Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Crabtownboy, Apr 17, 2015.
The GOP just can't help but help the super rich at the expense of the rest of us.
So are you suggesting that everyone pay death taxes?
How is it at "the expense of the rest of us"?
Haven't you heard?
The government took in more tax money this year than ever.
But of course they still spent way more than they took in too.
The "at the expense of the rest of us" is the debt that the government is accumulating for our children and the next umpteen generations to pay the interest on while our tax dollars get wasted.
It's time to cut spending.
Why add to the national debt by giving the already rich a tax break. They have loop-holes that allow them to pay less in income taxes than you and I.
How about giving us a break?
Because it adds to the national debt and giving the rich more breaks just means you and I will have to pay more in the long run ... and out kids and grand-kids.
No wonder the middle class is disappearing. This only hastens it.
What are you talking about?
The top end of the wage earners bracket already carries a substantially heavier load than the bottom end. 50% of wage earners in this country already carry 97% of the income tax burden. What exactly do you think should be happening?
This is just false. They all pay more in taxes than the average American even makes.
A person works hard and pays taxes. When he dies, what he leaves behind for his heirs has been subject to another round of taxes just because someone dies.
You get the feeling that the government is all vulture and buzzard.
People like Hillary, considered to be worth one hundred to two hundred million dollars, want to leave the money to the daughter Chelsea. Since Hillary has already paid taxes on that hard-earned money, why should poor Chelsea have to pay another round of taxes?
From the article in the op
So liberals idea of fixing any income gap is to take wealth by force of government from the rich. They really believe that fixes the issue? This goes to show the brainless mind of a liberal.
I've always felt that the notion liberals think the government can forcibly take wealth from one to give it to another (simple wealth distribution) just proves that liberals believe wealth belongs to the government.
Sure, that is why Warren Buffet pays less, percentage wise, than his secretary. Even Warren says this is legal, but wrong.
Yes, they may pay more in dollars. After all 10% of 20 million is more than 25 percent of $40,000. But there is no need to lower their taxes and add to the national debt. The rich and super-rich are not going to go hungry.
Warren Buffet pays CAPITAL GAINS taxes while his secretary pays INCOME tax. Capital Gains taxes are kept at a lower percentage than income tax in order to encourage investment in industry. Your statement is an outright lie used by liberals to justify raising taxes even more on the rich.
The death tax is a second tax on money already taxed. Hillary has paid her taxes on the 100-200 million; Chelsea should not be forced to pay more taxes on already taxed money; that 100-200 million should go to Chelsea without her having to pay a death tax just because Uncle Sam sits around the morgue trying to rob the dead.
First I responded to your wording which did not include anything about percentages. Your original statement was false. Second, reducing taxes does not add to the national debt. Spending adds to the national debt. Right now spending is out of control.
Then you agree that the government needs to cut spending?
What makes you think that only the rich pay capital gains. I pay capital gains and I am not rich. I paid capital gains when I was much poorer than I am now. Currently I am reshuffling my investments so I will not be subject to capital gains in the future. I am in the protect what I have now stage of life.
If you are not investing your should be. But remember, to make money in the market requires working at it. And rule number 1 is never buy anything just because a broker tells you to do so.
I am quite sure that Buffet's secretary pays capital gains, or will do so when she sells her shares in Hathaway. I would be very surprised if Buffet has not given her a number of annual bonuses of shares in his fund.
Read the article before spouting ignorance. Thanks in advance.
Good. Never have agreed to taxing the dead.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Depending on what you have going on financially, and how thinks are set up, will determine capital gains and income. You were stating the oft-repeated rant that Buffet pays a lower percentage than his secretary. This is true, but they are not paying the same kind of tax. You are, quite literally, comparing apples and oranges.
Just curious, not arguing ... how do you know they are paying different taxes?