffett's statement True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... taxes-oth/

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


August 19th, 2011, 3:43 pm
Profile
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
Blueskies wrote:
If people are claiming false incomes, thats a problem with implementation, not the idea itself.

The idea goes like this: Say you are uneducated single mom. If you make less than $1k a month, you get welfare of $500. If you make over $1k, you don't.

Here's the kicker though, you're uneducated, and the only job you can afford pays $1100 per month. The problem is, if you work, you must pay child support. That child support costs you $600 per month.

In this scenario, you are better off not working and accepting the welfare. Either way, you'll be getting $500 per month.

The EIC works to try to fix this. If you work, the government will increase your pay, to say $1200 a month. Now, working is more attractive than welfare, because you get $600 per month, not the $500 per month on welfare.

That is a negative real income: where you are better off not working than working. The EIC tries to fight against that on.

On to my welfare ideas: yes, when the people come into your home and rob you, feel free to try and shoot them. Might be kind of hard when there's 100 of them and some of them probably have guns, too. Google "flash mob robbery".

The way I see it, this is literally 350 AD and we are the Roman empire. We have barbarians camped at our door, and we pay them just enough gold coins every month so that they don't come into our cities and rape our women and steal our food. Of course, we know Rome eventually ran out of money, and the barbarians did just that. But I think its inevitable at this point.



The problem is... You're supposed to claim ALL income, even if you win something in a craps game behind a bar. There's no "check" to make sure these people are actually earning anything, so they just lie to beef up their tax return.


August 21st, 2011, 8:15 pm
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
You had to know that this was gonna happen:
Daily Caller wrote:
GOP introduces its own ‘Buffett Rule’: Streamline donating cash to government
Published: 10:58 AM 10/13/2011 | Updated: 11:37 AM 10/13/2011
By Caroline May -- The Daily Caller

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett revealed Wednesday that he made $62,855,038 last year, paying $6,923,494 in income taxes (or about 17 percent of his $39,814,784 taxable income) and $15,300 in payroll taxes.

With Buffett concerned that he does not pay enough in taxes, congressional Republicans have introduced legislation to allow Buffett — and others who believe they are under-taxed — the easy option of voluntarily donating to the U.S. Treasury on their tax forms.

South Dakota Senator John Thune and Lousiana Rep. Steve Scalise have introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

Dubbed “The Buffett Rule Act of 2011,” the names of the bills take a mocking swipe at President Barack Obama’s own proposed “Buffet Rule,” which conversely would close tax code loopholes to ensure that Warren Buffett and those like him no longer pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

According to Thune, there is nothing stopping Buffett from paying more in taxes, and his legislation would streamline that capability.

“If individuals like Warren Buffett or President Obama are inclined to donate their own personal money towards paying down the federal government’s debt, they ought to have that right to do so voluntarily,” said Thune.

“This bill would make it easier for those wealthy individuals who feel they are currently under-taxed to pay more to the U.S. Treasury, above and beyond their current obligations, without raising taxes on America’s job creators.”

Last week in an interview with The Daily Caller Rep. Scalise explained that playing the “class warfare” card is unnecessary when people can give as much money as they want to the government.

“The president is running around the country saying that he wants to raise taxes on our nation’s small businesses, and families that are struggling, and he is using Warren Buffett as the poster child, because Warren Buffett said he doesn’t pay enough in taxes,” Scalise said.

“Rather than engaging in this class warfare game, what I want to do is say, ‘Look, if Warren Buffett and anybody else feels like they are not sending enough money to Washington, give them that option to do it voluntarily, but don’t go and change the tax laws to put an increased burden on others who are struggling to get by.’”

Ads by GoogleThe bills have been commended by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, who sent Buffett a letter in late September urging the billionaire to use the U.S. Treasury’s option to contribute more money to the government.

“As it turns out, you don’t need to wait for President Obama to sign legislation raising taxes on you,” Norquist wrote. “You can open up your checkbook right now, write a check payable to the United States Treasury, and drop it in the nearest mailbox (or just hand it to your ‘secretary’). Problem solved.”

If passed, starting with the 2011 tax year, the “Buffett Rule Act” would require the Internal Revenue Service to include a line option on tax forms to donate money to Treasury to pay down the deficit.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/13/buffe ... z1agtVHjD7

_________________
Image


October 13th, 2011, 3:21 pm
Profile
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
Idiotic move by the Reps., IMO. There's already a provision that allows you to willingly donate to the U.S. govt. or to pay down the National Debt. Spending millions to change the tax form to add a line is just plain stupid and petty. They should be worrying about other things. This is the kind of immature idiocy that I expect out of the Left.


October 17th, 2011, 4:03 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11841
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Idiotic move by the Reps., IMO. There's already a provision that allows you to willingly donate to the U.S. govt. or to pay down the National Debt. Spending millions to change the tax form to add a line is just plain stupid and petty. They should be worrying about other things. This is the kind of immature idiocy that I expect out of the Left.

but but but, it proves a point and by gosh that is worth the millions it would cost to make the change; after all, we're made of money, right? ](*,)

Hell just them PROPOSING it is costing us money we don't have. Way to be leaders there folks

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


October 17th, 2011, 7:28 pm
Profile
Post Re: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Idiotic move by the Reps., IMO. There's already a provision that allows you to willingly donate to the U.S. govt. or to pay down the National Debt. Spending millions to change the tax form to add a line is just plain stupid and petty. They should be worrying about other things. This is the kind of immature idiocy that I expect out of the Left.

but but but, it proves a point and by gosh that is worth the millions it would cost to make the change; after all, we're made of money, right? ](*,)

Hell just them PROPOSING it is costing us money we don't have. Way to be leaders there folks



I agree Wags. This is nothing more than a tongue in cheek, BS bill that is meant to embarrass Obama and degrade his "tax the rich" philosophy/kinship with Warren Buffet.

I can't say that I'm any happier with the Democrats though. They had their shot. They had the House, they had the Senate, and they had the Executive, and they chose to spend two years forcing a bullsht healthcare bill down our throats that is costing us EVEN MORE JOBS, hurting the already deflated economy, and costing us trillions of dollars... BRILLIANT!!!

Like I said, I agree that the Reps. spend too much money, but they're the lesser of two evils when comparing the two parties.


October 18th, 2011, 10:33 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aManNamedSuh and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.