Hold on a sec, are you saying that billionaires should pay a higher percentage of tax? If so, why?
The tax burden should be applied fairly to everyone. People like Warren Buffet have gone on record and said that they pay 15-17% taxes, which is far to low considering how much MORE the middle or lower classes pay.
Its simply not fair.
One could argue that a high corporate tax rate prevents job growth, and I would tend to agree, but personal taxes are a totally different story.
20-30% is far. Upper class pays 30%, middle 25%, lower 20%....or even less. I think that is quite fair enough.
I see what you guys are saying, but I disagree. IMO, taxes should be applied evenly to all. 20% or something like that.
The reason guys like Warren Buffet pay less taxes is because of loopholes and accountants that know where to find them. Those loopholes should be closed. That would be a lot more fair than punishing people who make more money.
I see what you guys are saying, but I disagree. IMO, taxes should be applied evenly to all. 20% or something like that.
The reason guys like Warren Buffet pay less taxes is because of loopholes and accountants that know where to find them. Those loopholes should be closed. That would be a lot more fair than punishing people who make more money.
Well I'm all for a fair tax if the loop holes are closed.
I think there are better ways to help low income families anyways. Tax credits, etc, etc.
I see what you guys are saying, but I disagree. IMO, taxes should be applied evenly to all. 20% or something like that.
The reason guys like Warren Buffet pay less taxes is because of loopholes and accountants that know where to find them. Those loopholes should be closed. That would be a lot more fair than punishing people who make more money.
Actually Buffett doesn't benefit from loopholes all that much. What he benefits from is a big pile of dividend-paying equity. Since that is the vast majority of his income, the US tax code rewards him with a low low low 15% rate.
Think of all the other actual newsworthy stories that could have been researched or advanced about serving politicians that were dropped in an attempt to discredit her. Lamestream media is right. ..... but their agenda clearly isn't
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to tjinaz For This Useful Post:
Actually Buffett doesn't benefit from loopholes all that much. What he benefits from is a big pile of dividend-paying equity. Since that is the vast majority of his income, the US tax code rewards him with a low low low 15% rate.
Huh. Well maybe the US tax code should be 20% right across the board. I don't know. I just don't understand the "take more from the wealthy" mentality, outside of taking the same percentage, which happens to be more.
The Following User Says Thank You to 4X4 For This Useful Post:
Think of all the other actual newsworthy stories that could have been researched or advanced about serving politicians that were dropped in an attempt to discredit her. Lamestream media is right. ..... but their agenda clearly isn't
Yup and she had the legal right to black out anything she deemed to be of a personal nature before the records were released and chose not to hide anything. How many D.C. politicians would be willing to do the same thing?
Yup and she had the legal right to black out anything she deemed to be of a personal nature before the records were released and chose not to hide anything. How many D.C. politicians would be willing to do the same thing?
Palin's staff redacted over 2400 pages of emails.
As usual your grasp of the truth is, at best, tenuous.
Palin's staff redacted over 2400 pages of emails.
As usual your grasp of the truth is, at best, tenuous.
Out of how many pages? If there were any security concerns considering she was governor, I'd expect some redacting. If there were large swaths of it, the headlines would be shouting it out.
Originally Posted by http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979430168
2,353 pages plus heavy redaction of the pages that are released.
I'm not saying it's unacceptable; I think the whole thing is ridiculous beyond Alaska taking over a thousand days to release the emails when the law requires the request to be filled within ten.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
You have to limit the progressive taxation at some point though. You start to lose the incentive of making more money at a certain percentage of taxation.
What's the harm in that really?
I don't have a problem with people being rich, but what's the problem with there being a point where getting from rich to richer starts to get really, really hard? What is the need for people to have a chance to be richer than, say 10 million dollars? (50 million? 100 million?)
I say this partly because uneven distribution of wealth causes problems for democracy, as large piles of money gets you power and influence beyond democratic means.
The superrich have hugely disproportional amounts of political and financial power which can be extremely hard to influence by any means available to the masses of people in the more-or-less average income category.
And since fortunes can be inherited, this can cause even further problems in the future, when people who are not at all qualified to wield such power get access to it.
Why make it super hard? Why not just create a taxation system that is evenly applied to the super rich?
Either way, the super rich invest a lot of money in charity work, so I do think there is a need for people to have billions of dollars. The work that the Gates Foundation has done is largely possible because Bill Gates is so insanely rich.
Why make it super hard? Why not just create a taxation system that is evenly applied to the super rich?
Because the government could always use more money, and there's really no point in having it around in such big piles? Because the more they take from that end of the scale the less they need to take from the other end?
Because there's just a lot of money available there?
Also, you didn't address the my point of "the superrich have an unproportionate amount of power which eats away the basics of democracy" at all.
Quote:
The super rich invest a lot of money in charity work, so I do think there is a need for people to have billions of dollars. The work that the Gates Foundation has done is largely possible because Bill Gates is so insanely rich.
Some of them do, some of them don't. While the money might be good, it's not proportionally anything special. Basicly, if the money was spread around more evenly there would be about equal amount of charity.
Do you have anything else as to why people need to be allowed to be superrich?
Also, for every Bill Gates there's a Robert Murdoch, who spends his money to spread around his political agendas. What's the benefit in that? If that money was spread more evenly, more people would get to participate.
(Also, why does Bill Gates get to decide that the developing world needs more Windows machines for educational progams, when something else might make more sense in the long run for those receiving the aid?)
As a somewhat separete note, and not meaning to demean anyones political views, I think a situation which is something like this distorts peoples views of taxation politics, regardless of where they live. (This is also for the US and 2007.)
The point is basicly that people tend to grossly underestimate how rich the rich actually are in proportion to the rest of us. This means they grossly underestimate the effect extra taxes on the rich could actually have on government finances.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
In broader context, this is regarding the Republican's insisting on extending the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich.
Quote:
Earlier this year the CBO analyzed the cost effectiveness of 11 possible approaches to spurring economic growth. Cutting income taxes came in last. It was estimated to increase GDP by 10 to 40 cents for each dollar it adds to the deficit in 2011. Increasing aid to the unemployed, in contrast, which ranked first, was projected to generate 70 cents to $1.90 for every dollar spent.
I'm not saying it's unacceptable; I think the whole thing is ridiculous beyond Alaska taking over a thousand days to release the emails when the law requires the request to be filled within ten.
Nothing ridiculous about that at all. Your talking about 24,000 pages that someone with some security clearance has to check over. There could be national security issues as well as privacy issues at risk. The Governor is a public office but, he or she does converse with private citizens.
What your blog does insinuate but, doesn't prove is that Sarah Palin had any influence in what wasn't disclosed. Those people in the Governor's office in Alaska don't work for Sarah Palin; They work for the people of Alaska. She put up no road blocks even when it came to her private facebook page.
