The problem this administration may run into may be that using income as a proxy for who is rich and who is not doesn't work well. Policy makers often say that millionaires and billionaires should pay more taxes, and the way to do this is by raising income tax rates. But for the 50% of millionaires with incomes less than $250,000, that isn't going to happen.
If Obama is serious about taxing all the "rich folks", he needs to change the tax code to tax wealth, not income. Until he does something like that, it's all rhetoric.
Ahhh, "fairness"...a subjective terms that can't be defined, therefore it is used often and beloved because the definition can be changed.
I'd remind your commenter that there is a difference between being an adult and being a sucker.
Good point Last. Proposals in Washington to increase taxes on people who have incomes over $250,000 doesn't mean "rich people" are being taxed more. Income and wealth are two different things.
It subsequently occurred to me that the "fair share" debate is backwards. What is fair about almost half of the country paying no income tax at all? Is it fair that they should reap benefits without putting even a single dollar into the pot? Surely they derive as much benefits from roads, sewers, defense, etc as you, I or Warren Buffett do.
[Waiting patiently for the fool who brings up SS.]
Obama thinks the rich should pay higher taxes yet he took almost $400,000 in itemized deductions on his 2010 taxes. Does that make him a hypocrite? No: He believes that the tax code should be other than it is — which is in no way incompatible with availing himself of the benefits of the tax code as it is.
Hence it is not hypocritical for us conservatives to drive on highways either. Got that?
How many deductions did you take markadelphia? blk?
Comments are getting scary right off the bat. You fuckwads with your fancy facts, proving Mark wrong because all you care about is providing facts to back up your opinion.
Mark's opinions are smarter than your facts! Get with the times!
Ever notice how liberals always want "fairness", because apparently equality isn't good enough? Just like the always want "social justice", because regular old plain vanilla justice isn't good enough?
What is 'fair' about half the people in the country not paying anything?
Yeah, that's a lie. And another fine example of propaganda. People are taxed in a variety of ways and get tax breaks in a variety of ways so that makes this statement completely dishonest.
And, again, you are really not getting the meaning of the word "share." We're getting to the broken record point one again, sadly.
I have never earned a single one of Kobe Bryant's dollars. He sure has a lot more of them than I do - so why don't you tell me why I should get some of them that he has supposedly "earned" [helpful scare quotes for leftist idiots - no additional charge]?
21 comments:
I pay my fair share too. The question is who defines what any given "fair share" is? Or is it just a motherhood and apple pie kinda thing?
The problem this administration may run into may be that using income as a proxy for who is rich and who is not doesn't work well. Policy makers often say that millionaires and billionaires should pay more taxes, and the way to do this is by raising income tax rates. But for the 50% of millionaires with incomes less than $250,000, that isn't going to happen.
If Obama is serious about taxing all the "rich folks", he needs to change the tax code to tax wealth, not income. Until he does something like that, it's all rhetoric.
Ahhh, "fairness"...a subjective terms that can't be defined, therefore it is used often and beloved because the definition can be changed.
I'd remind your commenter that there is a difference between being an adult and being a sucker.
Good point Last. Proposals in Washington to increase taxes on people who have incomes over $250,000 doesn't mean "rich people" are being taxed more. Income and wealth are two different things.
It subsequently occurred to me that the "fair share" debate is backwards. What is fair about almost half of the country paying no income tax at all? Is it fair that they should reap benefits without putting even a single dollar into the pot? Surely they derive as much benefits from roads, sewers, defense, etc as you, I or Warren Buffett do.
[Waiting patiently for the fool who brings up SS.]
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/19/us/politics/19obama-doc.html
Obama thinks the rich should pay higher taxes yet he took almost $400,000 in itemized deductions on his 2010 taxes. Does that make him a hypocrite? No: He believes that the tax code should be other than it is — which is in no way incompatible with availing himself of the benefits of the tax code as it is.
Hence it is not hypocritical for us conservatives to drive on highways either. Got that?
How many deductions did you take markadelphia? blk?
Comments are getting scary right off the bat. You fuckwads with your fancy facts, proving Mark wrong because all you care about is providing facts to back up your opinion.
Mark's opinions are smarter than your facts! Get with the times!
Boy, I don't know, ask a college student:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqnyGSaqCDw
These young idealistic skulls full of mush are perfectly fine with "tax the rich", but when phrased as redistribute a student's GPA, HELL NO!
Well this thread sure as hell died.
Yummy. More teachers with an agenda.
http://trevorloudon.com/2011/04/socialist-teachers-discuss-indoctrinating-public-schoolchildren/
And now e have to get them young!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/revolutionary-socialist-group-planning-to-recruit-children-in-jr-high-school-to-join-and-become-leaders-in-the-movement/
Socialists declare it within their strategy to go after middle schoolers. Beautiful.
They's a comin'! I guess paying taxes is now socialism as well. Well, as long as you are being logical and reasonable about it....:)
Technically, when my money is taken for the purpose of giving it to someone that didn't earn it, then: Yes, it is Socialism.
If it is taken to build roads, pay firefighters, etc... it is not.
Define "someone who didn't earn it."
Does that really need to be defined? How can you stretch that to mean anything other than the obvious?
I don't know Mark. Why don't you define "fair share"?
I've defined many times how our tax rates should be changed. No more game playing, remember?
Yes, it does need to be defined because that's the crux of this fantasy.
No, defining how you think rates should be changed does not address 'fair'.
What is 'fair' about half the people in the country not paying anything? What is fair about 1% of the country paying half the bill?
And just what would be fair about increasing the bill to that 1% just because you and your friends have a spending problem?
Fair share my ass.
Ever notice how liberals always want "fairness", because apparently equality isn't good enough? Just like the always want "social justice", because regular old plain vanilla justice isn't good enough?
What is 'fair' about half the people in the country not paying anything?
Yeah, that's a lie. And another fine example of propaganda. People are taxed in a variety of ways and get tax breaks in a variety of ways so that makes this statement completely dishonest.
And, again, you are really not getting the meaning of the word "share." We're getting to the broken record point one again, sadly.
Define "someone who didn't earn it."
I have never earned a single one of Kobe Bryant's dollars. He sure has a lot more of them than I do - so why don't you tell me why I should get some of them that he has supposedly "earned" [helpful scare quotes for leftist idiots - no additional charge]?
Post a Comment