Do the "rich" really PAY this much?

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

He says that the rich should pay more in taxes and I take him at his word.

Then let's see him demonstrate it... I showed how he could, above.

Let me see if I have this right. Suppose someone looks at the mountain of debt we have accumulated and thinks to himself, "we might have to do more than cut spending to actually start paying off this debt, we might have to raise tax rates as well." Not raise them to the levels of those leftist European countries, but at least put them back to the Clinton levels, which also happened to coincide with one of the biggest economic booms in our country's history.

According to you that person should be willing, even before the tax rates have been raised, to voluntarily send cash to the treasury on his own. Otherwise, his claim of wanting higher taxes is "bogus" and just for public consumption. Is that your position?

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]According to you that person should be willing, even before the tax rates have been raised, to voluntarily send cash to the treasury on his own.

[rehmwa 2]

Key words in bold

Choosing to give your money to charity is exactly the opposite of taxes. Buffet is a hypocrit. He wasted all that money by giving money he says should go to government and instead spent it the way he thinks he should.

Seems that if the government took all the money away from buffet and gates and any other charitable minded "rich" people, that a LOT of charities will get royally screwed.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mirage62 0]

I’m going to accept that the vast majority agree with the numbers that started this thread. That the “rich” are paying most the taxes.

1.) I think the rich should pay more – but they do already. We all agree on that (mostly)
2.) Bill makes the point that 2% of $20,000 isn’t as much as 2% of $150,000. (Boy now THAT was hard math. But there’s a LOT more people in the low $20,000’s than the $150,000. Right now the total argument seems to be that the “rich” can afford more but the “poor” can’t. (Wendy)

I fall into the small business owner. 30 employees’. Started with 5 in 1988. S-corp so I am taxed directly for the income. The money stays in the company to fund growth. We have offer full health insurance (company paid) and 401K. I don’t do it to be nice, I do it to attract and keep good people.

Comparing my class to Warren Buffet, or Buffet calling me rich is the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard. Telling me that I should be happy or accept paying “just” another 5% is just as damn dumb. Rich for Buffet isn’t what I make.

Yes there has to be a line but after 22 years I don’t believe taxing me more and letting others pay nothing because they don’t make “enough” is fair.

We are becoming a nation divided. I believe that a strong middle class is very important. But I provide jobs that are taking people to the middle class. By making it out that I am somehow unjustly making more money than the next guy because I was “lucky” and I have benefited so much lately (The rich are getting richer) is bull shit.

For years everything I had was in hock at the bank, if I fucked up they could take my house. I sell products that generally aren’t secured if someone goes out of business.

We have to cut spending, and everything has to be on the table. If we raise taxes it should be on all Americans making greater than $20,000.

End of rant.

Thanks for at least answering that the “rich” do indeed pay a boat load more than the others. Some of you really are my heroes. Paying more in taxes just doesn’t bother you. Perhaps one day I will reach your level but I doubt it.

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

[Channman 2]

Quote

>Really, lets all wait until you decide to get off your hands and earn
>your first 2 million. Then we will come and take 50% of it from you and get
>your reaction.

I'd rather not pay taxes - but I also don't mind doing my part to support the country that gave me the chance to make all that money. (Yes, I pay around 50% of what I make in taxes.)

Want to support the military? The primary way that you will do that is by paying taxes. Why would you begrudge them that money?

Bill, I would think your total tax burden is a little more than 50% when you factor all other taxes you pay throughout the year. Now I don't believe I implied in any way that I would begrudge our military any portion of my income as a tax to support them.

My point, if I ever truly got around to making one was the flippant way the poster expressed his williness to free himself of his imaginary money.

My Money is my money. Its not nor as it every been Uncle Sams Money. Now my wife and I withhold 42% of every dollar we earn to cover our taxes. We currently don't pay a state income tax but we do pay county, school, MUD, utility, and sales taxes, hell there are probably more. I think at some point, Americans should have the right to say that this little pile of money is mine and you can't have any more.

I don't know, maybe we can all act like a bunch of idiots and storm the streets like those in Europe and Burn our cities to the ground demanding more of someone else than of ourselves.

[billvon 3,070]

>Bill, I would think your total tax burden is a little more than 50% when
>you factor all other taxes you pay throughout the year.

If you add income and property - yes.

>My Money is my money. Its not nor as it every been Uncle Sams Money.

Then move somewhere where you do not use Uncle Sam's money. Problem solved.

>I think at some point, Americans should have the right to say that this
>little pile of money is mine and you can't have any more.

They all do. There are plenty of countries where

Living in the US is a privilege that few people in the world have. Taxes are the cost of that privilege. Since we have a representative government, we even get to vote for people who do what we want with those taxes. Inevitably people vote for politicians who promise them more stuff - more military, more roads, more healthcare, more schools. And we get what we ask for.

If you vote for those people, great. You will be asked to pay for your decisions. If you didn't vote, shame on you. If you don't like the system, there are plenty of others out there.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

so rather than tax income, let's tax spending. consumption tax please

Consumption tax hurts the poor more than the rich.

Quote

either go the prebate route like fairtax outlines

So you would create ANOTHER govt program? You would have most Americans waiting each mth on a check from the Govt.... totally wrong direction to go in, IMO.

Quote

don't tax produce, staple foods

Not a bad thing.

Quote

and allow some tax-free weekends for clothing and household spending.

Then you cut tax revenue and do not increase spending... Instead you have people waiting on those weekends to spend.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

it is to increase the amount earned by the lower wage earners (and therefore increase the amount of the tax burden that they pay).

and how do you propose to do that without creating inflation?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I thought I did, but I'll do it again so there's no mistaking:

Warren Buffett support raising the tax rates on the rich.
Warren Buffett is a multi-billionaire.
Therefore, supporting tax rates on the rich is not an impediment to acquiring wealth.

No, WB *IS* rich. So you claim is not correct. If he had made that claim BEFORE he was rich, your claim would be correct.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

so rather than tax income, let's tax spending. consumption tax please

Consumption tax hurts the poor more than the rich.

tripe. how? if you don't tax produce and staples, then you are taxing luxury spending. if the poor are spending that much on luxuries, they aren't poor.

Quote

***either go the prebate route like fairtax outlines

So you would create ANOTHER govt program? You would have most Americans waiting each mth on a check from the Govt.... totally wrong direction to go in, IMO.

which is why I proposed the other option.

Quote

***don't tax produce, staple foods

Not a bad thing.

Quote

and allow some tax-free weekends for clothing and household spending.

Then you cut tax revenue and do not increase spending... Instead you have people waiting on those weekends to spend.

they do that in TX right now. doesn't seem to be hurting our economy here.

you've given us a classic knee-jerk response. thank you.

--
Rob

[Channman 2]

> Then move somewhere where you do not use Uncle Sam's money. Problem solved.

Uncle Sam's money, is that which has been taken. OK taken might be a harsh word, but seems to fit. I do recieve benefits from services that are rendered by our government. No problem, I like many of those benefits, such as roads a nice smooth runway, GPS approaches.

Living in the US is a previlege no problem there, just think the spending is way out of control, and the demand for more from people who are deemed to have more should pony up more.

How about spend less. Now take California, and or the City of Los Angles, should we be responsible for bailing out Cities and or State that have politicians who promise more stuff-more roads, more healthcare, more schools? I think you are correct, somethimes we get what we ask for.

You make good points, obviously I'm having trouble stating mine. Have a Merry Christmas

[lawrocket 3]

An earlier post of yours got me thinking...

Quote

Truly massive spending cuts that destroy the economy will lead us further into debt, not help us get out of debt

I've done some looking around and investigating this statement. Fortunately, I cannot necessarily disagree that massive spending cuts will cause economic turmoil (I've saidi as much). Nevertheless, I believe that the economic turmoil will be short term, since a government spending one or two trillion less dollars per year than projected will be limited in its ability to run run up debt.

In searching some things out I found some interesting projections (yes, projections. I usually have problems with projections because they are rarely too accurate and are nothing more than a SWAG - a "Scientific Wild Assed Guess.") that have been put forth recently.

Take a look at this report: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf

It showed a $36.4 trillion unfunded liability in perpetuity for Medicare Part A (JUST PART A!!!) - see p. 69. Solving this problem would require immediate tax increases for every taxpayer's payroll taxes of over 30% to pay for it. Immediately!

Now to Medicare Part B - p. 111 showed unfunded liability of $37 trillion. So a 60% increase in payroll taxes would be necessary (basically, a tax increase of 5.6% of GDP for Parts A and B collectively).

Now to Medicare Part D (a Bush Era socialist policy/Pharma payoff) which provided MEdicare prescription benefits. Unfunded liability is $15.5 trillion in perpetuity (p. 127). So there's another 1.2% of GDP to pay for it forever.

Medicare's unfunded liability in perpetuity as of last year was $88.9 trillion - 6.8% of projected GDP. This "unfunded" is in excess of the "funded" amounts that taxes will already pay. The whole trust fund set up for Medicare is playing out like the Ponzi scheme that it is.

To add more trouble, there is Social Secuirty http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009

The total unfunded liability of SS in perpetuity was stated on p. 64 as $17.5 trillion. And it projects a needed roughly 13% tax increase to keep even.

So we have projected unfunded liabilities in these programs of $106.4 trillion dollars. That's LIABILITY in excess of what is projected to be paid in taxes. (The SS Trust Fund, by the way, has no real worth. It's all invested in T-Bonds. So, it has nothing more than the government can pay, anyway). Even if the projection is off by 20% that's a minimum of $80 trillion of unfunded entitlement.

The federal reserve lists total present private net worth at $54.891 trillion. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/z1r-5.pdf - page 1, line 42. We have unfunded liabilities in just Medicare and SS that are twice what the present total private net worth of all Americans equals!

As much as tax increases can help, this is a massive MASSIVE FUCKING HOLE! And Bill - again, this is just the presently UNFUNDED portion of it. The funded portion makes up a huge amount of the total liability, but we're talking about having to devote and additional nearly 10% of the GDP just for those two programs. And a tax increase of nearly 100% just for those two programs! The taxes are now about 12% of payroll for Medicare and 3% of payroll for SS. For Medicare and DD, the tax burden on workers to support just SS and Medicare could be in excess of 35% by 2050 - just to pay the benefits promised.

Now, this is before anything else. Medicaid. Defense. Streets and Highways. etc. Out of all income tax dollars paid under current rates, Medicare and SS will need 89% of them by 2080. Yes - you read correctly - 89%. The only way to keep that down without changing the benefits is to increase taxes. Want to keep it to about a third of revenues? That would require a tax rate for everyone in excess of 80%.

I'll have to look at Medicaid sometime, as well. It's another huge entitlement program that is unfunded.

SS and Medicare WILL engulf the federal budget unless a change is made. Taxing workers at 50%, 80% is not going to help because there won't be enough workers willing to take a $50 per hour job with a take-home pay of $16 per hour.

The fact is that there is simply no way that Medicare and SS can continue in perpetuity. It cannot. Period. When workers pay more for medical care and retirement pay for another person than they actually can keep for themselves they will not work.

Only by razing the economy now can we avoid an irreversible collapse in the future.

As a side note, taxing the rich only won't work. The Forbes 400 have a total wealth of $1.4 trillion - this is LESS than the federal deficit this year. (I think this puts some perspective on the spending - if you liquidated the net worth of Forbes 400 and the government then taxed it at 100% it wouldn't even balance the budget for 2010!)

(Sidepoint 2 - those without $1 billion net worth control $53.4 trillion of net worth in the US. Those with a billion control 1.4 trillion. Apparently, the very rich control a lot. But, damned if those who aren't the very rich control a helluva lot more).

(Sidepoint 3 - many high earners that people say should be taxed are those with negative worths. My wife (a physician) and I (an attorney) both have negative worths on the basis of student loans that are higher than most mortgage payments).

Even massive tax increases to everyone, including those people who have control 97.5% of the wealth in the US, will not work to save Medicare and SS. Again, I am mentioning these in absence of any other government spending. Add government spending and growth in it and you've got another $50-$100 trillion underfunded.

It is completely unrealistic to expect that taxes will be raised to a level that will support growth in government spending. A 150% increase in payroll taxes will not result in a 150% increase in revenues because the shock if the increased taxes will cause a slump in the economy.

To me, the common sense approach is to create a slow phasing out of Medicare and SS, grandfathering in those who are in it now, cutting benefits for both, and phasing them out over the next thirty years.

This is the reality. $106 trillion UNFUNDED for just those two programs. Tax increases cannot make this work. Even with modest cuts, massive tax increases cannot make this work.

There is no choice except for massive cuts to entitlements. Otherwise, the damage to the economy will be more severe.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

tripe. how? if you don't tax produce and staples, then you are taxing luxury spending. if the poor are spending that much on luxuries, they aren't poor

Because when you buy something that is not a "staple" and you get taxed 5 dollars on it and only make 10 dollars a week... It hurts you more than if I buy the same thing and get taxed 5 dollars but I make 10000 a week.

And you must remember that today's "poor" have color TV's, AC... etc and those are not exactly considered luxury items.

Quote

they do that in TX right now. doesn't seem to be hurting our economy here.

If you had paid attention.... I said the same things get bought, just in bursts when they don't have to pay taxes.

And on that note.... Yeah, you are doing great

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6712249.html

AUSTIN – Sales tax and natural gas tax collections fell more than $1 billion short of projections in the 2009 fiscal year, according to a state comptroller's report, fueling questions about the financial heartburn that may be ahead for Texas.

And Georgia dropped it this year:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2010-08-02-salestax02_ST_N.htm

Yet Georgia skipped a tax holiday this year for the first time since 2002. The state faces an estimated $371 million deficit for 2011. Its tax holiday last year, on clothing and school supplies including computers, cost an estimated $13.2 million in lost revenue, according to the state.

More from that link

Policy analysts at both ends of the political spectrum say tax holidays are stunts that don't boost the economy and hurt state budgets.

Sales tax holidays are "a political gimmick," says Mark Robyn of the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, which backs broader tax cuts.

Tax-free days cause shoppers to shift their spending, not increase it, Robyn says.

Quote

you've given us a classic knee-jerk response. thank you.

And you have given the classic emotional diatribe devoid of logic. When ASKED to defend your position, instead of defending, you started insulting.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Because when you buy something that is not a "staple" and you get taxed 5 dollars on it and only make 10 dollars a week... It hurts you more than if I buy the same thing and get taxed 5 dollars but I make 10000 a week.

If you're only making 10 dollars a week, why are you buying a luxury item?

Quote

And you must remember that today's "poor" have color TV's, AC... etc and those are not exactly considered luxury items.

Sort of like the lady on food stamps with the $100 nails and iphone? You're sort of shooting down your own argument with this statement.

Quote

And you have given the classic emotional diatribe devoid of logic. When ASKED to defend your position, instead of defending, you started insulting.

I wasn't aware that 'it hurts me more' is a logic-ridden statement.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If you're only making 10 dollars a week, why are you buying a luxury item?

The point is

1. Luxury is subjective. Our poor consider color TV's to be a need while the truly poor would consider it to be only for the rich.

2. Items that both the rich and the poor might buy will cost more relative to income for the lower income person. This means that a consumption tax on an item will impact the poorer person more than the rich person.

Quote

Sort of like the lady on food stamps with the $100 nails and iphone? You're sort of shooting down your own argument with this statement.

Not following you here.

Quote

I wasn't aware that 'it hurts me more' is a logic-ridden statement.

I never said it hurts me more... I said it hurts the poor more. And I have provided my data (both the rich and the poor pay the same amount on goods), you have ignored it.

[rhaig 0]

so the plasma tv, the new cell phone, the beer... those are all staples for your poor? my point is that if they are that poor, they can choose not to pay taxes by not buying luxery items.

the rich buy more luxury items, and if we're having a sales tax, lets not do it half-assed. reasonable proposals have been made for as much as 23% (with elimination of income tax). put the whole paycheck in the pocket of the consumer and tax luxery items (like that soda, the beer, the iphone, and the new TV)

dont want to pay the tax, cant afford to pay the tax, dont buy the non-staple items.

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

If you're only making 10 dollars a week, why are you buying a luxury item?

The point is

1. Luxury is subjective. Our poor consider color TV's to be a need while the truly poor would consider it to be only for the rich.

Exactly - just because someone considers it a need doesn't make it one.

Quote

2. Items that both the rich and the poor might buy will cost more relative to income for the lower income person. This means that a consumption tax on an item will impact the poorer person more than the rich person.

Items that both rich and poor might buy cost more relative to income NOW - there's also the prebate/rebate discussed above that you dismissed out of hand.

Quote

Quote

Sort of like the lady on food stamps with the $100 nails and iphone? You're sort of shooting down your own argument with this statement.

Not following you here.

See above.

Quote

Quote

I wasn't aware that 'it hurts me more' is a logic-ridden statement.

I never said it hurts me more... I said it hurts the poor more.

Yes, such a dry, non-emotional statement, that...just like the example of that person making ends meet on $10/week.

If you want to make points, make them at least SOMEwhat believable.

Quote

And I have provided my data (both the rich and the poor pay the same amount on goods), you have ignored it.

Yes, both rich and poor pay amount "x" for goods - now you just need to explain why both rich and poor paying amount "x+5" for goods is somehow unfair in comparison.

Re: your data... Ah, I see it now - you're deriding me for not responding to data that you added seven minutes AFTER my reply? Seriously?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

so the plasma tv, the new cell phone, the beer... those are all staples for your poor?

No, but they still buy them and it hurts them more than it hurts me. Which was the exact point I made when I said a consumption tax hurts the poor more than the 'rich'.

The fair taxers desire to create the largest entitlement system in history to send out a check each mth is about the dumbest idea ever.

Not taxing "essentials" is not a bad idea AND IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY READ MY POST YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT I SAID THAT ALREADY.

But you have dodged my points over and over again.

Quote

lets not do it half-assed

Yes, cause the Govt NEVER does anything half assed

Show me a system that ONLY uses a consumption tax......

Care to discuss the other points?

Quote

they do that in TX right now. doesn't seem to be hurting our economy here.

If you had paid attention.... I said the same things get bought, just in bursts when they don't have to pay taxes.

And on that note.... Yeah, you are doing great

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6712249.html

AUSTIN – Sales tax and natural gas tax collections fell more than $1 billion short of projections in the 2009 fiscal year, according to a state comptroller's report, fueling questions about the financial heartburn that may be ahead for Texas.

And Georgia dropped it this year:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2010-08-02-salestax02_ST_N.htm

Yet Georgia skipped a tax holiday this year for the first time since 2002. The state faces an estimated $371 million deficit for 2011. Its tax holiday last year, on clothing and school supplies including computers, cost an estimated $13.2 million in lost revenue, according to the state.

More from that link

Policy analysts at both ends of the political spectrum say tax holidays are stunts that don't boost the economy and hurt state budgets.

Sales tax holidays are "a political gimmick," says Mark Robyn of the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, which backs broader tax cuts.

Tax-free days cause shoppers to shift their spending, not increase it, Robyn says.

Which also supports my other position.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Exactly - just because someone considers it a need doesn't make it one.

So I guess only YOU are qualified to say what is a need and what is a want?

Besides you are, intentionally I think, ignoring the point that I made: A consumption task makes a poorer person pay more that a richer person as a percentage of income for the same thing.

So while you are bringing up the 'poor' what about the guy that makes one dollar over the 'poor' threshold and now wants that candy bar? He is paying more as a % of income for that luxury than the millionaire that bought the same thing.

Sorry, but that is a fact. A 'middle class' guy also gets hurt more than a millionaire for buying the same candybar.

Quote

Items that both rich and poor might buy cost more relative to income NOW - there's also the prebate/rebate discussed above that you dismissed out of hand.

The prebate/rebate BS would create the LARGEST govt entitlement program in history. Do you want EVERY person waiting on a check from the Govt each mth?

If so, then you are no conservative.

Quote

Yes, such a dry, non-emotional statement, that...just like the example of that person making ends meet on $10/week.

If you want to make points, make them at least SOMEwhat believable.

I used ridiculous numbers 10/week vs 10,000/week to make a point. Unfortunately, you would rather nit pick some number used as the example than actually discuss the issue brought....

Quote

Yes, both rich and poor pay amount "x" for goods - now you just need to explain why both rich and poor paying amount "x+5" for goods is somehow unfair in comparison

Already been done. you just ignored it.

Quote

Re: your data... Ah, I see it now - you're deriding me for not responding to data that you added seven minutes AFTER my reply? Seriously?

The data was there the first time..... You managed to discuss the 10 dollar v 10k dollar bit. So no, it was not added after the fact.

Hell, you QUOTED part it: "Because when you buy something that is not a "staple" and you get taxed 5 dollars on it and only make 10 dollars a week... It hurts you more than if I buy the same thing and get taxed 5 dollars but I make 10000 a week."

So you quoted part of it... It was there. Try another lame attempt to avoid the topic and focus on some piddly issue.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

so the plasma tv, the new cell phone, the beer... those are all staples for your poor?

No, but they still buy them and it hurts them more than it hurts me. Which was the exact point I made when I said a consumption tax hurts the poor more than the 'rich'.

(I read your post, you just didn't seem clear on the idea... perhaps I didn't make my point clearly)

so why do they buy them? priorities... for fuck sake. if they're poor, and down on their luck, I hope they're smart enough to reduce spending. but if they're poor because they buy the new plasma TV and an iphone, then they're poor because they're stupid. And if you're gonna be stupid, you gotta be tough.

Quote

The fair taxers desire to create the largest entitlement system in history to send out a check each mth is about the dumbest idea ever.

Not taxing "essentials" is not a bad idea AND IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY READ MY POST YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT I SAID THAT ALREADY.

But you have dodged my points over and over again.

that would indicate that I actually intended to reply to your points. which I do not because you have youre mind made up. You don't come here to collect data or ideas (in my opinion). were I to say more, it would probably be a personal attack, so I won't.
***
Tax-free days cause shoppers to shift their spending, not increase it, Robyn says.

Which also supports my other position.

no shit!! of course they shift their spending. That is the idea!! (see, clearly I didn't get my point through)

the whole point of having a tax-free weekend in conjunction with a consumption tax is to provide those who shouldn't be taxed at a high rate a way to get household items that are needed without paying taxes on them. Maybe it's one weekend a month if you have the tax-free eligible card. shit, I don't know... but the whole point was to shift the spending. You apparently mis-understood the point of that comment in my original post.

tax free weekends and tax-free essentials keep those who shouldn't be taxed from paying the high tax rate. When they don't have the extra money to spend and spend it anyway, they get punished by the tax man.

not regressive. hopefully instructive.

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Exactly - just because someone considers it a need doesn't make it one.

So I guess only YOU are qualified to say what is a need and what is a want?

Funny - isn't that what you've been doing the last several posts?

Quote

Quote

Items that both rich and poor might buy cost more relative to income NOW - there's also the prebate/rebate discussed above that you dismissed out of hand.

The prebate/rebate BS would create the LARGEST govt entitlement program in history. Do you want EVERY person waiting on a check from the Govt each mth?

1. It would be handled at the state level, just like welfare is now.

2. IRS and welfare offices would go bye-bye, hence a REDUCTION in the program size, not an increase

3. Since necessities would not be subject to the tax, the prebate/rebate could be handled with the same sort of simple coupons/cards as used for food stamps.

Three strikes, yer out.

Quote

If so, then you are no conservative.

"You don't think the same as I do, so you're bad" - let's see, WHO was it that you were calling out for the same LAME argument?

Quote

Quote

Re: your data... Ah, I see it now - you're deriding me for not responding to data that you added seven minutes AFTER my reply? Seriously?

The data was there the first time..... You managed to discuss the 10 dollar v 10k dollar bit. So no, it was not added after the fact.

Hell, you QUOTED part it: "Because when you buy something that is not a "staple" and you get taxed 5 dollars on it and only make 10 dollars a week... It hurts you more than if I buy the same thing and get taxed 5 dollars but I make 10000 a week."

THAT was your data? Well, certainly appears like I *did* respond to it, then...counter to your claim.

Quote

So you quoted part of it... It was there. Try another lame attempt to avoid the topic and focus on some piddly issue.

Speaking of lame attempts - just so you know, conjecture and opinon != data.

You may now return to your pertinent "data" of unfair candy bar taxes.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[likearock 2]

Quote

[Reply]According to you that person should be willing, even before the tax rates have been raised, to voluntarily send cash to the treasury on his own.

No. Of course, that would eliminate all doubt.

But buffet's sheltering of every asset he has except 1% is a good indication that he doesn't think taxes are a decent use of his money...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

[Reply]According to you that person should be willing, even before the tax rates have been raised, to voluntarily send cash to the treasury on his own.

No. Of course, that would eliminate all doubt.

But buffet's sheltering of every asset he has except 1% is a good indication that he doesn't think taxes are a decent use of his money...

I purposely made it a general question to see if this litmus test was specific to Warren Buffett or applied to others as well.

Does someone who is well off though not a billionaire and is in favor of higher taxes have to prove their sincerity by deliberately not taking tax deductions?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Does someone who is well off though not a billionaire and is in favor of higher taxes have to prove their sincerity by deliberately not taking tax deductions?

No. They don't have to do a damn thing. For example, they don't have to say, "I should be taxed more."

However, if someone chooses to put that out there, that person can be expected to be held to scrutiny. Much like a dude who says "Gays are an abomination" is rightly held to scrutiny as to how many peckers he's puffing.

I'm the sort of guy who is in a professional that hears it all the time - people who proclaim one thing whilst actively engaging in the opposite behavior. I ask you, did Mark Foley's internet predation of teenage boys do anything to taint his legacy as an anti-pornography, anti-gay family-values champion Goddamned right it did! And deservedly.

Let's say you know a regular married schmoe who insists that Jesus condemns extra-marital affairs. Then let's say that this guy got a blowjob from the copy clerk. Would you consider him a hypocrite? Goddamend right you would.

See, I tend to appreciate guys like billvon - he walks the walk FAR in excess of how he talks the talk.

I also have a tendency to hold everybody to the same standard. I don't care if you are president or someone who merely voted for him - if you say that tax shelters are bad then I will hold it against you if I find out that you are using them. if you volunteer the statement, "I should pay more in taxes" then I will expect you to pay more in taxes.

Here's the general concept: if you aren't walking the walk and don't want to be scrutinized, then shut the hell up. Billvon? He walks the walk. He STRUTS the walk. Mad props to him. Big time respet to him.

Warren Buffet? Hypocrite. Mark Foley? Hypocrite. Eliot Spitzer? Hypocrite. Al Gore? Hypocrite. Me? I have the balls to put out publicly what I truly belive. I think I should be paying less in taxes - unconcerned that people think I'm a cold and hearltess creature because I want to keep what I earn.

Go find something in that i've posted or done that is contrary to my written statements. You won't find me flying on a private jet because I can't justify it. If I end up on a private jet, you won't be able to cal me a hypocrite because I find nothing wrong with it.

Buffet? Those of us with a rudimentary knowledge of the US tax code know EXACTLY what he is doing. He is acting upon some sound legal advice regarding how to avoid the government taxing him.

Yep. I'll do it to any self-anointed bleeding heart who thinks everybody should be doing what he/she isn't doing himself/herself. I'm an equal opportunity scrutinizer. Warren Buffet gets torn apart by me online. Maybe you'll get torn apart by me online, too. But since I don't know who you are, I'll have a harder time with that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I'm thinking that 'do what I say, not what I do' isn't very convincing -

Nope. It's the standard thing. Right or left, we are all humans. Right wingers like sex, too. Left wingers love money, too. If he is a public enemy of homosexuality, he's blown a dude. If he disparages the rich, he's making money by doing it...

It's just the response that a cynical guy like me has...

My wife is hotter than your wife.