Originally Posted by Mutt

Canadian earning 100K pays 27% average tax rate for federal/provincial combined income tax. Canadian earning 200K pays 36%.

Robbie we have all those taxes and more. And yes, the no state tax states kill you with insane property taxes and other user taxes. Money has to come from somewhere.

The one thing the US doesn't have is a national sales tax - it's inevitable that one day it will happen. Even the Democrats won't mention it now because it's political suicide.

Originally Posted by Minte

I will accept your figures as fact. That being said. It's not difficult to do the math. Top 400 x an additional $2m in tax = less than 1 billion dollars. at that rate it will take 1000 years to recover one trillion dollars.

Originally Posted by Robbie

I pay taxes every time I turn around. It's outrageous in my opinion.

First the feds take it in income tax. And don't forget if I make the mistake of hiring employees, then I have to pay matching funds for their social security (govt. double dipping)
Then if I invest my money I earned, they tax it again as capital gains. Then I go to put overpriced gasoline in my car and pay a shitload of taxes on that. I moved to Las Vegas because Nevada doesn't have a state income tax...but they more than make up with it in sales tax and "fees" for everything. Registering my cars costs a few thousand dollars.
Owning my own home costs me a nice hefty property tax.
The city gets it's money out of me. And so does the county.

If I could sit down and accurately figure out how much of every dollar that a local, state, or federal govt. takes from me...I'd probably only end up with pennies out of every dollar that I EARNED.

I capitalized the word "earned" because the different taxes from local, state, and fed just take it from me like it belongs to them.

EDIT: Oh yeah...and when I die? I can't leave it all to my daughters. The good old "Death Tax" is always around the corner so the govt. can swoop in and steal everything you built.

Originally Posted by nation-x

I listened to an interview with Michelle Bachmann yesterday. I can't stand that chick but she made a very valid point... the government assumes they own all of your money and just decides how much you get to keep.

Here is a sad fact... it doesn't matter who is in power... they will raise taxes when they need money to pay their rich buddies for no-bid contracts.

Originally Posted by Just Alex

Sweet Jesus, page two and no 12clicks ?

Originally Posted by PornoMonster

is that 100K adjusted after deductions or just the amount that was made?

Originally Posted by Sly

Some interesting information.

-
The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

[/url]

Originally Posted by crockett

They pay a higher tax rate as a group but they get more deductions bringing that tax rate down lower than what the average middle class person pays. Oh and they make it sound odd that someone whom makes a million dollars a year pays a larger share than someone making 50k year.

The article is stupid, because it try to skew the facts for headlines. The simplest way to fix these issues is to have a straight flat tax but you damn sure know anyone making a lot of money will never want that because they know they wouldn't get those deductions.

Que that moron that shits quarters out his ass.

Originally Posted by Minte

Then maybe it would make sense to STOP spending at the rate this administration is spending. TAX & SPEND has always been the mantra of the democrats. Why is that?

Originally Posted by Sly

What tax deductions is a guy with a $500,000 salary getting that brings him down to a $50,000 taxable rate? Those sound like sweet deductions.

Originally Posted by Mutt

Canadian earning 100K pays 27% average tax rate for federal/provincial combined income tax. Canadian earning 200K pays 36%.

Robbie we have all those taxes and more. And yes, the no state tax states kill you with insane property taxes and other user taxes. Money has to come from somewhere.

The one thing the US doesn't have is a national sales tax - it's inevitable that one day it will happen. Even the Democrats won't mention it now because it's political suicide.

Originally Posted by crockett

Umm did you also complain about the rates that both Bush's & Regan spent at? They created some of largest debit this country has ever seen.

If you are going to complain about this admin, how about being consistent and complain about your own Republican boys that did just as much or worse. This isn't just a one sided issue as both parties are to blame for spending too much. As long as people continue to play politics with the issue it will never be stopped.

Originally Posted by PornoMonster

Where does Canada Spend all this tax money then???

Originally Posted by Relentless

Actually it works out to substantially more money if implemented correctly because there are many people collecting substantial incomes at little or no tax rate but making much less than the 8M per year. The so called 'idle rich' who have inherited very large sums of money and earn income on it at extremely low or no tax rate. 100M inherited and invested at a 2% rate of return on tax free municipal bonds is 2M per year income, but taxed very differently from 2M earned by someone who worked for it as payroll in the same year.

I do not believe improving the fairness of an inherently broken tax system is a long term solution to either our financial problems or our ethical problems. However, I also do not see how making these change can be anything but a positive step forward on the revenue side of the equation. We aren't talking about raising any tax brackets, we are talking about making sure the people already in a given tax bracket are paying the amount that everyone else in their bracket is paying. Earning 2M should not be taxed more than investing 100M and taking home the same 2M amount.



I do not think a 'moderate spending package' is a solution on the spending side any more than a 'moderate tax system change' would be effective on the revenue side. We need massive overhauls on both sides. The amount we spend should be reduced, but how we spend needs to be completely revamped.

We currently fund a 1980s style military industrial complex for no reason, we fund farm subsidies and destroy crops to provide 'price support' rather than using that food to feed poor people and meanwhile 15% of our population is on food stamps, we give huge subsidies to oil companies that are already generating record profits, and we pay more for poor health care than any other country on the planet.

I believe the solutions on the spending side are just as inevitable as they are on the revenue side of the equation. We are heading to some kind of single payer healthcare system for all basic medical care. We will soon have completely subsidized college educations and technical schools that are basically grades 13-15 for people who can not afford private colleges. We will rebuild our infrastructure to include high speed rail, national wifi, new bridges and a smarter power grid.

Those things will have HUGE costs. The money will come from finally dropping many of the expenses that are used to generate profits for private companies. The only question is when, and that will be determined by how long it takes for bankers and oilmen to tilt the standard of living far enough in their direction to anger enough of the 300M citizens in this country to take to the streets. If you think predictions of riots are premature or childish, make note of the fact that Mike Bloomberg recently predicted the same thing if unemployment continues at its current pace.

Mass poverty is bad for the poor, but historically its much much worse for the rich. The wealthy make out just fine no matter how everyone else is doing.

Originally Posted by PornoMonster

Where does Canada Spend all this tax money then???

Originally Posted by Minte

I am in business for many years. Do you actually think there has been a time when I was happy paying out as much as I do every year? As it is, Obama is the president. Not Reagan or Bush. And to answer your question. They all spend/waste to damn much of OUR money.

Originally Posted by marketsmart

canadians are some of the dumbest people in the world due to all the inbreeding....




.

Originally Posted by crockett

Well then see that's the problem then not just this administration, but the govt is broken as a whole. Both sides spend too much of our damn money, but as long as people still go to the voting both and vote for one party or another just because they are Republican or Democrat then nothing will change.

Originally Posted by porno jew

manitoba is not canada.

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

people are on foodstamps because they cant function properly in society, not because there is a food shortage.
bringing up these kinds of arguments always ruins it.

Originally Posted by marketsmart

i have been preaching this for the last few years...

doesnt matter which party is in office and/or controls congress, its all the same non sense..



.

Originally Posted by marketsmart

there are people on foodstamps because they have been out of work for the last year or two and not by choice.. of course that is not the majority of people on foodstams, but i believe its one of the few circumstances where foodstamps should be given..




.

Originally Posted by gleem

So what are you gonna do about it all... vote teabaggers in, no spending, no tax increases but there will be an all out war against porn, back to Reagan-esque porn shop shutdowns and prosecutions, Christians running wild. Vote the liberaltardos in and we will all go broke but at least porn will still be around, but free prolly.

Good luck America, you need it.


P.S. Flat tax all sounds nice, but the middle/lower class still gets fucked. I liked Herman Cain's 9/9/9 plan (9 percent sales tax, 9 percent income tax and a 9 percent corporate tax) except that 9 percent sales tax will excessively burden the poor since paying 9% extra for their stuff has alot more impact than what 9% sales tax on the rich will have.

Originally Posted by Minte

However, this is the first time in history the US has been downgraded on it's credit rating and things aren't improving fast enough. The alternative to finding a solution is getting more dangerous. Taking more from people who create jobs is not going to pass. So it's this administration playing brinksmanship politics now. And if there is a reason I dislike this group that is it.

They came out of the gate holding all the cards and all they did was galvanize the country with healthcare issues. From that point on, Obama has been under seige and it's not going to change.

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

Over the past decade, the average American has seen their standard of living stagnate or decrease while the wealthy have seen their lifestyles increase at an accelerated rate. The wealthy have made those gains AT THE EXPENSE of the average American. By outsourcing jobs in order to lower costs, investing in emerging markets instead of investing in America, and gambling on risky financial products which caused a collapse in both the housing and stock markets which wiped out the Average American's 401k plan and any equity they had in their homes.

So this isn't about simple math and graphs. It's about the wealthy making money at the expense of the average American.

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

people are on foodstamps because they cant function properly in society, not because there is a food shortage.
bringing up these kinds of arguments always ruins it. go look at the facts people.
nearly 50% of Americans contribute ZERO in taxes, and these people still get to vote?
thats just insane.. if ya' dont pay your share, no way in hell you should get any say in spending.

Originally Posted by crockett

Are you sure you chose the right word there?

gal·va·nizeVerb/ˈgalvəˌnīz/
1. Shock or excite (someone), typically into taking action: "his voice galvanized them into action".

I will admit I'm not 100% happy with Obama's presidency but to think the Republican party wouldn't have put him under siege regardless of what how he preformed is kind of funny.

It's all the Republican party does, when they are not in power. They don't attempt to work with the other party they instead constantly attack and never offer up any solutions. Their solution is "vote for us" then what do they do?

Look at Bill Clinton, regardless of if you like him or not you can not argue that that man did not get stuff done. What did the Republicans do the entire time he was in office? They tried to get him and hounded him with every thing under the sun and spent countless tax dollars on a sex scandal.

How exactly did that help the country?

Now I voted for Obama, not because I expected "change" or for him to fix the economy because I'm smart enough to know that no one is going to fix the mess in Washington with out the country as a whole being galvanized. At this point that hasn't happened so Washington will so what it does regardless of who is in power.

The reason I voted for Obama is because I was tired of Bush's so called war on terror and IMO Obama has done what he said he would in that regard so I'm pretty happy with him there.

He said he would pull troops out of Iraq.. He did

He said he would focus the war on terror to Afgan where is should have always been. He did.

He said he would get Bin Ladden. Although, I really didn't expect this but he did it.

We are at war even though many choose to forget it and as such I voted for a president whom I thought would put us back on track in that war. So far Obama has done more than I expected in that regard.

As for economy & healthcare I really didn't expect much out of him for that because that takes congress, the senate, big business & the tax payers to work together and I know that will never happen.

Originally Posted by Minte

What Obama hasn't done is keep his eye on what's important to the majority. The economy.

Originally Posted by gleem

and the other problem is we have a president trying to follow financial advisors like Buffett who owes over $1billion in back taxes at the same time he's saying he's not taxed enough (just write a check for $1billion warren if that's the case) and then his " Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness" Jeffrey Immelt of GE paid zero corp taxes last year, and is in the process of moving GE operations oversees piece by piece.

The emperor truly has no clothes, Bush was a disaster, Obama is simply throwing some more nails in the coffin.

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

I do agree that Obama clearly doesn't have all the answers and he's definitely making mistakes.

We have to realize that there are short term issues and long term issues, and we have to address them separately. Any ideas to create jobs short term get attacked because they don't fix the long term problem, and any idea to fix things long term are attacked because they don't create jobs right now.

One of the short term fixes is raising taxes on the rich. They have enjoyed historically low taxes for over a decade, even during the longest two wars in American history which is TOTALLY unprecedented for a country to lower taxes several times during war. So asking for an extra 1% or 2% is not all that much. Take that money and use it for infrastructure projects.

Taxes are raised and lowered based on needs all the time, so this is not that crazy of an idea. When we had a budget surplus, we lowered taxes, so taxes will come down when the country gets back on it's feet.

But that's the problem, when people bring up the tax debate, it opens up all this debate about food stamps and currency rigging and all sorts of things. We have to take it one thing at a time. Some short term, and some long term.

So my short term solution would be to raise taxes 2% on those making over 1$ million dollars and use that money for immediate infrastructure projects to get people back to work. Construction projects are great because they employ such a wide range of people, from unskilled laborers all the way up to engineers and scientists.

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

So my short term solution would be to raise taxes 2% on those making over 1$ million dollars and use that money for immediate infrastructure projects to get people back to work. Construction projects are great because they employ such a wide range of people, from unskilled laborers all the way up to engineers and scientists.

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

So my short term solution would be to raise taxes 2% on those making over 1$ million dollars and use that money for immediate infrastructure projects to get people back to work. Construction projects are great because they employ such a wide range of people, from unskilled laborers all the way up to engineers and scientists.

Originally Posted by woj

The only reason you are for it, cause this tax wouldn't apply to you... if he instead proposed 2% tax increase on everyone you wouldn't be so supportive of it anymore, eh?

Originally Posted by Sly

Some interesting information.

-

WASHINGTON (AP) ? President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries.

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

In his White House address Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay."

"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."

Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ric...070642868.html

Originally Posted by gleem

So what are you gonna do about it all... vote teabaggers in, no spending, no tax increases but there will be an all out war against porn, back to Reagan-esque porn shop shutdowns and prosecutions, Christians running wild.

Originally Posted by 12clicks

yeah, just like under Bush.

Originally Posted by Relentless

Actually it works out to substantially more money if implemented correctly because there are many people collecting substantial incomes at little or no tax rate but making much less than the 8M per year. The so called 'idle rich' who have inherited very large sums of money and earn income on it at extremely low or no tax rate. 100M inherited and invested at a 2% rate of return on tax free municipal bonds is 2M per year income, but taxed very differently from 2M earned by someone who worked for it as payroll in the same year.

Originally Posted by Relentless

Oh yes, Bush the fiscal conservative.
What a joke.

Originally Posted by Minte

Relentless... I agree with you. You are preaching to the choir.

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Minte is right.

Originally Posted by gleem

and the other problem is we have a president trying to follow financial advisors like Buffett who owes over $1billion in back taxes at the same time he's saying he's not taxed enough (just write a check for $1billion warren if that's the case) and then his " Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness" Jeffrey Immelt of GE paid zero corp taxes last year, and is in the process of moving GE operations oversees piece by piece.

The emperor truly has no clothes, Bush was a disaster, Obama is simply throwing some more nails in the coffin.