*#*#*#*#ing bourgeoisie. I say we take their stuff, and then throw them into gulags. Once they are out of the way, we will be free to distribute our winnings among the proletariat.
Re: Re: How the rich lives Your search - killing straw men - did not match any documents. Suggestions: - Make sure all words are spelled correctly. - Try different keywords. - Try more general keywords. - Try fewer keywords. Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.
Re: Re: Re: How the rich lives It's obvious you hate the rich. I'm not rich, you're not rich. Boo friggity hoo. Get over it. They made their money and they can spend it how they want.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How the rich lives As usual, manny, you're so wrong as to be laughable. I don't hate the rich. I am in favor of a progressive income tax. The rich have done quite fine despite the supposed disincentive of a progressive income tax.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How the rich lives Once again, you're good at killing straw men. Perhaps you should try debating the issue at hand sometime. You might learn something.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How the rich lives I noticed that dinner for 40 catered by Ridgewell's was included on the list. Must be people celebrating Bush cutting estate taxes. Meanwhile, the working poor pay over 1/8 of their wages in social security taxes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How the rich lives No, the problem is you're avoiding questions. What is your ultimate goal here? It's quite clear that by "progessive taxing" you mean aggressive taxing to cut those rich folk down to size.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How the rich lives Can we leave your Bizarro world and discuss the real one where the poor sometimes pay higher taxes than the rich, where over 40 million have no health care, where 1/5 of children (lazy bastards!) are in poverty? Your type of rhetoric may have made a tiny, winy bit of sense 20 years ago, but now it's obscene.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How the rich lives Manny. Wrong. Again. Progressive taxation, done right, isn't intended to tax rich people back to the middle class. It's intended to preserve the middle class.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How the rich lives I would like to see how the rich are paying lower taxes than the poor.
20 years ago? I guess that whole depression things was fake? Look, there were, are and will always be rich and poor. It is all relative. I make more money today than 20 years ago, but seem to spend more, too. Funny that. I also tend to look for ways to protect more of my money to either save to retire or guess what....spend even more! There are a few things I could try from that list, and considering these are things the rich do often, I would like to try some before I die, but who knows. The real "how" about living, rich or poor, is not determined by "what" you buy or don't buy. I know only "rich" people say this, but money can't buy happiness.
No offense, but that's a ridiculous comment. Income inequality has risen dramatically over the past 20 years, as well as the number of people without health insurance. We're not talking about not being able to afford a trip to Disneyland here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How the rich lives A hamburger flipper pays a minimum of 14.21 % in taxes (that is, if he pays no income taxes). A person who inherits $1,000,000 and buys all those lovely toys on the list pays 0% in taxes (nor does the estate).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How the rich lives Why are you comparing apples to oranges? The person who inherited the money would still have to pay income taxes, just like the hamburger flipper.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How the rich lives Not if he buys all those goodies on the list.
But his income is based on inheritence, and if he invests, interest. Under the Bush tax policy, he is paying at max 15%. While someone who is working their ass off for $40,000 (or whatever), is paying 29% (or higher). Thus, the conservative line is as such: Tax the hell out of those that work. Don't tax those that inherit, or who are sitting on wealth, or who did not earn their income. This is exactly the point Warren Buffett made recently. He is the nation's second richest man and is worth billions. He said it was assanine that the majority of his income (interest, stock dividends, etc.) is taxed at 15%, while his secretary gets taxed at 29%. Add to this the fact that the tax cuts and spending increases have produced a deficit of $500 billion, and you have the reason for the horrible economy, over 5 million lost jobs, a shrinking middle class, an increase in poverty and a lack of health care coverage. [sarcasm] But dammit, it's unfair to tax the rich!!!! Those poor bastards have it so hard!! [end sarcasm]
Why do you assume that whoever inherited the money did not work their ass off as well? The inherited money was ALREADY taxed as income multiple times when it was being accumulated.
They did not work their ass off for that inherited income. Sure, they might have worked their ass off elsewhere, but they are otherwise receiving free income, with making minimal contribution to society. Also, many rich people did in fact work their ass off to become rich. However, they have the ability to accumulate wealth, and use it as a source of interest income. When one is living off of interest income, one is not contributing to society, regardless of having worked hard to accumulate the wealth in the first place. What I'm getting at is that income, regardless of it's source, should be taxed (assuming we have an income tax). In addition, the income earned as the result of hard work should actually be taxed at a lower rate than income that is derived from inheritence, interest, or stock dividends. This way, we encourage people to work hard, be productive, and contribute to society. Doing the opposite - i.e. taxing work income at a higher rate and unearned income at a lower rate (as Bush has done), we encourage people to not work, and play with the stock market (like playing Las Vegas), various "get-rich quick" schemes, illegal accounting schemes (like Enron), etc. True, if people play the stock market, it can be a good stimulus to business expansion. But we all know what a roller coaster the stock market is. Isn't it better to encourage productivity? Afterall, the economy is ultimately driven by productivity. All the tax schemes and capital investments and the stock market don't mean anything until we actually produce something. And who produces? Those who work. In other words, the middle and working classes, not the rich or CEOs or stock market investors. Thus, the Bush (and general conservative, it seems) tax plan has it all backwards.
If a Martian descended to Earth and found that one human's calfskin purse is equivalent to another human's one full year tuition for a college education, would he be surprised?
Manny -- Didn't I teach you a couple of months ago that the overall tax system in this country is unbelievably flat? Just as a refresher, if you break the population into income quartiles, every quartile except the bottom fifth pays right around 20% of their total income in taxes (income tax + FICA / Medicare + property tax + sales tax + fees & whatnot). The only fully-industrialized country with a flatter tax system is Hong Kong. And the next person here who uses the infamous GOP line about "the top 1% of income earners pay 30% of the income tax in this country" without recognizing total taxes paid or the percentage of income that those people earn will be hunted down and shot.