Sean Hannity (-__-)

Quote from gunnerusa : Please quote and italicize where I made such a claim.

Pardon me. Poor choice of words on my part, but my point is the same.

While you may complain Gates/Microsoft "gets a lot more out of the military than you do", I'll submit they're worth a lot more to society than you are, and they still would be if they paid zero in taxes.

Quote from BargainBob : I don't have a number, but those who make more should be taxed more than someone who makes less.(

How about if we tax a million dollars 20 times more than we tax 50K?

Quote from Elmer : While you may complain Gates/Microsoft "gets a lot more out of the military than you do", I'll submit they're worth a lot more to society than you are, and they still would be if they paid zero in taxes.

Probably. After all, corporations are people too. They don't need consumers or workers to exist.

Quote from Mike A. : It certainly does because, as I said, like it or not, the burden is coming to both. There's not enough money in the "1%" (I really hate that dumb meme) to cover the growth in the cost of entitlements. You could put 100% of the burden on that side. There's really no point in arguing over who throws a few more pennies in the pot when the bills coming are at the level of dollars.

I made a single point in my comment. Do you deny that single point? Below, for your convenience is that single point.

Now accepting that half of the taxes is paid by the top 1% and unless you want to shift the tax burden between the top 1 and bottom 99% then half of the increased revenue must come from the top 1%.

Quote from TRNT : I made a single point in my comment. Do you deny that single point? Below, for your convenience is that single point. Now accepting that half of the taxes is paid by the top 1% and unless you want to shift the tax burden between the top 1 and bottom 99% then half of the increased revenue must come from the top 1%.

I have no particular interest in some abstract logical argument that you're attempting to make. But at a practical level, no, simply because some group may be paying some percentage of taxes at some given time, that doesn't necessarily mean that their share must increase in direct proportion. The limiting words in your statement obviously being "...unless you want to shift the tax burden..." which as I pointed out is unrealistic. Although neither party will admit as much, everyone's taxes are going up (one way or another) and the burden will shift to some extent accordingly. Since there's not enough money at the top 1% to cover all that's needed without getting to the point of confiscatory levels, and maybe not even then, the balance will be distributed lower (one way or another) which may in fact change the relative percentage (i.e., 1% pays more in real terms but as the base necessarily expands less than half of the total on a percentage basis).

Quote from Mike A. : I have no particular interest in some abstract logical argument that you're attempting to make. But at a practical level, no, simply because some group may be paying some percentage of taxes at some given time, that doesn't necessarily mean that their share must increase in direct proportion. The limiting words in your statement obviously being "...unless you want to shift the tax burden..." which as I pointed out is unrealistic. Although neither party will admit as much, everyone's taxes are going up (one way or another) and the burden will shift to some extent accordingly. Since there's not enough money at the top 1% to cover all that's needed without getting to the point of confiscatory levels, and maybe not even then, the balance will be distributed lower (one way or another) which may in fact change the relative percentage (i.e., 1% pays more in real terms but as the base necessarily expands less than half of the total on a percentage basis).

You could said what you said above with so many words in just one word, "no".

Then the only logical explanation, whether you understand it or admit it pr npt, is that in increasing revenues, you would like to shift the burden of taxation between the 1 and 99% in favor of the 1%.

That is fine. You are not alone. Romney too wants to further decscease taxes paid by the 1%. Good luck to the two of you.

(psst...if you did not understand my point after repeating it twice, you could have said so. I would have re-explained it with even easier concepts.)

Quote from TRNT : You could said what you said above with so many words in just one word, "no".

Clearly not acceptable around here. lol And it wouldn't have provided the basis for my answer.

Quote : Then the only logical explanation, whether you understand it or admit it pr npt, is that in increasing revenues, you would like to shift the burden of taxation between the 1 and 99% in favor of the 1%. That is fine. You are not alone. Romney too wants to further decscease taxes paid by the 1%. Good luck to the two of you.

You're making the common mistake of looking at it only in terms of percentages. Percentages don't pay for things. As I said above, the 1% would be (and likely will be) paying more in REAL dollar terms not, as you suggest, having their taxes "further decrease[d]." The relative percentages change only due to the numbers, not any particular politics, because the base necessarily must expand.

Also, in keeping with what appears to be conventional liberal thinking, you're assuming that the upper bound is limitless. It's not. Set the taxation level for the 1% at 100% representing whatever maximum rate that you deem appropriate. Beyond that the 1% well is dry. Requirements will remain for more taxes. Where does the tax money come from without affecting the relative percentages and percentage increases? The practical reality is that the 1% necessarily becomes the 5%, then the 10%, then the 20%... Again, due to numbers not politics.

The whole "1%" thing is rather arbitrary btw having no real basis in tax or economic policy. It's purely a creature of political rhetoric. In that regard, even Obama has given up on representing it as making any significant financial contribution relative to requirements. If you think that you can do so without raising taxes on other than the 1%, expanding the base, and having the relative percentages change as above, then good luck to you.

Quote : (psst...if you did not understand my point after repeating it twice, you could have said so. I would have re-explained it with even easier concepts.)

(psssttt... If you're trying to make a point, then just make it rather than asking round-about leading questions.)

Quote from Mike A. : Clearly not acceptable around here. lol And it wouldn't have provided the basis for my answer. You're making the common mistake of looking at it only in terms of percentages. Percentages don't pay for things. As I said above, the 1% would be (and likely will be) paying more in REAL dollar terms not, as you suggest, having their taxes "further decrease[d]." The relative percentages change only due to the numbers, not any particular politics, because the base necessarily must expand. Also, in keeping with what appears to be conventional liberal thinking, you're assuming that the upper bound is limitless. It's not. Set the taxation level for the 1% at 100% representing whatever maximum rate that you deem appropriate. Beyond that the 1% well is dry. Requirements will remain for more taxes. Where does the tax money come from without affecting the relative percentages and percentage increases? The practical reality is that the 1% necessarily becomes the 5%, then the 10%, then the 20%... Again, due to numbers not politics. The whole "1%" thing is rather arbitrary btw having no real basis in tax or economic policy. It's purely a creature of political rhetoric. In that regard, even Obama has given up on representing it as making any significant financial contribution relative to requirements. If you think that you can do so without raising taxes on other than the 1%, expanding the base, and having the relative percentages change as above, then good luck to you. (psssttt... If you're trying to make a point, then just make it rather than asking round-about leading questions.)

You clearly have not comprehended my point. Here, let me do it this way:

1. We need more revenues.
2.1. We keep the relative burden between 1 and 99% the same.
2.2. We change the relative burden between 1 and 99% in favor of the 1%.
2.3. We change the relative burden between 1 and 99% in favor of the 99%.

So which of these choices do you recommend?

Quote from TRNT : You clearly have not comprehended my point. Here, let me do it this way: 1. We need more revenues. 2.1. We keep the relative burden between 1 and 99% the same. 2.2. We change the relative burden between 1 and 99% in favor of the 1%. 2.3. We change the relative burden between 1 and 99% in favor of the 99%. So which of these choices do you recommend?

And you appear not to be comprehending mine.

It's not a question of what I or anyone else recommends. It's a matter of reality. Whether he admits it or not at this point in time, Obama also will be choosing 2.2, whether he likes it or not. Again, simply because of the numbers.

Quote from Mike A. : And you appear not to be comprehending mine. It's not a question of what I or anyone else recommends. It's a matter of reality. Whether he admits it or not at this point in time, Obama also will be choosing 2.2, whether he likes it or not. Again, simply because of the numbers.

What numbers?

I have been trying to get you to tell us which YOU would recommend. But for some reason you are not willing to tell us. Oh well.

Look, unless you change the distribution of tax burden significantly, the cold math tells us that roughly half of the new revenues must come from the top 1%. But some feel the need to regurgitate the old crap that raising taxes on the super rich results in amounts that are a drop in the bucket. Simple and indisputable math shows that that is a lie.

Quote from TRNT : You clearly have not comprehended my point. Here, let me do it this way: 1. We need more revenues.

How bout we need to cut spending? Like NOW.
iwheela

Quote from fishy420 : If people want Washington to leave the hard working lower to middle class alone when it comes to taxes, then maybe yous should vote for Ron Paul so we can get working on the real tax that burdens Americans... The devaluing of the dollar. That there folks, and if you do your own shopping you'd know, is the real tax problem in this country.

fishy420 is a great American.

Quote from BargainBob : I also realize that the top 10% control 70% of the money. I wouldn't mind if the top 10% paid zero, as long as the people who do the real hard work that makes this country run don't have to pick up the tab.

Bill Gates invented Microsoft. What did you do today?

Quote from BargainBob : What I'd really like though is for tax rate to return to the Clinton era when times were good, before the TEMPORARY Bush tax cuts chocked off the economy.

It can be argued the Clinton income tax hikes are what brought about the slowing of the economy.

btw, everyone knows only evil Republicans who love the rich and hate the poor cut capital gains taxes, right? ...wait, but Clinton cut them bigtime. hmm.

How do tax cuts choke off the economy? Bush cut taxes, and unemployment fell for like three years straight and revenues increased. And why did Obama and Dems continue those tax cuts, and why is there fear now of those cuts expiring again?

Quote from TRNT : it accomplishes fairness. It is not fair that romneys pay a lower tax rate that salaried people who make much less than them.

Drop everyone's rate to 15% or less. Problem solved.

Quote from TRNT : it accomplishes fairness. It is not fair that romneys pay a lower tax rate that salaried people who make much less than them.

Quote from Deusxmachina : Drop everyone's rate to 15% or less. Problem solved.

What? You mean we should not subsidize those who so selflessly risk their capitalin order to help this nation? What are you, a communist?

But more seriously....while not an outright admission, it seems that you are agreeing that it is indeed unfair that the Romneys pay a lower tax rate than salaried people who make a lot less than them.

Quote from smegalicious : So believing in progressive taxation is an "attack"? What judgment is being made about their choices in life?

Posters in the bash the rich threads talk about how they have too much money or complain about them buying too many cars. I remember 1 poster complaining about the rich buying Bugattis instead of using their money to provide jobs. How many times have we heard "how much money do they need to have?"?