When would you call yourself rich?

[JCOOK]

John Kerry seems to think that if you make $200,000 a year that you are rich and would lik to tax the shit out of you $200,000 doesnt seem like that much money How much do you think makes you in the "rich" category

[knuckleboner]

uh, the vast majority of Americans earn less than $200,000 a year. i'm not saying that any specific level for people is correct at this point.

but i think it's definitely fair to call a $200K a year salary, "rich," especially when compared to the average American.


but tell me this: is president bush helping the working class American with estate tax cuts?

[JCOOK]

No and that happens to be an area along with capitol gains taxes that i dont' agree with Mr. Bush on

[DLR'sCock]

$200,000 a year and more is the top 1% of the country...

[Warham]

Geezuz, I think we are poor sometimes, and my wife and I bring in over 100K (although I'm not working right now, thank God for unemployment). I have sympathies for those making less. Too many credit card debts for us.

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
$200,000 a year and more is the top 1% of the country...

The top 1% earns an average $1.2 million per year. And yet they pay 38% of all taxes.

It's all right here (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/Report.pdf)

Note: The link is to the CBO Effective Federal Tax Rates Report, and is in .pdf format.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
The top 1% earns an average $1.2 million per year. And yet they pay 38% of all taxes.

It's all right here (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/Report.pdf)

Note: The link is to the CBO Effective Federal Tax Rates Report, and is in .pdf format.

Um...so? That's how it's supposed to be. They have more money than the other 99%. I know! Let's let the bottom 99% pay their taxes for them! Those poor disadvantaged rich people...

You also left out tax dodging and loopholes.

"The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway." - George W. Bush

[John Ashcroft]

Well Pinky darling, I was simply correcting Cock's estimate first.

Also, I don't share your opinion that "that's how it's supposed to be". I would prefer a flat tax to tell you the truth.

However, there's no doubt that companies and wealthy individuals certainly do take advantage of tax law loopholes ("The New JFK" being no exception), but the numbers listed on the Department of Treasury's web site shows revenue actually collected by the Treasury, and the income level breakdown according to filed tax returns. No estimations, and no accounting for "loop holes". Just simple revenue collected by whom.

[Wayne L.]

If you have more money than John Kerry & his VP John Edwards do you should be called rich but making $200, 000 isn't rich but upper middle class while raising taxes on the wealthy is LUDICRIOUS since most people would rather be rich than poor.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Wayne L.
while raising taxes on the wealthy is LUDICRIOUS since most people would rather be rich than poor.

so you raise taxes on the poor, to encourage them to get better paying jobs, huh? tough love conservatism...:D


as for $200,000 not being rich; take a survey of Americans. ask them if their own household earns $200,000 or more a year (vast majority will say no.) then ask them if they think a household earning $200,000 a year or more is, "rich" or not, and a high percentage will say it is.

[Big Train]

I'm not sure raising taxes is so much the proper response as not wasting so much money in the first place. The classic class warfare argument never gets old, but it is really about goverment being more careful about what it approves. How about a measure that says, pure and simple, that you can't tack anything onto a bill after it's initial draft? How many billions go wasting away in the night because someone had to get their bump on their program before they would let a bill pass?

[jacksmar]

Don’t blame Pinky for thinking “That's how it's supposed to be.”

The part that is missed entirely to promote more bullshit class distinctions (that’s where people KNOW you are rich or poor based on what a politician defines) is the simple fact that most people think that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. That’s the morally lazy bullshit answer you get from the counter culture ass knots that can’t think for themselves.

A guy making say 35k a year might need 90% of his income but when he’s taxed 10%, guess what? No disposable income. Understand why a “rich” man might want to protect that disposable income now?

Let me put in very simple terms for the ass knot leftist commie libs: Which district do you want to be a Congressman from?

[knuckleboner]

believe it or not, i agree that raising taxes often isn't the answer. the federal government should justify its programs and expenses and then find the revenues to pay for them. the fact that we're flush with cash at a particular time shouldn't turn a bad program good. and, in tighter times, we should, at a minimum, take a harder look at some of the good programs.


once you have the level of revenue you wish to raise, though, i'm fine with the progressive income tax brackets. the current levels may not be correct. that's fine. but i prefer a progressive system, overall, to a flat tax.

the millionaire pays way more in taxes than the average taxpayer, even with a flat tax; that's true. but at the same time, he also pays a much smaller percentage of his income on the necessities (food, shelter, clothes, etc...)

i don't want to negate the advantages of being rich. the profit incentive is a good thing for our economy. but i also think it's fine to tax people who have a much larger % of their income as disposable, a little more than those who don't. so long as the "rich" still have higher percentages of disposable income after the tax, it should work out.

[jacksmar]

Wow. What just happened? I knew there were some people in here that not only could think for themselves but illustrate it?

I posted in “forum” style and I received a reasoned and reflective response.

I guess this old dog can still learn a few tricks.
;)

[Wayne L.]

I don't think I said raise taxes on the poor last I time I checked you mental case moron knuckleboner since I'm against high taxes for everybody & more importantly NO taxes at all.

[knuckleboner]

heh heh. a slight exaggeration on my part, wayne, since it was a tiny bit funnier...

though, i wish you luck with your no taxes. you've got a a slight uphill battle on that one.



and jacksmar...i don't know. i re-read my post, and i think i used the word, "fine," like 147 times. that's pretty piss poor. i think i still need some work :D

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by jacksmar
Don’t blame Pinky for thinking “That's how it's supposed to be.”

The part that is missed entirely to promote more bullshit class distinctions (that’s where people KNOW you are rich or poor based on what a politician defines) is the simple fact that most people think that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. That’s the morally lazy bullshit answer you get from the counter culture ass knots that can’t think for themselves.

A guy making say 35k a year might need 90% of his income but when he’s taxed 10%, guess what? No disposable income. Understand why a “rich” man might want to protect that disposable income now?

Let me put in very simple terms for the ass knot leftist commie libs: Which district do you want to be a Congressman from?

So, anyone that proposes that the rich should be taxed just a little higher than the poor can't think for themselves? Look around this forum at the Kerry/Bush gushers if you want to see people like that. It's mildly sickening.

I'm against government waste and big government in general. I'm not sure how that makes me a commie, but OK. Whatever. I just think that those who make more have a greater responsibility to give back to their communities that have given them so much. I'm not calling for a 100% tax rate, comrade.

And class warfare is a great game if you want to get a loan from a rich capitalist banker to fund your revolution. Sorry, that will probably go right over your head. Especially if you've let other people think for you. ;)

[Big Train]

It all comes down to incentive. We are all fighting over the pie we have, instead of being worried about making more pie. I think there should be a tax credit for those companies who can demonstrate that their employees move up a tax bracket or two in a few years time. Perhaps the dismissal of that employees matching FICA contributions or something along those lines.

That sort of thinking to me is more important than who is or not paying more. I believe in helping my fellow American, but I don't think raising taxes to fund yet another social program is the real answer.

As far as a definition or rich, shouldn't it rely on net worth as opposed to salary? I know several people with a high salary and very low net worth. Or does that make the class warfare argument too complex?

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
So, anyone that proposes that the rich should be taxed just a little higher than the poor can't think for themselves?


Except the rich are already taxed quite a bit more than the poor, or middle class, or everyone else. Again, 38% of the federal pie is paid for by the top 1% In fact, the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of all federal taxes. The "poor" actually pay no income taxes in our country. In fact, most people deemed "poor" by our wonderful government get paid by the government simply for working (earned income credit), which can be as high as $5000 per year. Hell, I'd like an extra 5Gs on top of my pay too! Can "The New JFK" get it for me?

[Dr. Love]

I'd like to see a National Sales Tax instead of any income tax, but that's just because I love my paycheck and want as much of it as I can get. :cool: