Brewha
13 years ago

There is no 13% tax bracket for anything so I'm 98.2% sure you made that up. With that said, I see no reason why earned income, dividends, long term capital gains, and short term capital gains should not be taxed at the same rate.

...and you are still a peasant so get back to work.

HockeyDad wrote:


Peasant? I sir am an educated man with dignity and class. I never spit if public, if it can be seen. I leave the waitress a fair tip even if she is ugly. Why, I have more class in my little finger than most of you have in your entire intestine - Including the colon!
victor809
13 years ago
Interestingly I think the effective tax rate an individual pays is impacted more by their personal "profit" than the bracket they are in. You may say "tax everyone at roughly the same rate" but that has much different meanings.

Your average working schlub gets 98.2% of their income in a w2.... that's almost 100% taxable , minus some various exemptions and deductions. Other income can be reinvested (same thing a company does to avoid profit) or expensed out essentially reducing the net profit if the individual.

Honestly I see nothing wrong with taking advantage of the system, but one has to accept that the wealthy have a much greater opportunity to shift income to areas where of will be taxed less (including moving it forward in time).
pdxstogieman
13 years ago
The rich are much too fatty. High cholesterol. Some grass fed proletarians would be a much healthier diet as the Koch brothers can attest.
HockeyDad
13 years ago
If its good enough for the Koch brothers, it will be good enough for Le Hockeydad. I'll have what they're having.
jpotts
13 years ago

So, I got a small bonus this year and 25% of it went in federal taxes.
Guys like Romney, who live off his intrest income only pay 13%.

So riddle me this, the money I bust my hump for gets taxed at almost twice the rate of money that comes from simply owning and doing nothing and they call that fair?

Then I get to hear snot nosed misanthropes whine about stealing from the rich? Boy, ain't that America?

Brewha wrote:



Riddle me this: who are you to determine who deserves to keep what share of the returns they make on their efforts?

It doesn't matter whether you take a penny from a poor widow, or a bazillion dollars from Bill Gates, it is still stealing. Just because you justify it with some beknigted cause doesn't mean that you can make theft a virtue, and that you're a saint for being a thief.

Raising taxes on the rich to pay for anything in this country isn't going to fix anything. Whatever revenue increases they promise will be inflated. Even at their inflated estimates, it isn't going to raise anywhere near the amount of money that will be needed to erase the yearly spending deficit.

But hey, idiots like you will get a big, warm, fuzzy feeling that you're stickin' it to the wealthy because...well...they "deserve" it.

The federal government takes in roughly two-trillion dollars, and spend roughly three-trillion: nearly two-thirds of that is spent on social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, WIC, ADC, Obamacare, and so on. All of them are LOADED with waste, inefficiengy, and hampered by general mismanagement. They same can be said for military spending as well...though, in all fairness, the federal government is given a constitutional charter to maintain a military, and the post office. The rest? Not anywhere in the Constitution.

But people like you stick to this idiotic idea that raising taxes will somehow fix everything. It's nuts. It's never worked. It will never work. Mainly because politicians get re-elected these days based on what portion of the public largess they can bring back home to their districts and states.

In the past, the deficit was minimized because rich people invested money, and that spurred economic activity in one form or another, and that increased economic activity generated revenue to the federal government. Because an overall return on investment is something like 5% - 10%, it takes loads of money to generate decent interest income for the vast majority of investors.

Along comes a socialist president who spends like a drunken sailor WISHED they could spend, and then denigrates the people who provide the lifeblood for a thriving industry. Morons like you line up behind said president, and form an Amen Chorus of mindless idiologues, and you expect investors to keep sinking money into an economy when investment returns look mighy bleak? For what? For you?

The answer to their riddle I posed at the beginning of this diatribe is that, of all people, you are the LAST person who should be contributing any arguments on increasing taxes. Mainly because your views are outright idiotic.
HockeyDad
13 years ago
Executive Summary:

JPotts said "you are a tool. "
jpotts
13 years ago
You apology is accepted.
Brewha
13 years ago

Executive Summary:

JPotts said "you are a tool. "

HockeyDad wrote:


Wow, Jpotts called me a tool.

So now I get a merit badge?
nicholasjames
13 years ago

All Income tax should be at the same rate. Rich or poor, everyone pays their fair share. I realize that I'm saying this at a high level, but I don't see the logic in why someone would be taxed differently just because they make more or less money or how they make their money.

CapeFear wrote:



seems logical to me. seems fair to me to.

in a society that seems to be crying "fair" im surprised it aint that way.
nicholasjames
13 years ago

Your "guaranteed" a check from your employer. You are not putting any monies at risk, therefore you are taxed at a higher rate.

Invest your cash. It's a risk. There is no guarantee on income like there is a paycheck. For that investment and risk you are rewarded with a lower tax rate.

cacman wrote:




thats a good point. never thought about it that way.
gringococolo
13 years ago

So, I got a small bonus this year and 25% of it went in federal taxes.
Guys like Romney, who live off his intrest income only pay 13%.

So riddle me this, the money I bust my hump for gets taxed at almost twice the rate of money that comes from simply owning and doing nothing and they call that fair?

Then I get to hear snot nosed misanthropes whine about stealing from the rich? Boy, ain't that America?

Brewha wrote:





Once again you show how ignorant you are. Learn the tax code, understand the rules instead of spouting talking points.

Your bonus is not "Taxed at 25%", there are taxes WITHHELD from your bonus that are set by the IRS, other states would also include state tax withholding, and the number would be higher.

If Mitt got a bonus it would be taxed the same way. Dividend are taxed at the 15% rate.

I guarantee your EFFECTIVE tax rate is probably about the same or less as his. Look at your total taxes paid and divide that number by your total income (yes divide the smaller number by the bigger number to get a percentage). The resulting percentage is your EFFECTIVE tax rate. Forget about Marginal Tax rates.

When you are in retirement and having to live on your savings via dividend checks you will absolutely appreciate the lower tax rate on dividends. Increasing the rate on dividends will hurt the senior citizens and those who actually saved for retirement, more than the "rich".


I really don't know why I waste my time though. You really are too ignorant to even know you are ignorant. You arent the only one on this forum either, just the unlucky target of my disgust and lack of patience.

This is why I don't really post anymore. I fell like I have to spend 5000 characters to first educate the other person I am trying to have a discussion with, then my damn fingers are too tired to continue.


Seriously man, educate yourself. [whip]

DrMaddVibe
13 years ago

Once again you show how ignorant you are. Learn the tax code, understand the rules instead of spouting talking points.

Your bonus is not "Taxed at 25%", there are taxes WITHHELD from your bonus that are set by the IRS, other states would also include state tax withholding, and the number would be higher.

If Mitt got a bonus it would be taxed the same way. Dividend are taxed at the 15% rate.

I guarantee your EFFECTIVE tax rate is probably about the same or less as his. Look at your total taxes paid and divide that number by your total income (yes divide the smaller number by the bigger number to get a percentage). The resulting percentage is your EFFECTIVE tax rate. Forget about Marginal Tax rates.

When you are in retirement and having to live on your savings via dividend checks you will absolutely appreciate the lower tax rate on dividends. Increasing the rate on dividends will hurt the senior citizens and those who actually saved for retirement, more than the "rich".


I really don't know why I waste my time though. You really are too ignorant to even know you are ignorant. You arent the only one on this forum either, just the unlucky target of my disgust and lack of patience.

This is why I don't really post anymore. I fell like I have to spend 5000 characters to first educate the other person I am trying to have a discussion with, then my damn fingers are too tired to continue.


Seriously man, educate yourself. [whip]

gringococolo wrote:






Wellll...lookie here...Ground Control emerges from his slumber!

Been WAAAAAY too long my friend.
Gene363
13 years ago

Once again you show how ignorant you are. Learn the tax code, understand the rules instead of spouting talking points.

Your bonus is not "Taxed at 25%", there are taxes WITHHELD from your bonus that are set by the IRS, other states would also include state tax withholding, and the number would be higher.

If Mitt got a bonus it would be taxed the same way. Dividend are taxed at the 15% rate.

I guarantee your EFFECTIVE tax rate is probably about the same or less as his. Look at your total taxes paid and divide that number by your total income (yes divide the smaller number by the bigger number to get a percentage). The resulting percentage is your EFFECTIVE tax rate. Forget about Marginal Tax rates.

When you are in retirement and having to live on your savings via dividend checks you will absolutely appreciate the lower tax rate on dividends. Increasing the rate on dividends will hurt the senior citizens and those who actually saved for retirement, more than the "rich".


I really don't know why I waste my time though. You really are too ignorant to even know you are ignorant. You arent the only one on this forum either, just the unlucky target of my disgust and lack of patience.

This is why I don't really post anymore. I fell like I have to spend 5000 characters to first educate the other person I am trying to have a discussion with, then my damn fingers are too tired to continue.


Seriously man, educate yourself. [whip]

gringococolo wrote:



+100 [fog]

gringococolo
13 years ago

Wellll...lookie here...Ground Control emerges from his slumber!

Been WAAAAAY too long my friend.

DrMaddVibe wrote:




Yea brother, I lurk once in awhile. I'm off Sun/Mon now, the job isn't bad. Just chugging along.


DrMaddVibe
13 years ago

Yea brother, I lurk once in awhile. I'm off Sun/Mon now, the job isn't bad. Just chugging along.


gringococolo wrote:





Say when...Wish you were around more!
dpnewell
13 years ago

Once again you show how ignorant you are. Learn the tax code, understand the rules instead of spouting talking points.

Your bonus is not "Taxed at 25%", there are taxes WITHHELD from your bonus that are set by the IRS, other states would also include state tax withholding, and the number would be higher.

If Mitt got a bonus it would be taxed the same way. Dividend are taxed at the 15% rate.

I guarantee your EFFECTIVE tax rate is probably about the same or less as his. Look at your total taxes paid and divide that number by your total income (yes divide the smaller number by the bigger number to get a percentage). The resulting percentage is your EFFECTIVE tax rate. Forget about Marginal Tax rates.

When you are in retirement and having to live on your savings via dividend checks you will absolutely appreciate the lower tax rate on dividends. Increasing the rate on dividends will hurt the senior citizens and those who actually saved for retirement, more than the "rich".


I really don't know why I waste my time though. You really are too ignorant to even know you are ignorant. You arent the only one on this forum either, just the unlucky target of my disgust and lack of patience.

This is why I don't really post anymore. I fell like I have to spend 5000 characters to first educate the other person I am trying to have a discussion with, then my damn fingers are too tired to continue.


Seriously man, educate yourself. [whip]

gringococolo wrote:



I saw that too, but figured it would be a waste of my time. Most taxpayers can't separate the concept of "withholding" from actual taxes paid. I once asked my neighbor what he paid in taxes. He said "I didn't pay anything, I got money back". I just had to walk away shaking my head.

I always thought the best way to reign in government spending, was to eliminate employer withholding, and require taxpayers to write a check at the end of the year. If you had a bunch of folk having to write out a $2K, $3k, $5k, $10k check every year, you'd have a whole lot more folks screaming about out of control government spending.

Don't get me started on employer "servitude". Every employer is required by law to be an uncompensated tax collector for the government at their expense. Doesn’t the 13th amendment outlaw servitude? I guess it doesn’t count when the government is the “master” and employers are the “slaves”.
victor809
13 years ago


I always thought the best way to reign in government spending, was to eliminate employer withholding, and require taxpayers to write a check at the end of the year. If you had a bunch of folk having to write out a $2K, $3k, $5k, $10k check every year, you'd have a whole lot more folks screaming about out of control government spending.

dpnewell wrote:



Then the government misses out on the interest for having the money throughout the year. Incidentally, this is why the government charges you an interest fee if you neglect to pay your taxes throughout the year (for 1099 workers).
tailgater
13 years ago

Then the government misses out on the interest for having the money throughout the year. Incidentally, this is why the government charges you an interest fee if you neglect to pay your taxes throughout the year (for 1099 workers).

victor809 wrote:



With interest so low, I think the biggest reason today is that 47% would simply spend the money...
Brewha
13 years ago

Once again you show how ignorant you are. Learn the tax code, understand the rules instead of spouting talking points.

Your bonus is not "Taxed at 25%", there are taxes WITHHELD from your bonus that are set by the IRS, other states would also include state tax withholding, and the number would be higher.

If Mitt got a bonus it would be taxed the same way. Dividend are taxed at the 15% rate.

I guarantee your EFFECTIVE tax rate is probably about the same or less as his. Look at your total taxes paid and divide that number by your total income (yes divide the smaller number by the bigger number to get a percentage). The resulting percentage is your EFFECTIVE tax rate. Forget about Marginal Tax rates.

When you are in retirement and having to live on your savings via dividend checks you will absolutely appreciate the lower tax rate on dividends. Increasing the rate on dividends will hurt the senior citizens and those who actually saved for retirement, more than the "rich".


I really don't know why I waste my time though. You really are too ignorant to even know you are ignorant. You arent the only one on this forum either, just the unlucky target of my disgust and lack of patience.

This is why I don't really post anymore. I fell like I have to spend 5000 characters to first educate the other person I am trying to have a discussion with, then my damn fingers are too tired to continue.


Seriously man, educate yourself.

gringococolo wrote:




I think you are demonstrating that ignorance and rage of hand in hand. And that you are an expert in both.

I gather that you think it is right and fair that a multimillionaire pays a lower percent of income tax because his money comes from dividends, and a working stiff pays a higher percentage because he actually "worked" for his money. Well, you are entitled to that opinion - which make it no less stupid.
DrMaddVibe
13 years ago

I gather that you think it is right and fair that a multimillionaire pays a lower percent of income tax because his money comes from dividends, and a working stiff pays a higher percentage because he actually "worked" for his money.

Brewha wrote:




🐴 [frypan] 🤦 [gonzo]
Users browsing this topic