Should the Richest 10% Pay Two-Thirds of the Taxes?

I believe everyone should pay a sales tax only. It's not as if rich people are stuffing their beds with money, it's used for investments in other companies and buying expensive goods for which they would pay more tax.

But, if they colluded with government to financially advance themselves, they should be sent to jail along with their government counterpart(s) and take all their money. I disagree with allowing lobbying. I didn't vote for my representatives to go judge which lobbying group has the most influential argument or the most money. If he wants to hear what he should do, come back to my state.

So no it's not fair. People who pay hardly anything want it to stay that way and they are the majority and vote that way. But you can't fix that without fixing many other things.

If rich people are allowed to influence laws in government to benefit them, and I can't, then they should pay more if nothing else. We're screwed.

The rich hardly can even tell there's a financial crisis.

What difference would it make if they had high taxes. They'd get lawyers to tell them how to avoid paying the taxes.

Yes.

"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy.
Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?"

Who said this?

Let Soros pay everyone's taxes.

Caribou Barbie wrote:

Yes.

Then tell your wet noodle lover Soros to start kickin in and while you're at it tell Gates and Buffet to ante up too. Now GFY!

The Commish wrote:

<quoted text>Then tell your wet noodle lover Soros to start kickin in and while you're at it tell Gates and Buffet to ante up too. Now GFY!

So, Sugarcakes, either your a billionaire or a cheerleader for billionaires, which is it, you elitist thug?

I would go back to a RETHUGLICAN president, Eisenhower, and his marginal rates of NINETY ONE PERCENT for the ubberrich, but strangely you never hear modern day Rethuglican Fascists talking much about that period of unparalled proseperity when we HAD NO BILLIONAIRES and wealth was more even distributed.

But that would interfere with the institutional theft the Republicans are engaged in now, redistributing wealth from the bottom, up.

So, YOU can GFY, Nazi Thug.

It's good to know that the Politics Ed staff can spin a story as well as the rest of the MSM.

Of course, we'd all have to take the time to read the article in question with an open mind to see it, which many here won't do. They'll just take it as fact and run with their ________(fill in party of choice) rhetoric.

The fairness quiz is exactly that...it's questioning the fairness of certain policies against the backdrop of a Commander in Chief constantly crying about fairness. It in no way implies that Obama is to blame for all those policies, unless you're one of those blind bots looking for partisan shenanigans behind every word.

Of course, for any who pay the slightest attention to what's been going on in Washington, Moore's quiz does raise some compelling questions.

Eisenhower's tax rates are what is needed now!

I'm still waiting for a liberal to explain to me why death should be a taxable event. Every dollar that is subject to the estate tax has already been taxed 4 or 5 times previously. The only rationale that has ever been advanced in favor of the estate tax is "We don't think anyone deserves to inherit money and the government will use it more productively." Which is basically akin to saying that a middle class person has the right to leave their wealth to their kids, but a rich person doesn't. And then the Left has the nerve to deny they're engaging in class warfare.

celticwarriors wrote:

Eisenhower's tax rates are what is needed now!

There were three recessions during Eisenhower's tenure...and a very small number of people were actually taxed at the highest rates.

Kennedy lowered the tax rates, and as always happens, government revenues increased.

Reagan lowered the top rates...as a movie star/millionaire, he understood what happens when to rates are really high. California had instituted the "Millionaires Tax", which in plain English meant that past a certain point, millionaires only got to keep six cents of every dollar they earned...so they simply capped their incomes. No one is going to work and earn, just to give 90% of it away. History shows us this time and time again, all over the world.

We need to go back the the Equal Pay Tax system.

Our current system of taxation is totally and completely unconstitutional and MUST be abolished.

Our government at all levels provide a service to the public. Every person living within their jurisdictions is given the exact same access to those government services EQUALLY. There is absolutely nothing fair about charging one person for the exact same services someone else gets for FREE.

When a person go to the store and buys something the clerk at the store DOES NOT ask them for proof of their income and charge them accordingly. Then why on earth should we let our government do it.

Under the Fair Tax every person pays the exact same amount of tax. This broadens the tax base while reducing the tax burden of most American taxpayers.

Several years ago I crunched the numbers. AFTER reducing the size and scope of the government I determined that each Taxpayer would end up paying on average $175.00 per taxpayer per year. Even a person living on the street is able to come up with that amount of money over 12 months.

A lot of critics have pointed out that that would be impossible as they point to our National Debt. However I know exactly how we can retire the national debt and without raising taxes to do it.

Then once the National Debt is retired and the size and scope of the government is reduced you will see a drastic reduction in the amount of taxes you end up paying.

Jim Hayden for President in 2012
http://www.jimhayden2012.org/

Jim Hayden wrote:

We need to go back the the Equal Pay Tax system.
Our current system of taxation is totally and completely unconstitutional and MUST be abolished.
Our government at all levels provide a service to the public. Every person living within their jurisdictions is given the exact same access to those government services EQUALLY. There is absolutely nothing fair about charging one person for the exact same services someone else gets for FREE.
When a person go to the store and buys something the clerk at the store DOES NOT ask them for proof of their income and charge them accordingly. Then why on earth should we let our government do it.
Under the Fair Tax every person pays the exact same amount of tax. This broadens the tax base while reducing the tax burden of most American taxpayers.
Several years ago I crunched the numbers. AFTER reducing the size and scope of the government I determined that each Taxpayer would end up paying on average $175.00 per taxpayer per year. Even a person living on the street is able to come up with that amount of money over 12 months.
A lot of critics have pointed out that that would be impossible as they point to our National Debt. However I know exactly how we can retire the national debt and without raising taxes to do it.
Then once the National Debt is retired and the size and scope of the government is reduced you will see a drastic reduction in the amount of taxes you end up paying.
Jim Hayden for President in 2012
http://www.jimhayden2012.org/

You need to get back in bed and let the nurse give you your medications.

Hey Jim, a question. After skimming your website it seems like about 95% of your issue positions are exactly the same as Ron Paul's. I'm wondering why you've chosen to run for President yourself rather than supporting Paul's campaign? Considering of course that - and I mean no offense - you have even a more infinitesmal chance of getting elected than Paul does.

Stratton wrote:

Hey Jim, a question. After skimming your website it seems like about 95% of your issue positions are exactly the same as Ron Paul's. I'm wondering why you've chosen to run for President yourself rather than supporting Paul's campaign? Considering of course that - and I mean no offense - you have even a more infinitesmal chance of getting elected than Paul does.

Personally I do not trust Dr. Paul. Back in the 90s I talked with Dr. Paul and several members of his staff about the Veterans Rights Amendment. Back then I was given lip service as Dr. Paul had his own ideas. Now all of the sudden he is using what I talked to him about to get elected. I don't think so.

Not only that but Dr. Paul has yet to demonstrate that he has the ability to do what I am able to do. I mean when Dr. Paul was able to take the lead in the Congress to follow through on some of my ideas what did he do? Nothing! I know somewhere in his home or office he has a copy of the Veterans Rights Amendment which I gave him. Yes he is using it today to further his political ambitions however I seriously doubt that he has any intentions of doing any with it after he is elected just as he has NOT done anything with it during his tenure in the Congress. If Dr. Paul were totally honest and committed like I am he would have been pushing these issues from the get go and not wait until now what his second or third run to be president to come out in support of our Seniors and our Veterans. Dr. Paul is no better and no worse than any other professional politician.

He talks a good game only the evidence of his sincerity just isn't there and that he why he is loosing right now. While I not only talk the talk I have been walking the walk over the past 30 years.

Jim Hayden for President in 2012
http://www.jimhayden2012.org

Mountain William wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to get back in bed and let the nurse give you your medications.

Thank you kind lady for your personal endorsement.

Jim Hayden for President in 2012
http://www.jimhayden2012.org

Stratton wrote:

I'm still waiting for a liberal to explain to me why death should be a taxable event. Every dollar that is subject to the estate tax has already been taxed 4 or 5 times previously. The only rationale that has ever been advanced in favor of the estate tax is "We don't think anyone deserves to inherit money and the government will use it more productively." Which is basically akin to saying that a middle class person has the right to leave their wealth to their kids, but a rich person doesn't. And then the Left has the nerve to deny they're engaging in class warfare.

Every dollar that is subject to the estate tax has already been taxed 4 or 5 times previously? Not exactly.
Often times the wealth is inherited and passed down not from one generation, but from one to another, to another, to another, and so on.
Take Biltmore Estate. Cost roughly $10 million to build in 1889 to 1895. Today it's valued at over 1.2 billion. Explain how the value gains of that property were taxed at the federal level several 4 or 5 times previously. They weren't.

Caribou Barbie wrote:

<quoted text>
So, Sugarcakes, either your a billionaire or a cheerleader for billionaires, which is it, you elitist thug?
I would go back to a RETHUGLICAN president, Eisenhower, and his marginal rates of NINETY ONE PERCENT for the ubberrich, but strangely you never hear modern day Rethuglican Fascists talking much about that period of unparalled proseperity when we HAD NO BILLIONAIRES and wealth was more even distributed.
But that would interfere with the institutional theft the Republicans are engaged in now, redistributing wealth from the bottom, up.
So, YOU can GFY, Nazi Thug.

I am what you can only WISH you could be!

sofa_king_cool wrote:

<quoted text>Every dollar that is subject to the estate tax has already been taxed 4 or 5 times previously? Not exactly.
Often times the wealth is inherited and passed down not from one generation, but from one to another, to another, to another, and so on.
Take Biltmore Estate. Cost roughly $10 million to build in 1889 to 1895. Today it's valued at over 1.2 billion. Explain how the value gains of that property were taxed at the federal level several 4 or 5 times previously. They weren't.

Inheritance should not be taxed, that money was taxed when it was earned.

If the government has the right to tax an inheritance/gift, then they can also usurp the right to tax birthday and Christmas presents, or any other gift, even though most folks are taxed when they buy them prior to giving them away.

The Biltmore Estate may be valued at 1.2 billion by some, but others only value it at 200 million. Inflation alone has made it so it takes around 250 million today just to equal the buying power of 10 million 1885 dollars, so that's not really an increase in value, just a decrease in the worth of the dollar.

Regardless, who says the government has any right to the value gains of anyone's home? Someone already has to pay the property taxes each and every year. Imagine what the taxman has collected on the Biltmore for 125 years.

http://www.chacha.com/question/how-much-is-bi...

Rotrow wrote:

I believe everyone should pay a sales tax only. It's not as if rich people are stuffing their beds with money, it's used for investments in other companies and buying expensive goods for which they would pay more tax.
But, if they colluded with government to financially advance themselves, they should be sent to jail along with their government counterpart(s) and take all their money. I disagree with allowing lobbying. I didn't vote for my representatives to go judge which lobbying group has the most influential argument or the most money. If he wants to hear what he should do, come back to my state.
So no it's not fair. People who pay hardly anything want it to stay that way and they are the majority and vote that way. But you can't fix that without fixing many other things.
If rich people are allowed to influence laws in government to benefit them, and I can't, then they should pay more if nothing else. We're screwed.

So you're for a "Fair" Tax? Have you sat down and seriously considered how UNfair this Fair Tax is to working people?

You're thinking nickels and dimes. You're thinking "oh, yeah. A rich person buys a yacht and will spend lots of tax money on it."

Well, how often do you think rich people buy a yacht compared to how often YOU and I buy groceries, gas, medicine, clothes, etc. Think about it this way. Rich people INVEST their money. They pay taxes on these investments. The earn far more than they spend.

On the other hand, most working middle class Americans live paycheck to paycheck, which means they spend everything they earn on living expenses and have very little to invest. Which means - they would be essentially be taxed on every penny they earn - unlike the rich person who would pay taxes only on the things he purchases, not on the money he's made from his investments.

How fair is that? Yes, rich people would love a "fair" tax, but it would be a disaster for the working class.