Stimulating the rich

[Thrillhouse]

!. If they only make $20,000, why do they have two kids they can't support?

Good point. We shouyld sterilize anyone who earns less than (some randomly determined amount) per year.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for rich people..."oh, it is so unfair...I was sitting in my yacht, off the island I own, and my accountant told me that I'll have 1% less money that I'll never spend than I thought i would. Damn, why do those poor people think they need food?"

 

[miles]

The thing I really don't like about Bush's plan is that it cuts out completely the tax on dividends.

I work hard for my money, which is just barely keeping my family above water, yet I pay taxes on it. Some fucker who belongs to the group known as the "idle rich," who does zero work but makes millions as his wealth accumulates, will pay nothing in taxes? Fuck that.

Idle rich, my ass. Millions of retired people receive their income from dividends.


Hint: More people will invest.

 

[Thrillhouse]

See my post above. The taxes I paid were mostly capital gains taxes on my husband's trust fund. We're hardly the idle rich.

So, maybe change it so that the dividend tax is eliminated only for those who earn less than X per year. I would have no problem with that. As long as "X" isn't some ridiculously high number.

 

[Thrillhouse]

Idle rich, my ass. Millions of retired people receive their income from dividends.

See my previous post.

 

[miles]

Good point. We shouyld sterilize anyone who earns less than (some randomly determined amount) per year.

Boy, that's a great comeback.

 

[medjay]

People, wake the fuck up.

The Democrats who want you to believe that poor people pay income taxes are liars. Period. That is a fact.

Wow! I'm poor yet I pay Income taxes. I even get threatening letters from the IRS telling me they want more!

Go figure . . .

 

[miles]

So, maybe change it so that the dividend tax is eliminated only for those who earn less than X per year. I would have no problem with that. As long as "X" isn't some ridiculously high number.

Who is going to determine what a ridiculously high number is?

 

[Thrillhouse]

Who is going to determine what a ridiculously high number is?

A previous poster said that the top 1% of earners make $200,000 per year. That number sounds okay to me.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

What bothers me most is that this is painted as some sort of conflict between the poor and middle classes...which is just what the ultra-rich want you to think.

 

[Thrillhouse]

What bothers me most is that this is painted as some sort of conflict between the poor and middle classes...which is just what the ultra-rich want you to think.

They (whoever they are) keep talking about "class warfare." There has been class warfare for a long time, but only one side has been doing the fighting. Someday, the poor will start fighting back. And it won't be economically.

 

[Texan]

Do I have to explain it like I would to a small child, or should I explain it like Rush Limbaugh would, by lying and making things up?

Let's take an income of $20,000, and subtract a 20% tax on it...which leaves $16,000. Now, let's take a $100,000,000 income, and subtract a 35% tax...which leaves $65,000,000. Would you not agree that taxes affect the lifestyle of the first person much more than the second one, even though the second is paying a higher rate?

They shouldn't let children play with calculators. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

In this country, you have to make at least 24K before you pay one red cent in federal income tax. Sure, they withhold, but the first 17K is a straight exemption, then there are the indivudual and child exemptions. If course, if you have one child and make under 31K, you can claim "head-of-household" and get every penny back anyway.

The only payroll taxes that anyone making under 26K should ever pay are the withholdings for SS and fica.

Just for the record, the number of people with "incomes" over 100M per year can be counted on your fingers. I doubt you would have to take off your shoes. There is a big difference between "net worth" and "income." Even those handfull of "greedy" corporate execs who make HUGE incomes, have arrangements that pay them (or their estate) over a many year time period.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

That's funny, I've made less than 26 grand, and I've paid income taxes on it. You must be a moron or something, or I've been cheated for years and years!

 

[RawHumor]

That's funny, I've made less than 26 grand, and I've paid income taxes on it. You must be a moron or something, or I've been cheated for years and years!

How recently are we talking? Plus, how much did you get back afterward?

It also depends if you're single or married and if you have kids.

 

[RawHumor]

Public Service Announcement

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040a.pdf

 

[miles]

That's funny, I've made less than 26 grand, and I've paid income taxes on it. You must be a moron or something, or I've been cheated for years and years!

Dude. Lighten up. Do some research. By the way, with your income, if you had a kid, the government will pay you $2000. If you have two and make less than $32,000, they will pay you $4,000.

Get busy, then get an accountant.

 

[medjay]

That's funny, I've made less than 26 grand, and I've paid income taxes on it. You must be a moron or something, or I've been cheated for years and years!

I'm afraid I'd have to agree. As a single, childless male who makes less than $24K a year, I've seen a shitload of my earnings taken by the IRS. I am a self-employed independent contractor. It's only due to the deductions I am allowed to take that I barely break even at the end of the year. And I can forget about a refund check.

Tell us again how it is that we shouldn't be paying "one red cent"?

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Hmmm...the point is, really, is that im my mind, the folks that make $200,000 a year are lumped in with the ones who make less than $35,000...none of us should have to pay higher taxes while American companies incorporate overseas to dodge their taxes, or while the ultra-rich use loopholes to avoid taxes.

 

[REDWAVE]

Really stimulating the rich

Great comments, everybody-- except miles.


And just for Dix-- lawmakers should reject the Bush plan, and pass the Democratic plan instead.

Actually, I wouldn't mind stimulating the rich-- especially a nice rich man with a big, fat, juicy cock he liked having kissed, licked, and softly sucked on for hours . . .

 

[miles]

Re: Really stimulating the rich

Great comments, everybody-- except miles.


. . .

Yes redwave, we all know that facts are like Kryptonite to you.

 

[Viper Vic]

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income.

The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999.

 

[RawHumor]

I love it when REDWAVE is horny.

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

Commentators and pundits are having a field day with Bush's just unveiled economic "stimulus" plan. As one wag wrote, it will sure stimulate Bush's rich cronies and backers. Paul Krugman was especially effective in skewering it in today's Grey Lady. As he puts it, it won't stimulate the economy, it won't help the needy, but it sure gives a lot of goodies to those who are already rich. With liberal writers tearing the Bush plan to shreds, I don't need to say anything myself.

The amazing thing is that so many people who make under $40k (which is peanuts) voted for him. Surely they must have known that they were in for four years of brutal economic sodomy. One has to wonder what, if not financial self-interest, could inspire so many working class people to vote for an administration so clearly at odds with their well being.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Really stimulating the rich

Great comments, everybody-- except miles.


And just for Dix-- lawmakers should reject the Bush plan, and pass the Democratic plan instead.

Actually, I wouldn't mind stimulating the rich-- especially a nice rich man with a big, fat, juicy cock he liked having kissed, licked, and softly sucked on for hours . . .

I dunno...miles seemed relatively helpful, and not angry at all. You can see by the anger of some of the posters, however, that the ultra-rich are winning in their efforts to pit the middle class against the poor.

 

[Thrillhouse]

The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) b] The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!

The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. [/B]

The top 1% SHOULD pay more than ten times what the bottom 50% pays, because the top 1% MAKES more than ten times what the bottom 50% makes.