I'm not rich, but have a huge issue with taxing them back into the stone-age. Why? Well, those rich folk not only make a ton of money, they spend a ton as well. They impact all walks of life - construction, food service, automotive, etc...

Take the guy making 205K a year. Good, but buy no means 'filthy rich'. Now Kerry takes an extra 10K out of his pocket. That 10K might have been a new car for thier kid going off to college. Might have been a vacation helping out a tourist state. Might have been more money poured into the stock market, bonds, blah blah blah.

Point is it's a TON of money being taken OUT of our economy. Billions and billions being REMOVED from businesses. I firmly believe it will make a HUGE ecomonic impact on us. Great, we got some lame healthcare plan most americans will not use and our GNP just went down. Wonderful, that's what we need.

7% for a straight tax is way to low. I can see two flat taxes. Below poverty line 7% and the rest around 20% or so.

Sorry, but the upper class got their via hard work and aided in building this great economy we have. B*tch-slapping them with more taxes is an insult. They already fork over more money in taxes than most on this board make annually.

 

When the cowboys were talkin to the indians they had to occasionally throw in some indian words or the indians would reject the entire discourse.

It is diplomacy at it's finest.

 

I agree. I am in no way rich but saying you should slam the rich with taxes is not the way to go either. A couple friends of mine make some serious bank, (They are both architects, self employed). Now just because they make more money than you on paper doesnt mean they should be slammed with penalties for it. Sure they make over $200k a year, but they each put in no less than 70-80 hours a week. Hell I have to get an appointment just to call them. Point being, you cant slam them just because they make money, they earn that money. And D is right about spending and moving cash through the market. If my family makes over $200k I dont want to be slapped with an additional $10k plus higher percentages just because I make more. Thats like saying, "Hey congrats on your degrees, working very hard and making a good living, now give it back b!tch."

 

Just for some clarity the article stated that Heinz-Kerry paid 12% while the Bush's paid 27%.

They both paid 27%.

The Bush numbers are simple to see.
Heinz-Kerry paid 27% on 2.2 million (5M - 2.8M)

They spin the numbers by,
"2.8M ...that escaped all federal taxes because it was from interest-free investments from state, city and other public funds."

Hello?
She could have stuffed the amount of money that generated the 2.8M tax free interest in her mattress.

Then local, state and other public entities could have foregone whatever ungodly amount that was on Schools, Roads and other Public services.

Very unfair to make Public use of the money and then have the gall to claim she only paid 12% in Public taxes.

 

I'm not for the fleecing of the rich either; but I am about fairness.

Now, if over $200,000/year qualifies you as rich, then you should be taxed at the same rate as those who make far less.

I won't say what my salary actually was last year, but I paid $19,000 in Federal taxes and another (If memory serves) 8 or 9 thousand in FICA and the other stuff. Throw in what my wife paid and we chipped in at least 28,000 in Federal taxes just from our household.

That puts us in the 21% bracket (Or the 24%; I don't recall- H&R block did my taxes).

Anyhoo; if we can make what we make and chip in 21-24% not counting sales tax, FICA, benefits, and other basic livign expenses that the IRS seems to care nothing about out of our annual income; then someone bringing in 200,000+ should be able to do the same. If someone making $200,000 was to pay at the rate that I paid, then they'd pay $42,000 in income taxes and another 10 - 13K in FICA etc.. So, let's just call it $55,000. They still bring home (Excluding the state tax rate) $145,000/year.

Divide that by 12 months and that's $12,083/month or $6,041.50 on the 1st and 15th. I don't know about you, but I could get some bills paid off at that rate.

So no, I feel no sympathy because they may pay 80% of America's taxes. It's those wealthy Americans that probably paid less (Percentage wise) than you paid last year. Is that fair to you? If you think so, you must be a liberal- pretending to be conservative.... (Flip-Floppers)
-----------------------------------------------------------|
If you make $30,000/year and paid in at a rate of 17% you paid approximately $5,100 in Federal taxes. Leaving you with $24,900 spread over 12 months (Not counting state tax and FICA, etc.. deductions) So, you brought home roughly $1,000 on the 1st & 15th.

Meanwhile, John Preston (Made up person) Made $300,000 last year. He paid in 24% or $72,000 in taxes. Leaving him with a measley $228,000 to get by on for the rest of the year. That's $19,000 a month (Bring home) or $9,500 on the first & 15th.

John can still afford an F-150, A BMW 745Li, a Hummer H2 and a Lexus SC430, parked in the garage of his $400,000 home with a 4-car garage (California = $800,000). And, John eats steak every night, his wife doesn't work and she takes care of the kid, so they aren't paying daycare either. And, he still manages to sock away $2,000 a month into savings.

Now, lookign at that- who do you think is better able to pay a litle more in taxes? The guy living in a 6,000 sq. foot home in Tucson, or the guy living in a 700 Sq. foot apartment in Nogales?

I'm not saying rob them blind, but clearly these folks can afford to pay a little bit more.

I'm not a hater- in in the 6-figure range too, but not $200K and certainly not $300K. But, I'm trying to make it. If the example I've shown shows how well a person making 300,000/year can live. You know the millionaires and billionaires of this country can afford to pay a little bit more in taxes....

 

I think they should work on actually getting the million/billionare to pay what they owe. Look at Hienzy. Or Bill Gates. Or Opera. The team of lawyer & tax experts working the system to save them millions and get them big bonuses is ludicrous.

Don't take the guy trying to earn a good living and retire early and have a comfortable life.

Again, the impact on the economy is what scares me the most. Let the rich folks have their money.

 

I'm all for a flat tax between poverty level and filthy rich. Below poverty level, they pay less, they sure can use the extra money, above filthy rich (I know its a vague decription) they pay more as they won't even miss it. That was, "joe average" and they guy who busted his butt to be "joe above average" pay the same proportionately, the burden is somewhat shifted towards those who can blow millions on frivolous stuff and not even miss it and off of those who struggle to make ends meet. Everyone in the middle pays the same proportion and gets rewarded for working harder. You graduate to filthy rich and guess what you can't possibly miss that money. Just the humble opinion of the guy making $35K/ year. I figure this way the vast majority of americans can pay equally in proportion to what they make.


I think that there are entirely too many deductions as well, that needs to be pared down. What does it matter if you spend $20K on porno, truck mods and beer or if you spend it on college tuition?

 

A flat 7% tax on everyone, corporations and all with no deductions possible would take care of America's tax woes period. Most of America's mega-corporations dont pay taxes at all. In fact the top 3 GM, Microsoft, Disney didnt pay anything at all in taxes.

Close the loop-holes a flat tax with no deductions for one and all is a fair way for EVERYONE to paya fair share.

As for the upper class getting to that point with hard work I would have to disagree there are many aristocratic American families now Rockefellers, Mellons, Duponts, Hiltons etc etc etc.. that didnt lift a finger for thier inherited millions/billions.

The rich have the most at stake to lose in America and the economy that is why they should shoulder more in taxes.

 

The "rich" can afford getting high priced lawyers and accountants to find themselves little loop holes in the system, do you really think for an instance that they really pay more then the average middle class american?

 

I agree with ya Fatman...

Large mega-corporations and the "rich" have high priced accountants and lawyers to manipulate the system so they pay far less then the average American pays.

I have a few friends that are well above the 200k range they are self-made buisness men and they have accountants that take advantage of the tax system to lower thier taxes. Are they wrong for what they do? Or are they simply taking advantage of thier ability to hire an accountant to take care of the loop-holes and fix thier taxes up right? They pay more in taxes over all then I do but they also enjoy a much higher standard of living then I do making my meager teaching wages.

I believe the rich have a far more vested interest in America and its economy and longevity as a nation and that is why they should shoulder more of the nations taxes. Should it be a crippling amount? No. But it should be much more then the middle class average American family has to shoulder.

You squeeze the middle class out of existance and the "rich" will lose everything because when you have 90% below or at the poverty level and 10% living off the fat you end up with a nice fat revolution on your hands... its just historical facts.

 

I'd like to see the math to backup your 7% claim. No way that would work.

Big corps pay a butt load in taxes. They do get tax breaks for xx number of years on new plants, buildings, etc.. but their ecomonic impact is huge.

So what if some one inherits their money? They should be penalized more for that?

No one should 'shoulder more in taxes' due to their success. Why hire more folks and expand your business to make more money if your just going to get wammied more come tax time?!

 

Contrary to what some might believe, I think that Raouls reasoning is sound. Not bashing but airing concerns. It's not necessary to agree to understand.

If only we could see this type of diplomacy practiced by our politicians. I guess I'm expecting too much.

 

Income tax, is income tax.

THe more people companys lay off, the more money they retain, and the more taxes they pay.

It's a two-edged sword. I'd think company's would run as close to red as possible to avoid paying taxes. That means max pay for employees, or max spending on assets. Or, the downside- max bonuses for the already well-off executives.

 

I'd like to see a national sales tax. You pay it whenever you buy anything but food and prescription meds. The more you buy, the more you pay. Rich folks buy more, then they pay more. Tax collected at the point of sale can be documented. Sure folks could sell personal items without reporting it, but they have paid taxes on it already. You want to pay less taxes? Spend less.

Then you would not need the army of IRS agents and accountants, tax preparers and the like. Accountants have plenty of other things to do. Tax preparers I'm not so sure about, except if they're smart enough to deal with today's tax codes, they have *got* to be smart enough to do a whole bunch of other things. I'm sure that Uncle Sugar can find meaningful employment for its IRS corps.

 

I worked the numbers a while back using available Fed data.
I think the flat rate across the board would have to be around 18% to maintain status quo.

More to remove deficit.