|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 10, 2010 13:54:43 GMT -8
Flat Tax 50% of everything earned that is above $30,000 a year. The state can take the rest as needed. Fug the Rich. So you want me to reduce my salary to $30,000 and grant myself generous stock options? Income earned from stock options is not earned income and you are only taxing earned income. Yoda out... Remember, Yoda, I am a "Born Again Liberal," per request. I am not very good at it. Should I have said "All Income regardless of earnings, gifts, tax rebates, illegal pot sales, dividends and capital gains?" |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 10, 2010 14:22:34 GMT -8
Yoda, your points are good, but not on topic. We are talking about having 250K after tax income and not having to get out of bed. That is either one great pension( must be former City of Bell employee), or an income stream that is secured by rock solid assets. If it is the later we are talking 10 million dollars or so. Either way the income stream is wealth. An income stream is an asset. Are you? It seems to me that the article sprang from a discussion about whether or not Obama's proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts should or should not extend to those making more than $200,000 / $250,000 -- or as he put it, "the rich". It is his original definition and I'm saying that that definition -- along with the discussion on this board about whether or not that (or some other) level constituted "rich" -- are fundamentally flawed. The Bush tax cuts applied to earned income only -- not to capital gains and by narrowing the discussion to earned income only, the whole discussion of what is "rich" becomes meaningless. Rich has nothing to do with earned income. Rich is a function of wealth. I mean if you limit the discussion to earned income, then Warren Buffett isn't wealthy. He pays himself $100,000 a year (as I recall -- he may have had to kick it up some). Now I understand that if you have a net, after tax income of $250,000, you'd probably feel pretty "rich" but as others have pointed out, that depends on what your expenses are. I was told today that my dad needs to go into a home. There are two choices (so far -- we've just started looking). One is $6,000 a month and the other is $20,000 a month. Sorry Dad. In a good year, I'm "rich". I just don't have that kind of money... Yoda out... I was talking about william's example, not the article. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 10, 2010 15:53:20 GMT -8
So you want me to reduce my salary to $30,000 and grant myself generous stock options? Income earned from stock options is not earned income and you are only taxing earned income. Yoda out... Remember, Yoda, I am a "Born Again Liberal," per request. I am not very good at it. Should I have said "All Income regardless of earnings, gifts, tax rebates, illegal pot sales, dividends and capital gains?" Don't ask me? I'm not a liberal. I just wanted clarification before going into my "you #$%()@&% communist" rant. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 10, 2010 16:49:02 GMT -8
Remember, Yoda, I am a "Born Again Liberal," per request. I am not very good at it. Should I have said "All Income regardless of earnings, gifts, tax rebates, illegal pot sales, dividends and capital gains?" Don't ask me? I'm not a liberal. I just wanted clarification before going into my "you #$%()@&% communist" rant. Yoda out... Before you go into the rant, let me add inheritance, too. That should set you off. So go ahead and call me names. For some reason it will not hurt me. And, if you are original enough, I might laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 10, 2010 18:25:48 GMT -8
Don't ask me? I'm not a liberal. I just wanted clarification before going into my "you #$%()@&% communist" rant. Yoda out... Before you go into the rant, let me add inheritance, too. That should set you off. So go ahead and call me names. For some reason it will not hurt me. And, if you are original enough, I might laugh. Actually, I don't have a rant. I was faking. As I said upthread... If we actually did all that (and I really do favor it), virtually all income would be treated equally (including inheritance). I like that idea and don't consider it liberal or conservative -- just fair. Where you set the marginal tax rates (and I suppose the minimum national income for the elderly) is where you begin to bump into liberal vs. conservative, in my view. I suppose that the notion of a minimum national income for the elderly would outrage the right ("Alas! The next step would be a minimum national income for the lazy poor too!!!"). But that's all that social security is now, only without the means test. There is virtually no connection between the amount of money that you put in and the amount that you take out. They called it SSI -- Insurance -- to help sell it but there is no connection to insurance either. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Aug 10, 2010 18:35:22 GMT -8
You know it and I know it. In my case, I've never voted for a Democrat in my entire life. However, in the eyes of the modern "conservative," if you do not agree with sarah palin's ideas (whatever they are), if you cannot enthusiastically support a sarah palin presidential bid, then make no mistake: YOU ARE A LIBERAL. god it makes me sick to say that. I don't understand partisans. The notion of voting for only one party -- instead of voting for the candidate -- seems a low-treason to me. It puts party ahead of country. I've been a Democrat that voted for 8 Republicans and 1 Democrat and I've been a Republican that voted for 8 Democrats and 1 Republican -- and never in my life have I voted a straight party line ticket. You won't find anybody more anti-partisan than I am. Almost all of our political acrimony stems from partisanship. It harms this country. That said, I'm with you in one respect -- it is becoming more and more difficult to find a Republican moderate enough that I am willing to vote for him/her. When the extremists control the parties, the nominees tend to be less and less acceptable. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 11, 2010 6:04:53 GMT -8
If we actually did all that (and I really do favor it), virtually all income would be treated equally (including inheritance). I like that idea and don't consider it liberal or conservative -- just fair. Where you set the marginal tax rates (and I suppose the minimum national income for the elderly) is where you begin to bump into liberal vs. conservative, in my view. ... Yoda out... Conservatives have changed considerably from the Sixties. What a difference a half century makes! Now the major concern seems to be safeguarding their money from taxation. Well, they ballyhoo their convictions that we need to continue killing poor Radical Islamics, and they support the fighting men (and women), but that all seems to be for misguided show. I have long maintained that we could have accomplished far more in Afghanistan if we had helped finance a war lord to take over the country and commit atrocities against the Taliban to drive them into Pakistan, where we could pay a warlord to run the country and commit atrocities against the spill over Taliban until most Radical Islamics felt that it was safest to keep their fanatical mouths shut. That position of mine would have fit the older conservative understanding quite well. Bill Clinton would have understood it. Gawd, I liked him as president. He just ran the office right. We should have sent him a hooker every week to satisfy his other needs and contracted with him to continue in office and run the presidency on a "less than foolish spending basis." The difference between a moderate conservative like Clinton and a liberal spender like Bush is frightening. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Aug 11, 2010 18:56:07 GMT -8
I consider rich as anyone with a net worth of $10,000,000.00 plus and a seven figure income to boot. Super rich are the Tiger Woods, Kerry, Kennedy , Dupont, Gates, Oprah, Etc. of the world. But instead of focusing on squeezing more out of these folks, how about our clowns in govt. focus on ways to be more accountable, to crack down on waste and eliminate programs and pork that are obsolete and past their effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Aug 14, 2010 8:15:56 GMT -8
I do not know precisely what the very rich should pay in taxes. I do believe that everyone should pay commensurate with the benefits they derive from this country's infrastructure. In my opinion, despite what some would tell you, the very rich derive far more benefits from our infrastructure, laws and tax structure than welfare recipients, social security beneficiaries and beneficiaries of unemployment compensation.
Additionally, they have exponentially more influence on the political process. It is just fine to be rich, in my opinion. I would just suggest that they pay taxes commensurate with the benefits they receive and the power they wield. And right now they pay no where near that rate.
To me it is a matter of fairness.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Aug 14, 2010 15:28:28 GMT -8
The HP CEO got fired and got a $23 MILLION paycheck for leaving. I am cool taxing that 75% to help us Americans!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 14, 2010 17:13:00 GMT -8
The HP CEO got fired and got a $23 MILLION paycheck for leaving. I am cool taxing that 75% to help us Americans! And right you would be to call for it. I favor a fifty percent flat tax on all income in excess of $30,000. That is fair and just and balanced and right. 75 percent seems a bit too much, though I can understand where you are coming from. |
|
