Chatham County Online BBS
September 02, 2010, 10:17:21 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Before you go out to eat check out the Local Restaurant Reviews
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Tax the rich! Whoever they are...  (Read 199 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
snowcamper
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 06:33:34 PM
Date Registerd:January 16, 2007, 01:22:51 PM
Posts: 2641


Let there be light!


« on: November 09, 2009, 11:44:29 AM »

Taxing the rich seems to be a favorite hobby for those now in Washington, and their supporters.  So who exactly are the rich?  We repeatedly hear the figure $250k+, but who makes up that portion of the population... I sure don't.

Doctors?  These guys are always reputed to be "rich"... but should we really be taxing them more?

Attorneys?  Now some of these people definately got shorted in the "character and integrity" departments... that is, until you need a "good" one to sue that doctor for everything he has...

CNBC has a list of the "highest paying jobs" here:  http://www.cnbc.com/id/23918484?photo=2
#15 is a podiatrist.  They don't even average 1/2 of that "rich" figure.
#14 is an airline pilot.  I definately don't want highly paid and trained pilots!  I would like to know that every plane I board is piloted by someone compensated no better than my local postal worker.
#11 is a dentist.  Their years of dedicated schooling and specialization is meaningless... I'd prefer they got paid $8 an hour just like a construction worker.  That would attract quality people to this field for sure.
#10 is a CEO?!?  And they average under $150k?  That's not what firedoglake tells me...
#3 is Obstetricians.  Who needs them?  It's just a kid after all.  Plenty more where they came from.
#2 is surgeons... What do they do that my car mechanic can't?
#1 is an anesthesiologist... because people really don't care if they do a good job or not.

But wait!?!  Who is it that earns over $250k?
There's a bigger list from the gubbmint at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm

Even the government averages don't have a single profession that average that much money.

So who are those "Rich" people? 
Are they the people who saved money instead of spending it... so that their investment income is significant?  Who really wants to punish savings?

Are they the people who have made it to the tops of their careers?  Those atheletes, actors, doctors, producers, attorneys, plumbers, business owners, etc. who are the best at what they do?  Now you're talking about punishing success.

Are they the rare inheritors?  The trust fund kids?  Someone still worked hard and saved to build the original pot o' gold.

Before villifying a group of people, shouldn't we be putting faces to the tax brackets and deciding if it is really a good idea to judge people based on their income?
Logged
garboon
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 09:34:39 PM
Date Registerd:October 15, 2006, 03:43:40 PM
Posts: 1013



« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2009, 12:48:50 PM »

When they say tax the rich, I'm pretty sure they are targeting wealth, not income.
Logged

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
RJLeeb
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 08:00:12 PM
Date Registerd:October 06, 2008, 06:24:36 PM
Posts: 4823



« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2009, 01:39:43 PM »

When they say tax the rich, I'm pretty sure they are targeting wealth, not income.

Income tax is based on income.  Right?

What federal taxes does someone pay on assets they already have in their possession?  Is there a federal property tax?

When they say tax the rich, and they raise taxes on people making over a certain amount...that's taxing income.
Logged

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."       

-Hoelderlin
Grumble69
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:July 05, 2010, 09:40:07 PM
Date Registerd:October 18, 2007, 02:28:32 AM
Posts: 1535


« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2009, 02:00:56 PM »

What does occupation have to do anything?  Are we arguing that doctors should be taxed less than lawyers?  I'm sorry, I don't care if you're the garbage man.  If you're raking it in, I don't have an issue with you coughing up a little bit more (percentage-wise).
Logged
RJLeeb
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 08:00:12 PM
Date Registerd:October 06, 2008, 06:24:36 PM
Posts: 4823



« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2009, 02:13:50 PM »

What does occupation have to do anything?  Are we arguing that doctors should be taxed less than lawyers?  I'm sorry, I don't care if you're the garbage man.  If you're raking it in, I don't have an issue with you coughing up a little bit more (percentage-wise).

And therein lies the rub.

There's disagreement on how much constitutes a "little more" or "their fair share".  Ask Claude and he'll tell you its 40 percent if you make what he used to make.  Ask Beel and you might hear something entirely different.

It all comes down to what people think they are entitled to.  Depending on what that is, demands will be made of government to provide it.

The thing is: government doesn't provide anything.  They simply take it from someone and give it to someone else...after they get a "taste", as other mobsters put it.

If you want something, here's how you go about getting it in the good 'ol USA:

1. You work hard and earn it.  (Your offspring eventually blow it all on coke and expensive cars)
2. You steal it and risk prison. 
3. You get the government to steal it for you.

When there are a lot more 3's and 2's than 1's, we're in trouble.  We're getting to that point.

Logged

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."       

-Hoelderlin
snowcamper
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 06:33:34 PM
Date Registerd:January 16, 2007, 01:22:51 PM
Posts: 2641


Let there be light!


« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2009, 03:13:29 PM »

If you're raking it in, I don't have an issue with you coughing up a little bit more (percentage-wise).



A little bit more than what?  And when does a little bit more, and a little bit more, and a little bit more eventually equal too much?

The lowest current federal income tax bracket is 10%.  The highest is 35%.
Is that 25% gap "a little bit more?

Then you tack on Social Security - there's 7.65% more... or if you are self-employed, 15.3% more
Then you tack on state taxes - (see http://www.dor.state.nc.us/taxes/individual/rates.html)
Between 6 and 7.75% taxes...
Then we add on sales, gas, use, vehicle, tourist, property, etc....

So let's see:
A successful, self-employed individual (the classic American entrepreneur/small business owner) would pay:
35.00%   Federal Income
 7.75%    State Income
15.30%   Social Security
-------
59.05%  In taxes on his income, and that's before he's even spent any of it!
 7.75%   Sales tax on almost anything he actually buys with it....
-------
66.8%   In taxes, and that's before Obama gets done "taxing the rich" and raising taxes to pay for everything.

Is that "a little bit" according to you, Grumble?
Logged
Grumble69
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:July 05, 2010, 09:40:07 PM
Date Registerd:October 18, 2007, 02:28:32 AM
Posts: 1535


« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2009, 09:36:24 PM »

I'm not going to get in the numbers game.  Nor am I going to get involved in the debate over what programs are funded and whether that constitutes "redistribution".

I'm just saying I don't have a problem with the principle of richer folks paying higher rates.
Logged
Chatham County Online BBS
   

 Logged
Tags:
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  






Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!