>>could flip that right back on you - What you fail to understand because of your feelings of the poor is their enormous contribution to your quality of life.<<
Is there a point to your comment? If so you'll have to explain it further because it's unclear. Where have I ever suggested that some of the jobs of the contributing poor are of no value? It's because I do understand their value and how the system underminds them and helps to keep them poor and dependent.
What should make you ashamed is how you and the middle class in general use them and then expect those who earn more to pay for the subsidies.
Are you aware that 1/3 of all tax dollars collected is lost to waste? That's the government for you. Inefficient and without consequence to bear for its mismanagement. But alas, I've changed the subject.
i do....and i stand by my assessment that he is wealthy...that doesnt' mean he has a high income....he has a lot of investments.....but income tax is based on income....if he doesn't realize much income.....it is misleading.
As another member posted earlier, Buffet realized/reported $46M in income and paid 17% compared to his secretary who paid 30%.
>>What do the "poor" contribute to the wealthy persons' life that they could not or have not accomplished on their own ?<<
Well many of the working poor contribute valuable services. The government then keeps them that way because it gives them so much to supplement the lower wages they're willing to accept for their work. The middle class make out great--get to have affordable things to buy, eat out on a regular basis, etc...because their taxes are quite low and they have the wealthy picking up most of the tab.
The wealthy would be able to do so much more in the way of providing value "higher wages", more job growth, capital investment, etc.....were they allowed to keep more of their funds (it's not like they stuff it in a mattress). But you know it's not fair. They only want to screw the little guy. They don't care for anyone but themselves the lazy bums who don't work for a living! You know they're all crooks.
We know the government would be much more efficient with the money now don't we?
Would you like me to share with you the letter I blasted off to the regional director of one of the IRS offices in my district today?
Amazing how quickly there were two high ranking officials who responded to me--especially when I let them know that I was hoping to avoid dragging my congressman into situation as my hope was that it might be handled internally.
Wonder how much of our tax dollars go to waste paying incompetent auditors like the one I had to educate this past month? Tip of the ice berg.
But since I do business with the government routinely I do get first hand observation and insight as to the amount of waste, sometimes through poor design, other times to poor training, oversight or sheer incompetence. The more I deal with them the more I see the flaws in the system, the lack of accountability, the waste. I don't want anyone's hard earned money funneling into a bottom pit of unaccountable government. Not the poor, not the rich, not anyone.
Would you can to share the demographics of those tax payers? Are they single head of household below the poverty line by any chance? Or are they dependents with part time jobs? How many married filing jointly have zero taxes?
When you look below the surface of the quoted stats, it's makes a lot of sense on why a large number of tax payers have zero liability.
BTW - they all paid the regressive payroll taxes on 100% of their income.
I took her post to mean that she was talking about "earned" income. Unearned income being taxed at a lower rate. If your amount of unearned income is much greater than your earned income, it drags the overall rate down. Keep in mind that the money he invested was taxed when he first "earned" it as well, so this is the second time it's being used for collecting taxes. Maybe the rate on investment income should be raised, but then it would take away much of the advantages of investing. We want the rich to invest. Or, at least, I do.
Pages
I know....it was and is my choice to teach children.
I could flip that right back on you - What you fail to understand because of your
>>could flip that right back on you - What you fail to understand because of your feelings of the poor is their enormous contribution to your quality of life.<<
Is there a point to your comment? If so you'll have to explain it further because it's unclear. Where have I ever suggested that some of the jobs of the contributing poor are of no value? It's because I do understand their value and how the system underminds them and helps to keep them poor and dependent.
What should make you ashamed is how you and the middle class in general use them and then expect those who earn more to pay for the subsidies.
Are you aware that 1/3 of all tax dollars collected is lost to waste? That's the government for you. Inefficient and without consequence to bear for its mismanagement. But alas, I've changed the subject.
i do....and i stand by my assessment that he is wealthy...that doesnt' mean he has a high income....he has a lot of investments.....but income tax is based on income....if he doesn't realize much income.....it is misleading.
As another member posted earlier, Buffet realized/reported $46M in income and paid 17% compared to his secretary who paid 30%.
>>What do the "poor" contribute to the wealthy persons' life that they could not or have not accomplished on their own ?<<
Well many of the working poor contribute valuable services. The government then keeps them that way because it gives them so much to supplement the lower wages they're willing to accept for their work. The middle class make out great--get to have affordable things to buy, eat out on a regular basis, etc...because their taxes are quite low and they have the wealthy picking up most of the tab.
The wealthy would be able to do so much more in the way of providing value "higher wages", more job growth, capital investment, etc.....were they allowed to keep more of their funds (it's not like they stuff it in a mattress). But you know it's not fair. They only want to screw the little guy. They don't care for anyone but themselves the lazy bums who don't work for a living! You know they're all crooks.
We know the government would be much more efficient with the money now don't we?
Would you like me to share with you the letter I blasted off to the regional director of one of the IRS offices in my district today?
Amazing how quickly there were two high ranking officials who responded to me--especially when I let them know that I was hoping to avoid dragging my congressman into situation as my hope was that it might be handled internally.
Wonder how much of our tax dollars go to waste paying incompetent auditors like the one I had to educate this past month? Tip of the ice berg.
But since I do business with the government routinely I do get first hand observation and insight as to the amount of waste, sometimes through poor design, other times to poor training, oversight or sheer incompetence. The more I deal with them the more I see the flaws in the system, the lack of accountability, the waste. I don't want anyone's hard earned money funneling into a bottom pit of unaccountable government. Not the poor, not the rich, not anyone.
What do
Would you can to share the demographics of those tax payers? Are they single head of household below the poverty line by any chance? Or are they dependents with part time jobs? How many married filing jointly have zero taxes?
When you look below the surface of the quoted stats, it's makes a lot of sense on why a large number of tax payers have zero liability.
BTW - they all paid the regressive payroll taxes on 100% of their income.
I took her post to mean that she was talking about "earned" income. Unearned income being taxed at a lower rate. If your amount of unearned income is much greater than your earned income, it drags the overall rate down. Keep in mind that the money he invested was taxed when he first "earned" it as well, so this is the second time it's being used for collecting taxes. Maybe the rate on investment income should be raised, but then it would take away much of the advantages of investing. We want the rich to invest. Or, at least, I do.
Pages