BF2S Forums Donald Trump screws investors.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

The rich already are paying the VAST majority of the tax bill in the US, so yeah what is happening now is exessive, and since rich people like money just as much as anyone else, to take it from them is punishment, just like if you were going to cut welfare, those who would get small welfare checks would consider it punishemnt and in fact be pissed off thsat they were cut off from what was never theirs.

One thing to consider is that, if you're defining rich as being everyone in the top tax bracket, those people have the vast majority of wealth in this society.

If you want to see good evidence of how much influence the elite rich have on the income tax system, observe the fact that an individual who makes just over $357,000 pays the same percentage as Bill Gates.  There's obviously a vast difference between the wealth of someone making $357,000 and someone making several billion.

So, in effect, you could essentially say that the rich have a flat income tax among themselves.  Obviously, there are multiple levels of wealth, and they all pay the same percentage (although the AMT changes a bit within that income bracket).

Also, it's rare for someone to pay the official tax percentage within that bracket.  Generally speaking, wealthy people have a lot of tax write-offs.  Usually, they end up paying the AMT, which is considerably lower than the official tax percentage.

So, when comparing how much wealthy individuals pay in America in taxes vs. how much they would pay in most of the First World, they actually have it pretty good here.  It seems rather greedy for them to be bitching about taxes, and another thing that benefits the rich is that payroll taxes have a cap.  You don't have to pay Social Security taxes beyond the first $100,000 or so you make in income.  So this makes the payroll tax affect the working class much more than the rich.


I've always thought we needed more payroll tax reform than income tax reform, but few politicians even talk about that.

Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2009-03-07 07:56:37)

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

The rich already are paying the VAST majority of the tax bill in the US, so yeah what is happening now is exessive, and since rich people like money just as much as anyone else, to take it from them is punishment, just like if you were going to cut welfare, those who would get small welfare checks would consider it punishemnt and in fact be pissed off thsat they were cut off from what was never theirs.

One thing to consider is that, if you're defining rich as being everyone in the top tax bracket, those people have the vast majority of wealth in this society.

If you want to see good evidence of how much influence the elite rich have on the income tax system, observe the fact that an individual who makes just over $357,000 pays the same percentage as Bill Gates.  There's obviously a vast difference between the wealth of someone making $357,000 and someone making several billion.

So, in effect, you could essentially say that the rich have a flat income tax among themselves.  Obviously, there are multiple levels of wealth, and they all pay the same percentage (although the AMT changes a bit within that income bracket).

Also, it's rare for someone to pay the official tax percentage within that bracket.  Generally speaking, wealthy people have a lot of tax write-offs.  Usually, they end up paying the AMT, which is considerably lower than the official tax percentage.

So, when comparing how much wealthy individuals pay in America in taxes vs. how much they would pay in most of the First World, they actually have it pretty good here.  It seems rather greedy for them to be bitching about taxes, and another thing that benefits the rich is that payroll taxes have a cap.  You don't have to pay Social Security taxes beyond the first $100,000 or so you make in income.  So this makes the payroll tax affect the working class much more than the rich.

I've always thought we needed more payroll tax reform than income tax reform, but few politicians even talk about that.

try 30% of 357,000 to 30% of 300,000,000 and tell me if the rich are paying the same amount of money to the govt. regardless of income. Or are you suggesting that someone making 300,000,000 should really have to pay 40 or 50 or 60 percent more than the rest?

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-03-07 08:09:06)

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One thing to consider is that, if you're defining rich as being everyone in the top tax bracket, those people have the vast majority of wealth in this society.

If you want to see good evidence of how much influence the elite rich have on the income tax system, observe the fact that an individual who makes just over $357,000 pays the same percentage as Bill Gates.  There's obviously a vast difference between the wealth of someone making $357,000 and someone making several billion.

So, in effect, you could essentially say that the rich have a flat income tax among themselves.  Obviously, there are multiple levels of wealth, and they all pay the same percentage (although the AMT changes a bit within that income bracket).

Also, it's rare for someone to pay the official tax percentage within that bracket.  Generally speaking, wealthy people have a lot of tax write-offs.  Usually, they end up paying the AMT, which is considerably lower than the official tax percentage.

So, when comparing how much wealthy individuals pay in America in taxes vs. how much they would pay in most of the First World, they actually have it pretty good here.  It seems rather greedy for them to be bitching about taxes, and another thing that benefits the rich is that payroll taxes have a cap.  You don't have to pay Social Security taxes beyond the first $100,000 or so you make in income.  So this makes the payroll tax affect the working class much more than the rich.

I've always thought we needed more payroll tax reform than income tax reform, but few politicians even talk about that.

try 30% of 357,000 to 30% of 300,000,000 and tell me if the rich are paying the same amount of money to the govt. regardless of income. Or are you suggesting that someone making 300,000,000 should really have to pay 40 or 50 or 60 percent more than the rest?

It is quite clear what he is saying. As a proportion of their income, the rich pay less.

In total the rich pay less. Because there are fewer of them. It is the middle earners, who are still in the top tax bracket, that provide the bulk of the countries income tax revenue.

Personally I'd like to see them paying an extra 10 or 15% - not 40, 50 or 60% more - @ 93% tax bracket....

Bertster7 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

I guess, how many of those countries are as big influencial and powerful as the US? you are comparing apples to apples, and calling it success when the US is an orange

Not that I agree with Scandinavian politics, but consider the population.

Scandinavia: ~20mn
US: ~300mn

You're comparing one big orange to five small tangerines when making a point about global presence. That doesn't make much sense.

I'm not - I'm comparing the EU to the US.

~ 500 million EU

~ 300 million US

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One thing to consider is that, if you're defining rich as being everyone in the top tax bracket, those people have the vast majority of wealth in this society.

If you want to see good evidence of how much influence the elite rich have on the income tax system, observe the fact that an individual who makes just over $357,000 pays the same percentage as Bill Gates.  There's obviously a vast difference between the wealth of someone making $357,000 and someone making several billion.

So, in effect, you could essentially say that the rich have a flat income tax among themselves.  Obviously, there are multiple levels of wealth, and they all pay the same percentage (although the AMT changes a bit within that income bracket).

Also, it's rare for someone to pay the official tax percentage within that bracket.  Generally speaking, wealthy people have a lot of tax write-offs.  Usually, they end up paying the AMT, which is considerably lower than the official tax percentage.

So, when comparing how much wealthy individuals pay in America in taxes vs. how much they would pay in most of the First World, they actually have it pretty good here.  It seems rather greedy for them to be bitching about taxes, and another thing that benefits the rich is that payroll taxes have a cap.  You don't have to pay Social Security taxes beyond the first $100,000 or so you make in income.  So this makes the payroll tax affect the working class much more than the rich.

I've always thought we needed more payroll tax reform than income tax reform, but few politicians even talk about that.

try 30% of 357,000 to 30% of 300,000,000 and tell me if the rich are paying the same amount of money to the govt. regardless of income. Or are you suggesting that someone making 300,000,000 should really have to pay 40 or 50 or 60 percent more than the rest?

That's just unrealistic and using your argument about punishing it seems those who make more than $500 000 to ~ get away quite nicely under America's current rates.  Obviously there is a cap on how much the government can charge but raising the rate upto atleast 40-45% would bring in some serious cash money for the government. The UK did it and they're just as diverse so the US could easily do it as well. You guys got it easy, in Norway it's around 55% for top earners.

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

lowing wrote:

but regardless, 30% or 300,000 is 90,000 , 30% of 300,000,000 is 90,000,000 so 90,000 compared to 90,000,000 is a vast difference and is punishment enough.

...but proportionately it's the exact same punishment.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It is quite clear what he is saying. As a proportion of their income, the rich pay less.

In total the rich pay less. Because there are fewer of them. It is the middle earners, who are still in the top tax bracket, that provide the bulk of the countries income tax revenue.

Personally I'd like to see them paying an extra 10 or 15% - not 40, 50 or 60% more - @ 93% tax bracket....

Yer right, I mis-typed, I didn't not mean pay 40 50 or 60 percent MORE, I meant a 40 or 50 ot 60 percent bracket.


but regardless, 30% or 300,000 is 90,000 , 30% of 300,000,000 is 90,000,000 so 90,000 compared to 90,000,000 is a vast difference and is punishment enough.

Which is better; having $210,000 or having $210,000,000?

Bertster7 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I'm not - I'm comparing the EU to the US.

~ 500 million EU

~ 300 million US

My post quoted lowing's, and was directed at the absolute concepts and direct comparisons between the US and EU member states that he seems to employ when comparing Scandinavia and the EU in general to the US in terms of global impact.

Exactly as mine have been.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Which is better; having $210,000 or having $210,000,000?

You are missing the point that it IS MONEY THEY EARNED, for you to take it from them simply because you feel entitled to it is bullshit. They already pay the vast majority of taxes. It is quite enough.

They don't pay the majority of taxes.

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

lowing wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

...but proportionately it's the exact same punishment.

regardless as to how you cut it or justify it, 90,000 is only 90,000 and 90 million IS 90 million.

$90 000 is a lot of money to someone who only has 300 and whatever thousand income a year. Theoretically it is an equal "punishment" whichever way you choose to look at.

lowing wrote:

We have one central govt. You do not, you have a union that you can either join or not, pick and choose what you want to agree to or not. YOU are not the same as the US.

Bertster7 wrote:

You are a bunch of states with a centralised government.

The EU is a bunch of states with a centralised parliament.

The EU is bigger than the US.

There are differences absolutely. But there are also resounding similarities.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-03-07 08:34:28)

lowing wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

lowing wrote:

regardless as to how you cut it or justify it, 90,000 is only 90,000 and 90 million IS 90 million.

$90 000 is a lot of money to someone who only has 300 and whatever thousand income a year. Theoretically it is an equal "punishment" whichever way you choose to look at.

to ANY individual, 90,000 is a lot of money, and 90,000,000 is a lot MORE money, whichever way you choose to look at it.

mikkel wrote:

This entire debacle could be avoided with the introduction of a flat tax, the elimination of private write-offs for investments that are not for personal use or consumption, and the elimination of most all tax credits. Pay your taxes, do your own risk management, and save your own ass if you fuck up.