Best
123 Comments
Post
  • #1
    !
    Tax the rich. and reform the tax code.
    End the wars.(drug and foreign wars)
    Cut military spending.
    Cut cooperate spending.
    Cut subsidizing agriculture.
    Reform prison.(stop locking people up for minimal crimes and abolish death penalty.)

    There I just fixed the budget.
  • #42
    !
    I agree. The 65% aren't necessarily wanting to tax the rich folks more as much as to pay their fair share. Closing the loopholes reducing the actual tax paid. Would what they pay now still be more than you or I? Of course. But as a percentage of income? Probably no. Additionally, you or I do not have the option of cashing in our stock options when we change jobs to the tune of 135 million bucks. But you bet your bippy that we pay taxes on a small bonus or severance.
  • #43
    !
    @Rocker

    How is paying most of the income taxes garnered in the US not their fair share? which loopholes would you close, specifically?

    Who doesn't pay taxes on a small bonus or severance?(outside of the 47% that don't pay income taxes, that is?)
  • R Load more replies

  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    !
    When you rob from Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul. Polls like this are stupid. Of course there are large portions of the population that want other to pay more -- our country has become a gimme, lazy one that expects others to lift a finger so they don't have to... especially when it comes to paying for things.
  • #86
    !
    You're talking about rich people right? They continue to take larger portions of company revenue because they feel they are entitled to more of what other people earn for a company (wages stagnate, executive salaries skyrocket). They also want better treatment when it comes to taxation (millionaires frequently pay less than 20% in effective taxes, working people pay more than 30%).
  • #91
    !
    @norezen The average effective rate for all people is less than 15%. Where do you get the idea that "working people pay more than 30%" when the only you have to earn over 178k just for the honor to be taxed at ABOVE 30%(effective rates are lower than bracket rates)?
  • #95
    !
    @Hireman 178k is a far cry from a millionaire. Most people who make less than $250k or so are salaried working people.
    Millionaire means over $1 million income per year in this case. Lots of them make their income from investments or are compensated by their employers through income that can be classified as investment income thus having a considerably lower tax rate.
  • #100
    !
    @norezen I think you need to do a lot more research before you get worked up. Investment income IS taxed at a lower rate, and anyone making over 35k pays a higher, just not necessarily a higher effective rate. What you're missing is very few rich people rely solely on investment income, and their ordinary payroll-taxed income is far higher. The average millionaire pays over 20% effective rate, whereas an average person paid around 12%. Your numbers don't add up to nearly 30%.
  • #11
    !
    There are 25 people in a room. One person pays more in income taxes than the other 24...combined. 12 People pay zero income taxes and many of those still get refunds regardless of paying zero (welfare). This is what you must believe if you are a democrat: The one person that pays more than all the others combined is still not paying "their fair share", yet they have no problem with the 12 that pay zero income taxes. This is what you MUST believe if you are a democrat.
  • #75
    !
    I do not believe anyone on wefare should receive one red cent back on taxes they did nothing to earn it!
  • #38
    !
    I went to my online thesaurus, tried to look up "ninja." The popup window said "Ninja cannot be found."

    Well played, Ninja. Well played.
  • #3
    !
    .If the super multi-generational "job creators" mega wealthy refuse to pay a fair livable wage and invest back into the great country that supported them and helped them become/remain rich and protected.......then it WILL come from somewhere else, which just happens to be taxes.

    The good'ole boy days of take,take,take.......is over.

    The new majority (working hard but still poor) are demanding and getting change.
  • #110
    !
    @woodtick57
    I would feel extremely wealthy if my income was half that much. I have a master's degree, and yet I can only dream of making that one half.
  • #30
    !
    I think everyone should pay a minimum income tax of 10% with no exemptions plus an incremental sales tax or GST. If you buy a Bugatti there will be a higher tax rate on it then your VW. An obvious question is "What constitutes rich?" Why should anyone who expends the effort to become successful and make money be penalized? Why should people who don't want to educate themselves or work be subsidized by others? Why should taxpayers subsidize illegals who run across the border to drop a baby on US soil so someone else will pick up the tab? Start pulling the trigger on criminals to reduce prison populations and bring back chain gangs. If you don't like it don't go to prison; it's optional, you know. If you can afford to have kids you can afford to get off welfare and support them yourself. The "government" wants to move retirement to age 67? Let's make sure that everyone who works in any taxpayer-funded job retire at that same age and any pension must be fully funded (we'll allow a partial employer match on the 401K). No wars, just send over some nukes if anyone threatens us. How about some tariffs? How many billions of dollars have been spent correcting all the problems caused by imported crap from other countries? Remember the lead paint in toys and disintegrating stainless steel and poison pet food and toxic drywall and the list just seems to go on and on at our expense???
  • #92
    !
    @DanielMincin Maybe but if you look at the numbers which I am rounding you have total gross income of 10 trillion and taxes paid of about 8% of that figure. That is way less than 10%. There is additional revenue coming in from corporate tax but I do not have that number. There are people and corporations that do not pay any tax at all and corporations that receive substantial subsidies from the government that should not be getting anything. If we start with 10% for everyone, plus the corporate tax plus eliminate subsidies there is a lot of money. The other part is to cut spending and waste. If the objective here is to take the money away from people who work and give it to those who want to collect welfare checks from the government, those who the create wealth will go elsewhere.
  • #6
    !
    It is obvious that we need to tax the rich more. Since we lowered the top tax rates we have seen the separation between the rich and the rest of society get bigger and bigger . It is far past time to raise taxes on those at the top. This will help the economy and help to bring down the deficit. A large middle class is critical to a stable society. The giveaways to the rich and powerful need to stop.
  • #81
    !
    Oh and when I say I want the rich taxed more I actually don't include people making $250k. I don't have a specific number but $250k a year isn't rich. It's well off but 35% is plenty of taxes for someone making $250k a year.
  • #79
    !
    Anyone else think that the rich are fighting this as a smokescreen. By fighting this tax increase it keeps the spotlight off of capital gains which is not taxed like regular income even though it is. That's why Mitt can get away with paying 14%.
  • #72
    !
    The federal individual income tax has had many more brackets and much higher rates in the past than it does today. In 1958, for example, there were 24 brackets (versus 6 today) and the top rate was 91 percent (versus 35 percent today). The impact of more brackets and higher rates on taxpayers and revenues depends on how much taxable income falls in each of the tax rate brackets. We find that only a small fraction of returns was subject to rates above today’s top rate of 35 percent in any year since 1958, but a significant fraction of tax was paid at these higher rates in many years. For example, prior to 1982 (when the top rate was reduced to 50 percent), taxable income in brackets above today’s top 35 percent rate was taxed at an average effective rate of 49 percent. We estimate that increasing the effective tax rate on taxable income in the 35 percent bracket to 49 percent would have raised $78 billion of additional income tax revenue in 2007.
  • #53
    !
    Come on, this is a no brainer. Of course 65% want the rich taxed more, they know they aren't going to be affected by any increase and if someone has to be taxed let it be someone else. Funny thing is that when the question was phrased slightly differently, as in "Are you in favor of taxing the rich more than 40% for federal taxes?" only 26% were for that. This leads me to think that most people have no idea how high the taxes already are for the rich. And of course with the Obamacare surcharge it will be slightly more than 44% federal tax. And, just to add a bit, of those 65%, 47% pay no taxes at all, they need someone to put more money in the kitty, they have their needs and they need government to supply them, with our money.
  • #49
    !
    Keep taxing those rich, they'll keep moving and we'll all be poor in no time...but Hey, isn't that how you get Socialism?...
  • #78
    !
    We have been doing just that the last 12 years. If this is true THEN WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL THE JOBS! I'll tell ya they are overseas!
  • #96
    !
    thats because the local, state,and fedral government keeps taxing over regulating private enterprises.overall cost is driving companies away from the united states.
  • #41
    !
    And thus the tipping point has been reached.

    Here's a thought: Rather than tax those who already pay even more, why not get that 47 percent who pay nothing to pay their share? Even a little bit would help.

    The horror! Let 'the rich' pay even more! Yeah!
  • #21
    !
    65% of Americans are outright ignorant. They simply do not understand how taxing the people who create jobs will cause the opposite effect. Blah...<facepalm>
  • #27
    !
    With the lowest taxes on the ultra rich since the advent of income tax this nation lost 12 million jobs. You are more right than I am but I agree with you at times and you have agreed with me at times. With all due respect you are dead wrong on this one.
  • #31
    !
    @jessejaymes And I cannot seem to understand why. It's basic 8th grade math. LOW TAXES = more jobs, economic expansion, and more revenue collected by the state. INCREASE TAXES = job losses, economic contraction, and less jobs. Why do the Democrats continue to squeeze the successful in this country and make them the bad guy?
  • #33
    !
    @RobertJHarsh ...I mean INCREASE TAXES also equals loss in revenue collected. I did not mean to say less jobs twice. Sorry.
  • #34
    !
    @RobertJHarsh In the world economy Robert that is simply not true any longer. The money they made under the bush tax cuts went to create jobs in China, Indonesia and India. They are not creating jobs in America man. If they're not creating jobs here and they aren't paying heavy taxes on taking our jobs there then we don't need them,. Let them move.
  • #39
    !
    "They simply do not understand how taxing the people who create jobs will cause the opposite effect." .....

    History would not necessarily support this contention.
  • R Load more replies

  • #20
    !
    Soak the rich until they pay us back for the bailouts, the two wars and every single dime of deficit spending under Bush II and interest. And while we're at it STOP PAYING 300.00 FOR A DAMN HAMMER!!!
  • #12
    !
    I voted yes, but actually think $250,000 is a bit low, favor a millionaires tax ad better pr, and more equitable. Presently 250,000 is not a lot for raising a family in a lot of cities, and when inflation from this spending and the Bush wars, and present wars kick in a couple years hence it will be worth even less. But between repubs and Obama, well really...
  • #9
    !
    "I'd rather tax the homeless for taking up space that they haven't paid for. " .....

    Interesting concept there. Taxing the Homeless. Talk about thinking outside the box. I would be interested in knowing what the Homeless might use to pay those taxes with.
  • #16
    !
    @PoliticalSpice - Well Jimmy there certainly got my mind working in a different direction. As I often will allow myself to entertain bizarre notions, I thought about this tax the homeless idea and figured there might just be a way for them to save our economy.

    Okay, so we know the Homeless probably do not have even the jingle to buy a sandwich let alone the jingle to pay taxes with, what do they have? They have their word. What we could do is issue promissory notes for them to sign and be collected by the IRS. But only after we have determined how many homeless there are and how much money we need in the collective till to get our bottom line back into the black. We take the total and divide the number of homeless into it. For argument's sake let's say the nut is $1 trillion bucks and there are 10 million homeless. That would make the promised payback to come to oh roughly $1 million bucks each homeless person promises to pay when their lives get back on track.

    The US treasury then takes these promissory notes and applies them to the debt we owe our creditors. I am sure China would go for it. They know our homeless will honor the debt. And if they don't well, that becomes China's problem.
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...
Post