Seriously...why would anyone vote for Obama??

[silverblk mystix]

So, by default then, you think it is more than acceptable to tax those with more money at a higher rate? To what degree? Do you feel that impacts the incentive to want to be someone with more money the more it evens out due the difference in tax breaks?

That is the thing- they arent getting taxed at a higher rate.

They have people on the payroll whose job it is to find loopholes and ways of cheating and hiding income so that they end up paying a lot less. People with the most --actually pay a lower percentage. How is this fair?

A family making 20-75k pays 30-33% taxes while an asshole billionaire like Romney pays 13%. How is this guy even in the running for the presidency? This tax cheating should be more than enough to disqualify him -period. People like you actually respect this kind of dishonesty.

[baseline bum]

Also, why would they have no money to spend? If they are getting taxed at their current rate and are able to live full complete lives with everything they need, why would lowering the tax burden on those above them negatively impact the amount of money they have to spend (in theory - obviously if you lower the tax rate from your largest pool of money, it would have to be made up somewhere).

Um, debt? Is this nation supposed to run on waving flags and USA chants?

[mavs>spurs]

That is the thing- they arent getting taxed at a higher rate.

They have people on the payroll whose job it is to find loopholes and ways of cheating and hiding income so that they end up paying a lot less. People with the most --actually pay a lower percentage. How is this fair?

A family making 20-75k pays 30-33% taxes while an asshole billionaire like Romney pays 13%. How is this guy even in the running for the presidency? This tax cheating should be more than enough to disqualify him -period. People like you actually respect this kind of dishonesty.

lol no, if you make less than 35350 you only pay 15%, and it's really not even that high if you have dependents its like 10%if you make 35k up to like 80 or 90 i forget you still only pay like 20%..but thats just the marginal rate, after dependents you actually pay far less.

[silverblk mystix]

lol no, if you make less than 35350 you only pay 15%, and it's really not even that high if you have dependents its like 10%if you make 35k up to like 80 or 90 i forget you still only pay like 20%..but thats just the marginal rate, after dependents you actually pay far less.

This is untrue.

People that make 75-90 k pay at least 30% some even more.

[mavs>spurs]

if you file jointly and make up to 70,700 you pay 15% federal taxes. up to 142k jointly pays only 20%. but keep in mind these are just marginal rates, once you subtract dependents and other deductions you pay way less. now i keep forgetting that other states have state taxes as well and that would up it a bit, but yeah not here in texas you don't pay no 30%.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

A family making 20-75k pays 30-33% taxes while an asshole billionaire like Romney pays 13%..

The highest tax bracket in this country is 35% and for people making A LOT more than 20-75k, so I'm not sure where you're getting that first piece of info.

[Stringer_Bell]

Wow, how easily people forget that billionaires "who need to pay their fair share" can just say YOU and close up shop. Tbh, they should be thankful for having enjoyed those tax breaks while not consistently adding jobs for at least the 6 years they enjoyed those breaks without too much of a fuss, but the only person they have to thank is GW - they don't owe America anything.

[DeadlyDynasty]

smh DPG

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So, by default then, you think it is more than acceptable to tax those with more money at a higher rate? To what degree? Do you feel that impacts the incentive to want to be someone with more money the more it evens out due the difference in tax breaks?

It doesn't impact the incentive at all. Being someone who makes $1,000,000 a year is better than being someone who makes $30,000 as a low level employee for the guy making $1,000,000. The notion that taxes being higher lowers incentive to be rich is total asinine, trickle-down Ronald Reagan bull . Every rational person's goal is to maximize after tax wealth and $1,000,000 taxed at 40% is more after tax wealth than $30,000 taxed at 20%. Taxes on the rich are lower than they've been in 50+ years, and it has yet to stimulate the economy like Ronald Reagan and George Bush claimed it would. How much lower do taxes need to be for the rich before twickle down economics will work?

[mavs>spurs]

.

[redzero]

http://www.novelinvestor.com/tax-pla...brackets-work/

[mavs>spurs]

interesting i'm glad you posted that, i never took tax and apparently had a misconception about that. dok is right it shouldn't be too much of a disincentive then.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

most people don't have such a clear cut choice as making either 30k or 1 mil. if you're right at the bubble and if you go over, you're going to go up a tax bracket and actually lower your after tax income unless you go wayyyyy over to negate the effects of the higher tax bracket. for example, making 35,000 at 15% tax is better than making 37,000 at 20%. you'd have to make around 40,000 or so to see any appreciable gain in take home pay for your efforts. it's definitely somewhat of a deterrent.

This is a shining example of how you don't understand how America's tax code works at all. If you're right on the bubble and go over, you only pay taxes at the higher rate for your income in excess of the threshold. Your tax rate for income below the threshold doesn't suddenly go up causing you to have less after tax income than you would have if you remained below the threshold. Here is how it works:



So lets say someone is right on the edge making $82,400 a year. Yes, if you're ignorant, don't understand how America's tax code works but like to pretend you do while basing your political views on how you think it works, you'd argue "The person making $82,400 a year wouldn't want to earn more and make 84-85k because it would push his tax bracket up and leave him with less after tax income!" When in reality here is how it works:

Taxes due for $82,400: $4,681.25 + .25($82,400 - $34,000) = $16,781.25, $82,400 - $16,781.25 = $65,618.75 after tax income

Taxes due for $84,000: $16,781.25 + .28($84,000 - $82,400) = $17,229.25, $84,000 - $17,229.25 = $66,770.75 after tax income


So an increase in your before tax income WILL ALWAYS result in an increase for your after tax income the way America's tax code is formulated. So, are you going to admit that all of this time, you thought America's tax code could result in a lower after tax income by moving into the next tax bracket and that you were talking out of your ass, or will you try to somehow say you knew what you were talking about? I'm anxious to find out.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

.

Last edited by mavs>spurs; 17 Minutes Ago at 11:13 PM.

[mavs>spurs]

17 minutes ago, you really spent a lot of time typing up something in response to a brain fart i had 2 hours after my usual sleep time. i'm beat to from work and said something out of character and agreed with you, shoulda just moved on rather than waste your time responding to posts that don't even exist tbh.

[mavs>spurs]

surprisingly in reality america's tax code really isn't all that progressive at all, i'm pleased with the current taxation levels if they could just close up loopholes. those loopholes will have a bigger effect than "marginal rates this marginal rates that" talk tbh. i guess that's the scam though, they pretend to argue while in reality nothing ever changes for the select few.

[Wild Cobra]

surprisingly in reality america's tax code really isn't all that progressive at all, i'm pleased with the current taxation levels if they could just close up loopholes. those loopholes will have a bigger effect than "marginal rates this marginal rates that" talk tbh. i guess that's the scam though, they pretend to argue while in reality nothing ever changes for the select few.

I agree.

I also say that personal exemptions should be limited. People should not be rewarded for having more than two children. I would be happy with seeing no personal exemptions, just a standard deduction, but I know that will never fly.

If we want to favor any group, it should be married with children. The marriage penalty is a real .

[DJ Mbenga]

politcal conversation more active in the club than the politcal forum lol

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Sorry...

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

What loopholes need to be closed up?


Be specific.

[ChumpDumper]

i never took tax

Have you ever paid taxes?

[RandomGuy]

So, by default then, you think it is more than acceptable to tax those with more money at a higher rate? To what degree? Do you feel that impacts the incentive to want to be someone with more money the more it evens out due the difference in tax breaks?

I can't imagine there is more than a marginal effect on incentive. 1,000,000 or 900,000 is still far more money than a human being needs to survive and live well.

[boutons_deux]

the old incentive bull simply doesn't fly in high-tax social democracies like Scandanavia.

and if the 1% gets pissed about increased tax rates, let them GFTO and live offshore with their $100Ms in criminal tax evading accounts and $10Ts in derivative bets.

[Wild Cobra]

I can't imagine there is more than a marginal effect on incentive. 1,000,000 or 900,000 is still far more money than a human being needs to survive and live well.

That is the at ude of the lazy people who stay on government assistance. They have all they need. Do you wish to kill any motivation of people moving up? Kill reasons for innovation? Why work hard if it gets taxed away?

[silverblk mystix]

That is the at ude of the lazy people who stay on government assistance. They have all they need. Do you wish to kill any motivation of people moving up? Kill reasons for innovation? Why work hard if it gets taxed away?

GTFO with that bull . The motivation for people who have all they need already and still want more - has a name- it is called GREED.

People living off the gov't - who have all they need? I bet a hundred you don't personally know any. Nor do most fox-news watchers. It is something you parrot after hearing a few right wing fanatics spouting this . If people are living off the gov't you are stupidly mistaken if you believe they are actually living well. Those people are barely scraping by- but again- I bet you don't know any and neither do I.


I have all that I need to live for this lifetime and possibly a couple of others and Romney still wouldn't get my vote. , if Romney was on fire I wouldn't even piss on him to save him.