It is extremely straightforward to obtain an excellent watch of Rolex in cost effective prices

3. ledna 2013 v 12:53

Maybe you should also add a couple more statistics, those being how much the top 1% earned, and how much the bottom 50% earned. I think you find the top 1% earned more than the bottom 50% put together.

I think people believe that the rich don pay much tax, because that is the truth. I know a lot of people who are wealthy, and all of them, without exception, pay as little tax as possible. Even a relative of mine, who was a top politician, and theoretically a person who believes in sharing wealth, pays as little tax as possible.

Maybe if you were wealthy, you would know more about the lengths wealthy people go to to dodge paying taxes. It way more common than you obviously think.

Fascinating responses. I love the one about how the marginal tax rate for really rich people should be 60%. In terms of the income tax (which is all we are talking about) EVERYONE I know pays as little tax as possible, rich or poor. I don know anybody who says that they aren going to take advantage of this or that break (I have two kids and you bet that I am going to take the credit for them).

The lack of understanding of math amongst those who cry for a more progressive system is stunning. If we cut income taxes we can only cut them for the rich since, statistically, only the rich PAY income taxes in the first place.

We are getting close to the tipping point where people who pay few or no taxes will outnumber those who do. At that point, what is to stop the nontaxpayers from voting for programs and candidates who tax the heck out of the "rich" in order to redistribute the money to themselves. This will, of course, crush the economy as no one will try to create wealth anymore. It is a bit of scary myopia that none of those who decry the "greedy rich" see the dynamic here, or even scarier, they see it and don care.

This is precisely why we need to go to the Fair Tax. We are punished in this country for being successful. Not only are you taxed on your income, property, and purchases, you are also taxed when you die! I for one am sick and tired of hearing people wine that tax cuts are only for the rich! My husband and I paid almost $80,000.00 in personal income and property taxes last year. So what if I look for right offs and so called loop holes. If I didn we would have paid closer to $100,000.00. What makes anybody think they are entitled to once more red cent of our hard earned money? We work HARD to be successful. The Fair Tax would redistribute the tax burden to everyone, but even then the rich would bare more of the burden simply because they buy more. The illegals here would also have to absorb more and contribute into the school systems and medical systems that they so readily use. And then you have them having kids but not paying child support so ya they in the end do get state help. The moms of the children get it because they can not do it on their own.

Where if they where made to pay their tax and child support that they can clearly afford less people would complain.

This is what I have noticed from really talking to people not just getting mad for their opinions. Here is mine I believe that our Cops, Firemen and Military should get more then they do. I think you are missing a few things (oh how I love neatly numbered lists!):

1. The same top 1% of income earners who pay 37% of all taxes, also hold over 80% breitling watches of all assets in the United States. They earn about 21% of all income RIGHT NOW -- but income at the top fluctuates wildly due to the changing value of those assets, and the figure of 21% does not include the "perks" (see no. 4, below). Asset distribution is the most important marker of relative wealth across the board. You don think it unfair that the "people" (not all of them are) who own over 80% of our wealth contribute only 37% of the tax revenue?

2. You say that the rich are not using the government programs they are funding. This is not true. You of all people should know that. The vastest, most expensive government program is the military -- and believe me, the rich need the military much more than the poor do. Those who are already poor and hopeless probably won be much worse off than they are now if a crazy communist dictator conquers the US (calm down, uber-libs, a wild hypothetical here) -- in fact, the poor will probably be BETTER off, if anything. The rich, by contrast, have a lot to lose from unchecked aggression and instability wrought by war on US soil. So you protect the rich and their business -- and by G-d, covering 37% of your bills is a small price they pay for the benefits you deliver. The rich also, just like the poor, use the infrastructure funded by taxes -- which is probably the second most expensive item on the budget. (Or are you saying the rich use different roads and bridges than everyone else, and breathe their own private air?) In fact, poor-specific stuff like Medicaid accounts for a small fraction of government programs, and even then, the rich also benefit: the money from these programs ultimately pays private businesses. Remember, the money you pay for someone Medicaid ultimately goes to doctors and pharmaceutical companies; the money you pay for homeless services ends up in the pockets of hotel owners and caterers; the money you pay for low-income housing, in the end, enriches construction companies. I worked in this field peripherally -- and you won BELIEVE how much money big business makes off of poor-specific government programs. In many cases, they benefit more than the poor.

3. A lot of social engineering is bad, but a little is necessary. Capitalism may be the best economic system we have, but it not perfect: its main disadvantage is that left alone, over time, it invariably widens the gap between the rich and the poor and erodes the middle class. That translates into political oligarchies, and the loss of economic opportunities and upward mobility that have always been the hallmarks of American society. replica watches And by the way -- you are wrong to think that all rich people have EARNED their riches; many are born to wealth and get wealthier without much effort, while poverty disadvantages gifted people in advancing themselves. SOME redistribution of wealth is necessary to sustain the middle class, forestall the formation of quasi-royal elites, and preserve economic opportunity.

4. Rich people get A LOT of freebies -- and their value adds up to way more than that of the freebies for poor people. Unlike the poor, rich people routinely receive "perks" that do not technically count towards "income", though they actually are. At awards ceremonies, Hollywood stars receive gift baskets worth more than most salaried professionals earn in a year (before taxes); corporate CEO do too around the holidays. At a fine restaurant one day, my client top executive remarked to me that it had been more than 2 decades since he paid for his own lunch. (His secretary, by contrast, earns less money AND must buy her own lunch AND pays a greater share of her income in taxes, even though the absolute dollar value is smaller. How fair is that?) Corporate yachts, corporate villas in St. Barths, corporate limos, "business" meals, Christmas "tokens" of Rolex watches and designer jewelry -- none of that counts as "income", while the expenses are mostly deductible to the corporations. The rich pay taxes on only a fraction of what they actually "earn".

5. The top 1% of income earners includes corporations -- does it not? How is it fair to compare corporations to people?

6. Even accepting all your assumptions, for argument sake, this is still wrong. The poor who pay taxes generally don use poor-specific government programs. They are not entitled to Medicaid, welfare, etc. So forcing them to pay a greater share merely because they are poor -- not because they actually use what they are funding -- is even less fair than forcing the rich to fund these programs. If it not fair to punish people for being rich, how is it fair to punish people for being poor?

7. Your whole approach to the subject of taxes is, if I may say so, misguided. The concept of "fairness" is irrelevant to the subject of taxes. No tax is fair. It not fair to tax income in ANY amount, and it not fair to tax consumption or services either. But we can just abolish all taxes -- because without taxes, we have no public institutions, no roads, no military, no country; and the fact that non-taxation is "fair" would be little consolation in such a world. So taxes are, in fact, a necessary evil. With that in mind, taxes have nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with one ABILITY TO PAY. THIS is the philosophy behind progressive income tax and double-taxation of corporate profits. The rich pay a greater share of the tax revenue BECAUSE THEY CAN. The poor don BECAUSE THEY CAN And that all there is to it.

8. The rich, much more than the poor, need the government to keep them rich. They rely on the legislature to pass laws that promote their business and make them richer. They rely on the legal system much more than the poor do to protect their interests. That right -- for all the talk of "frivolous lawsuits" by the poor, you should check out how litigious the rich are. So it only makes sense that they contribute handsomely to the system that ensures their wealth.

i have only 2 complaints about the taxation of the rich and here they go

1) they are bracketed too high, 40% income tax is way to much now 30% im ok with that when the average middle class american is paying 25-28%

2) doesnt matter where we bracket them they can also pay for the best lawyers and accountants and usually pay only 12%-18% after all the loop holes

there is a tax crisis on the horizon how ever with the tax gap widening, when 49% of american voters pay all the taxes we are doomed we arent there yet bu we are on the track

Just be sure that Know Before purchasing A Rolex submariner price Replica

Buď první, kdo ohodnotí tento článek.

Nový komentář

Přihlásit se
  Ještě nemáte vlastní web? Můžete si jej zdarma založit na

Aktuální články