My First Run In With Obamacare...

You're focusing on the federal income tax alone, while I'm pointing out the rich pay less, in percentage, to Social Security.

No, I'm only applying that to taxes, because the rich benefit greatly from government, because a stable, healthy, well-educated society make good employees for the business owners. Secondly, rich, poor, and middle class people all lost money when the economy crashed. I read a quote by a rich Obama voter in an article from around the election and he said that he lost about half of his investments, his business is bordering on bankruptcy and he said that taxes are not the only money he has. Even with a slightly higher tax rate, they do better when the economy isn't in the tank, like we had under Clinton. One other point is that a lot of rich people have a lot of income in capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate. Warren Buffett said that he pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary.

Wolfson.

 

Well, John, they don't pay as great of a percentage of their income because of the capital gains tax being lower and such.

 

Clinton had little to no effect on the economy. The GOP congress had much more effect but the major contributor was the dot come bubble which broke and cause the recession Bush inherited.

 

Then Obama inherited the Bush recession, right?

 

Not sure what the problem is. If a person making $10,000 pays 1k in taxes, and a person making $20,000 pays 1.75k in taxes, and the person making 30k pays 2.5k in taxes, this is a reasonable tax structure.

 

There's a cap on social security benefits as well, Paul, and it has a very poor return on investment the higher your earnings might be and, in fact, you get taxed on it again later if you earn over a certain amount. How is that "fair"? It adds no value to your estate and it is never really yours even though you paid in to it all your life. It can be used to pay for someone else who didn't earn it.

In fact, how is it "fair" at all that one man pays more or less for the same services he receives from his government? If a wealthy man can afford to pay more for more that's one thing but if he's required to pay more for less that actually rather unfair.

A wealthy person pays more in income tax, sales tax, estate tax, property tax, etc. than a less wealthy person and yet receives more or less the same benefit.

Two things are, however, very unfair. One is the person who pays no tax but enjoys numerous benefits not available to others who earn more. This, of course, is welfare. The other is paying much more for the same services. This is especially true with property tax. It costs no more to provide government schools, police, fire protection, etc. for a wealthy man and his family as it does a poor man and his.

The tax rebates are an insult on top of insult. People who pay little or nothing receive the same rebate than those who pay much more. How is that "fair"?

No, our tax system is very unfair.

It is popular to call for more taxes on "those who can afford it" because it lets us get the things we want off their income rather than ours. It is just selfish thievery by the force of "law" and to buy votes.

 

Just like the joke I saw on this board a day or two ago:

"It's so cold here, I saw a Democrat with his hands in his own pockets!"

'Course I would modify this slightly, and use "LIBERAL" rather than Democrat; simply because Ds aren't the only "pick-pockets around!! The Rs have their share also, but just aren't as obnoxious about it.