Fair share, not lavish tax breaks

John W. Wheeler, Maplewood, what's the matter, did you get pushed around in HS by the jocks?

[QUOTE who="Michael Kuchta, St. Paul"]We should be the ones who are offended. The state's mega-rich already pay a lower overall state and local rate than we do, and their rate keeps getting smaller.
[/QUOTE]
And that's not all, Michael. Those mega-rich bast... people pay a lower overall rate for their gasoline too and that keeps getting smaller. And don't even get me started on groceries and steak dinners. It's an outrage, I tell ya, an outrage!

Gimme a break.

This is an discussion I will never understand. To the best of my knowledge, taxes are the only thing the public pays that is a percentage of their income for services rendered. Why, as a higher income earner, should someone have to pay more for that service, simply because they make more money. Even though they may pay a smaller percentage, the actual dollars they pay greatly exceed that of a higher percentage, lower income earner. The arguement that they use more service is incorrect. The higher income bracket uses less services. Generally speaking it is the higher income person or business owner that also provides jobs, donates more, etc. In most cases the higher income earner has that income because of his work ethic, education, and gambles in business he has taken. All achieved because of HIMSELF. I will never understand the opposing view. My only guess is that the majority of citizens that pay no taxes, or low taxes, want more stuff and the only way to get it is to tax those with more. Semper Fi

Former Ranger wrote:

John W. Wheeler, Maplewood, what's the matter, did you get pushed around in HS by the jocks?

Did you get pushed around by people who passed sixth grade on their first try?

Steve Dorff takes a survey of his admittedly few liberal friends and extrapolates, from that limited exposure, a conclusion regarding liberals in general. He should make the acquaintance of my friends - he'll find an extremely well informed and politically active group. That, however, might interfere with his preconceived notions about liberals.

While raising taxes always stifles growth and wealth creation, raising taxes during a severe economic crisis is nothing short of legislative malpractice. Consider the income tax. Many small businesses file their business taxes on the individual income schedule. Thus, when the income tax is raised, this becomes a higher tax on small businesses. It doesn't take an economist to see that when small businesses have more taken, they have less available to spend on employee benefits, capital equipment, and other truly stimulative expenditures.
How about the mortgage interest deduction? Every person who has a mortgage has counted on the mortgage interest deduction, which has been in the tax code for many decades. Does it really make sense to make home buying more expensive and push even more prospective buyers out of the market?
Anoka County has put numerous lobbyists on the public payroll to hang out at the Capitol. These knuckleheads couldn't even keep this provision out. Maybe too much time down at the Lexington with Dan Erhart .
http://www.anokacountywatchdog.com/expenses/e...
http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/lobby/adetail/...
http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/lobby/adetail/...

Marine from Marine wrote:

This is an discussion I will never understand. To the best of my knowledge, taxes are the only thing the public pays that is a percentage of their income for services rendered. Why, as a higher income earner, should someone have to pay more for that service, simply because they make more money. Even though they may pay a smaller percentage, the actual dollars they pay greatly exceed that of a higher percentage, lower income earner. The arguement that they use more service is incorrect. The higher income bracket uses less services. Generally speaking it is the higher income person or business owner that also provides jobs, donates more, etc. In most cases the higher income earner has that income because of his work ethic, education, and gambles in business he has taken. All achieved because of HIMSELF. I will never understand the opposing view. My only guess is that the majority of citizens that pay no taxes, or low taxes, want more stuff and the only way to get it is to tax those with more. Semper Fi

Actually, the higher income people benefit more than the poor do from the services offered by government, from police and fire protection to a sound infrastructure and an educated workforce from which they can hire capable employees. And, in fact, for the very wealthiest, income derives disproportionately from investments rather than from wages and salaries, and investment income is taxed at a much lower rate than wages and salaries. Why, indeed, should a billionaire clipping bond coupons be taxed at a much lower rate than his chauffeur or his secretary?
The idea of the progressive tax system is that people are taxed not only on a percentage of income, but, also, on the ability to pay. Someone making $500,000/yearly, taxed at 39%, would still be left with $305,000; in fact, since Obama is talking about raising MARGINAL tax rates, that 39% would apply only to income above $250,000; the first $250,000 of income would be taxed at a lower rate, leaving the taxpayer much, much more than the $305,000 I cited above. Now, take someone who makes $30,000/year and take away the same 39% in taxes, that person is left with $18,300 - not enough to live on. So, the idea of progressive taxation is that, 1)the people with the most money also benefit at least as much as, perhaps more than the lower income earners and, 2)taxation should be based on ability to pay.

Excellent point!

Let us not also forget that the rich do not recieve transfer payments, student aid, free and reduced lunch, etc.

You see, when you take what the middle and lower classes pay in taxes and then factor in benefits they come out ahead. The rich do not recieve these benefits, yet they pay the taxes.

The radical left often complains that SS taxes are capped, but rarely do they admit that the benefita are also capped. They say that the cap should be removed. Fine, let's remove the cap but we then must remove the cap on benefits.

Winning the tax argument with radical leftists is like taking candy from a baby.

Gndydncr wrote:

<quoted text>
And that's not all, Michael. Those mega-rich bast... people pay a lower overall rate for their gasoline too and that keeps getting smaller. And don't even get me started on groceries and steak dinners. It's an outrage, I tell ya, an outrage!
Gimme a break.

Michael Kuchta of St. Paul failed math.

Marine from Marine wrote:

This is an discussion I will never understand. To the best of my knowledge, taxes are the only thing the public pays that is a percentage of their income for services rendered. Why, as a higher income earner, should someone have to pay more for that service, simply because they make more money. Even though they may pay a smaller percentage, the actual dollars they pay greatly exceed that of a higher percentage, lower income earner. The arguement that they use more service is incorrect. The higher income bracket uses less services. Generally speaking it is the higher income person or business owner that also provides jobs, donates more, etc. In most cases the higher income earner has that income because of his work ethic, education, and gambles in business he has taken. All achieved because of HIMSELF. I will never understand the opposing view. My only guess is that the majority of citizens that pay no taxes, or low taxes, want more stuff and the only way to get it is to tax those with more. Semper Fi

You've actually asked a great question. The argument really isn't about how much a rich person pays compared to other income earners, but the number of rich people within the population compared to the number of lower income earners. Theoretically, lower income earners always outnumber rich people because the chances of becoming rich even in a country like America are generally equal to the chances of anybody becoming a pro-sports star -- astronomically low. Therefore, the lower income earners collectively produce more tax revenue than all the wealthy people. When wealthy people have their taxes cut, this puts more burden on the lower income groups to make up that difference when they already, again theoretically, are paying more than all of the rich people.

Moreover, wealthy people are the only individuals that have the power to influence taxation because they, unlike lower income groups, can afford and appoint lobbyists to change the law as often as they want. Sure, we think we have power because we elect politicans that are supposed to have our interest at heart - but that's every 4 years for state senators, governors, and the President, and every 6 years for federal senators. Moreover, lower income people generally have the ear of 1 person, the senator that represents their district. Meanwhile, rich people have the means to lobby the capital EVERYDAY, and more than one person, whereas everybody else, tends to have to wait for that one person's term to expire.

In the end, everything should balance out - the rich pay more in taxes, yet have more power to influence Congress for other aims.

LGA Larry wrote:

While raising taxes always stifles growth and wealth creation...

Just like the 1993 tax increases did during that decade, eh? Yep, the economy really tanked then.

Met wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like the 1993 tax increases did during that decade, eh? Yep, the economy really tanked then.

Let's not forget how awful the economy was back in the 1950s as well!

Marine from Marine wrote:

This is an discussion I will never understand. To the best of my knowledge, taxes are the only thing the public pays that is a percentage of their income for services rendered. Why, as a higher income earner, should someone have to pay more for that service, simply because they make more money. Even though they may pay a smaller percentage, the actual dollars they pay greatly exceed that of a higher percentage, lower income earner. The arguement that they use more service is incorrect. The higher income bracket uses less services. Generally speaking it is the higher income person or business owner that also provides jobs, donates more, etc. In most cases the higher income earner has that income because of his work ethic, education, and gambles in business he has taken. All achieved because of HIMSELF. I will never understand the opposing view. My only guess is that the majority of citizens that pay no taxes, or low taxes, want more stuff and the only way to get it is to tax those with more. Semper Fi

Look up "equal marginal sacrifice" and see what you come up with.

LGA Larry wrote:

While raising taxes always stifles growth and wealth creation, raising taxes during a severe economic crisis is nothing short of legislative malpractice. Consider the income tax. Many small businesses file their business taxes on the individual income schedule. Thus, when the income tax is raised, this becomes a higher tax on small businesses. It doesn't take an economist to see that when small businesses have more taken, they have less available to spend on employee benefits, capital equipment, and other truly stimulative expenditures.
How about the mortgage interest deduction? Every person who has a mortgage has counted on the mortgage interest deduction, which has been in the tax code for many decades. Does it really make sense to make home buying more expensive and push even more prospective buyers out of the market?
Anoka County has put numerous lobbyists on the public payroll to hang out at the Capitol. These knuckleheads couldn't even keep this provision out. Maybe too much time down at the Lexington with Dan Erhart .
http://www.anokacountywatchdog.com/expenses/e...
http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/lobby/adetail/...
http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/lobby/adetail/...

I think we all are simplifying tax arguments in general. First, small businesses and big businesses are usually at odds with each other because large companies usually do well when taxes are raised, while small businesses frequently do not. As small business income dries up, big businesses can use their muscle to absorb or eliminate its small competitor.

Cutting taxes is a bad thing for consumers because businesses always raise the price of goods when they think people have more money to spend, while keeping prices low when they know consumers have less income.

So, like most things that involve the government, the pain is shifted around depending on which fiscal property the government decides to enact. Higher taxes mean small businesses struggle, consumers and big business does well. Lower taxes mean big businesses and small businesses do well, consumers lose out.

Last, BIG BUSINESS has asked government to intervene since the housing crisis started, so we are all wrong to blame politicians, whether liberal or conservative, for this mess.

I think the taxes issue for me is clouded my two conflicting views, that I cannot seem to reconcile.

The first is that the poor cannot usually provide the opportunites for their children that the rich can. They might be working two jobs just to put food on the table, and can't help with homework, etc. It is seen in study after study that kids of parents who went to college usually go to college, and kids of parents who didn't go don't go either. The parent sets the example, and unfortunately that can perpetuate poverty. The only way to break that is to provide programs that can give thse kids the help and inspiration they need to acheive more - thus the need for taxes.

But this conflicts with my other veiw, that if they didn't have more kids than they could care for, they woudn't need to work two jobs to put food on the table. I donate money to Planned Parenthood, and there's birth control in every Walgreens in town - why are these people having all these children? I know, I know - why should only the rich get to have kids? But really, isn't it just a function of waiting until you're more settled professionally and you have the resources to care for them without so much sacrifice? Anyway - I go back and forth on this issue.

lets keep taxing the rich so even more jobs (by job creators) go bye-bye.

the mind of a liberal

Darwinian wrote:

Steve Dorff takes a survey of his admittedly few liberal friends and extrapolates, from that limited exposure, a conclusion regarding liberals in general. He should make the acquaintance of my friends - he'll find an extremely well informed and politically active group. That, however, might interfere with his preconceived notions about liberals.

You take Steve Dorff to task for taking too small of a sample in all the wrong places to come to a conclusion and yet that is exactly what the "scientists" have done when they use a 100 year sample (at best) from a billion year old planet measured in all the wrong places to conclude that we, the people, are causing global warming. I heard a report the other day that 89% of the temperature samples taken were too close to heat producing or heat radiating structures (air conditioning exhaust fans and asphalt) than what good scientific guidelines dictated.

gzaiger wrote:

I think the taxes issue for me is clouded my two conflicting views, that I cannot seem to reconcile.
The first is that the poor cannot usually provide the opportunites for their children that the rich can. They might be working two jobs just to put food on the table, and can't help with homework, etc. It is seen in study after study that kids of parents who went to college usually go to college, and kids of parents who didn't go don't go either. The parent sets the example, and unfortunately that can perpetuate poverty. The only way to break that is to provide programs that can give thse kids the help and inspiration they need to acheive more - thus the need for taxes.
But this conflicts with my other veiw, that if they didn't have more kids than they could care for, they woudn't need to work two jobs to put food on the table. I donate money to Planned Parenthood, and there's birth control in every Walgreens in town - why are these people having all these children? I know, I know - why should only the rich get to have kids? But really, isn't it just a function of waiting until you're more settled professionally and you have the resources to care for them without so much sacrifice? Anyway - I go back and forth on this issue.

Your post should win POST OF THE YEAR AWARD, because you're getting to the real issue with our Democratic government system. Let me expand it further.

The poor often do not have the education to make good decisions, and thus need programs to provide an education and services for them.

Meanwhile, the middle class often has the education to make good choices, and the money to make rich people rich.

Then there are rich people who have the education to make good choices, and more money than middle class people to make bigger personal and public investments.

What our system of government seeks to do is balance these competing interests and needs so that our society is not only happy, but functioning properly.

You will find irresponsible adults at every level of the income structure; the millionaire embezzler (Petters), the unemployed mom with 5 children, and the middle income tax dodger. Generally speaking, lower income derived crimes and mistakes carry harsher punishments--the premise being good stiff punishment will make people without money think twice about doing something stupid and foolish. Rarely does that theory hold in practice.

Meanwhile, the further up your income goes, the more power you have to influence politicians. Thus, wealthy people frequently lobby, endorse, and contact their congressmen over every issue that bothers them, while poor people congregate in mass through some third person, namely a nonprofit organization, to enact changes they want to see happen.

The best part of this whole thing is that Michael Kuchta gasbag, is communications coordinator for the North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters.

Hey excrement for brains, keep taking more of those "Evil Rich Peoples" money. They in turn will not be hiring you or your fellow union carpenters. Ergo, you will have less money then you do know.
Good luck idiot.

Gndydncr wrote:

<quoted text>
You take Steve Dorff to task for taking too small of a sample in all the wrong places to come to a conclusion and yet that is exactly what the "scientists" have done when they use a 100 year sample (at best) from a billion year old planet measured in all the wrong places to conclude that we, the people, are causing global warming. I heard a report the other day that 89% of the temperature samples taken were too close to heat producing or heat radiating structures (air conditioning exhaust fans and asphalt) than what good scientific guidelines dictated.

Actually, they've taken carbon samples going back 650,000 years, so, your information is incomplete at best. That makes me wonder where you are getting your information - Sen. Inhofe's website?