Should rich americans have to pay more taxes?
MANOFSTRENGTH
2012/01/02 22:09:59
|
|
|||||
|
57 votes
|
|
57% | |||
|
30 votes
|
|
30% | |||
|
13 votes
|
|
13% | |||
Top Opinion
-
Pat 2012/01/03 03:55:43Yes
+9This is kind of a misleading question because it is not a matter of dollars and cents but rather percentages. Right now, average people in the U.S. pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes while the wealthy pay a smaller percentage due to all their tax breaks and deductions. If I'm paying 23%, they someone much wealthier should not be paying 10%. It simply isn't fair. But it isn't only the taxes that are out of whack, it's salaries as well. NO one is worth what some of these gazzillionaires make. And show me anywhere where you can raise a family on $10/hour or even $20/hour. It's almost impossible and it certainly doesn't cover healthcare expenses, college or leave any room for vacations or even a night at the movies. The whole financial structure has to change drastically so that every working person can make a decent living.
Did I not say only 9 percent of taxes came from corporate taxes? That's a fact.Corporate taxes accounted for about 9 percent of all federal revenue in 2010. At $191 billion, they were equal to 1.3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Most industrial countries collect more from companies, about 2.5 percent of output. Only a portion of that disparity can be explained by the many types of businesses in the United States that elect to be taxed at an individual rate.
But some prominent business leaders, including the chief executive of Procter & Gamble, are pushing for the rate to be reduced without reining in tax shelters. That would make the United States virtually the only country to change corporate taxes in recent years in a way that ended up adding to its deficit.
Wrong again, Where's the link? The latest data says 60 percent of 1percent are executives. I can't find it, but this report itself is a couple of years old but no matter, it’s still highly informative. http://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
Wall Street. Financial professions amount to 14% of the top one percent, up from 8% in 1979 (rounded numbers). Yes, a rise, but most certainly not the vast majority that one might expect given the vituperation that is aimed at Wall Street and its denizens.
The medical profession (almost all doctors except for the very occasional nurse in the California penitentiary system) is a larger portion of this one percent than even finance is. Indeed it always has been. And medicine has held its place as the second largest (after business executives) over those decades as the portion of GDP going to the top one percent has increased. Indeed (from Table 6) the doctors in the top 1% are getting 1.85% of total GDP while the finance professionals are getting 2.77%.
the income of the top 0.01 mirrors that of the top 1% in 1929? Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson wrote a book on this phenomenon called "Winner Take All Politics". You should read it; you just might learn something new.
"..like I said a...
Wrong again, Where's the link? The latest data says 60 percent of 1percent are executives. I can't find it, but this report itself is a couple of years old but no matter, it’s still highly informative. http://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
Wall Street. Financial professions amount to 14% of the top one percent, up from 8% in 1979 (rounded numbers). Yes, a rise, but most certainly not the vast majority that one might expect given the vituperation that is aimed at Wall Street and its denizens.
The medical profession (almost all doctors except for the very occasional nurse in the California penitentiary system) is a larger portion of this one percent than even finance is. Indeed it always has been. And medicine has held its place as the second largest (after business executives) over those decades as the portion of GDP going to the top one percent has increased. Indeed (from Table 6) the doctors in the top 1% are getting 1.85% of total GDP while the finance professionals are getting 2.77%.
the income of the top 0.01 mirrors that of the top 1% in 1929? Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson wrote a book on this phenomenon called "Winner Take All Politics". You should read it; you just might learn something new.
"..like I said above success comes from risking your capital for your own business..."
That is not success or from hard work, genius. It is pure stupid luck. The stock market fluctuates every time. One false move and whole stock share is gone. there's no honor in that, genius. And it's not actual "working". are you slow? The stock price is determined by the amount the company owes vs the assets that the company has... And why are you focusing on the individual stocks? Millionaires like Romney and others alike get most of their income from mutual funds.
http://moneytipcentral.com/se...
today.
what's your better solution then?
No, it's not. Is there something wrong with you?! What kind of person thinks a bus driver making 40K a year or a security making 55K a year should be paying the same rate as someone making 250K a year? You do realize that there other kinds of taxes (states, exercise, poll, FICA, sales, etc,) people pay (which the bottom 99 percent foot the bill on)?
"what's your better solution then?"
What?! How about ending the Bush tax cuts, reinstating the statuatiry 35 percent corporate tax limit and closing tax loopholes (heavens)? What everyone has been screaming for for so long.
edit** I forgot to add before the edit. If you read my initial post. I said 15% of all income no matter how much you make, and that's it. So you earn 100 bucks this week the government takes 15 and you get 85. Its easy and there'd be no need to file income tax every year.
Now that would mean there would be no other tax but the 15 percent. I would have mentioned other taxes if I wanted to include them in my statement.
Your idea would be a tax hike for the lower middle class and a tax windfall for the wealthy. If you have a family of four with an income of just under $50,000, they could end up paying more under a flat tax plan. Currently, they are taxed around $3,850 in income tax. Under Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, they would be taxed at 9 percent or pay $4,500. That’s $650 more. Imagine what would be t...
Your idea would be a tax hike for the lower middle class and a tax windfall for the wealthy. If you have a family of four with an income of just under $50,000, they could end up paying more under a flat tax plan. Currently, they are taxed around $3,850 in income tax. Under Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, they would be taxed at 9 percent or pay $4,500. That’s $650 more. Imagine what would be they were taxed at 15 percent. That around 6,300 they're going away to the IRS.
People earning more than $1 million a year would receive an average tax cut of $613,689 in 2015, compared with what they pay now. That change would boost their after-tax income by 28.7 percent and put their average tax rate at 11.9 percent. It gives millionaires a tax cut of more than $600,000 per year each while PUTTING ALL THE BURDEN ON THE MIDDLE CLASS and WORKING CLASS.
"Why should someone who makes more money pay more taxes?"
Maybe you have been paying attention to how bad income inequality is in this country. The pay more in taxes because that is where most of the national income is. duh!Under your idiot plan, half of the entire benefit goes to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. The richest 0.1 percent of the country will receive a tax cut worth nearly $2 million each and every year. These tax cuts are in addition to what the wealthy are already receiving from their disproportionate share of the Bush tax cuts.
The U.S. workforce in 2002 is made up of 228 million employees who earned a total of $6.7 trillion last year. T
The richest 1 percent took away a whopping $1.8 trillion, or over 26 percent of America’s national income. Wanna guess where the 1 percent-99 percent divide is? Interesting coincidence: at $87,500 a year. Slap the same 12.4 percent FICA payroll tax on the over-$87,500 crowd — the kind of “flat tax” that makes Steve Forbes’ cheeks flush — and you bring in $219 billion a year. That puts the system into the black starting in 2037 and as far beyond that as a C.P.A. can see. Just in year 2005, the rich represented 35 percent of all the income reported.
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/i...
The end result of the plan would be millionaires paying a lower tax rate than middle-class families, as a millionaire would pay an 11.9 percent rate, while a family making $40,000-$50,000 would pay 12.7 percent.
Plus, the Tax Plan would add Would Add $1.3 Trillion to Deficit
http://www.bloomberg.com/news...
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the government will collect $3.7 trillion in 2015, meaning that Gingrich’s tax plan would result in a 35 percent cut in federal revenue and a $1.5 trillion deficit, assuming no additional spending cuts or economic growth spurred by the tax cuts.
Gingrich’s plan would leave enough money to cover the cost of so-called mandatory spending, a category that includes Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, along with part of the interest on the U.S. debt. Dedicating the money for those purposes wouldn’t leave any funds for defense spending or any other federal agency.
also what does the government really need money for besides law enforcement, and defending our boarders. Nothing. The whole reason it needs to spend money on things other than that is because it is wasting it.
I know, I know. It's called critical thinking. try and use it someone, Rather than regurgitating the same dogmatic ideologies and garbage the right-wing media feeds you sheep. You're not an independent thinker.
"I was just coming up with a fair for everyone simple solution. You earn money you pay 15 percent which is not that much as you claim it to be.Paying the same rate isn't fair and insane. are You an idiot? "
And the rich would NOT be paying much more in taxes. They'd actually have tax breaks? Also, the fed would not collect enough revenue to make up the budget gaps.
",,,middle class Americans would pay much less."
lower middle families and others would actually have tax hikes imposed on.