[2Adam29]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

You do realize that something like 95% of the taxes in this country are paid by the top 50%, right And that included in some of Bush's tax cuts is also a 2% tax cut for the lower and middle class, I believe.

You also realize that his "tax cuts" that Obama is going to issue is really just a rebate...and that 40% of the people in America don't pay taxes now, right? It's been estimated that the number will be 49% after 2 years of obama.

What fundamental reason is there for the wealthy to pay a higher percentage of their income? I absolutely agree that they should pay their fair share...but I don't know how 40% is fair for them while 28% is fair for someone else.

Warren Buffet, walked around his office, and offered his employees to voluntarily fill out a survey on their tax rates. He found he paid a significantly below average rate, despite his ability to easily pay taxes.
At the end of the day, back when Clinton was in office, the economy saw a surplus, and people were pretty well off. We would be returning to that for some, and offering a boost to those who need it. I think that's a good plan reguardless of what you want to label it.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by ehenningsen

That is true, they pay about 95% of the taxes...

They also make about 99.9% of the nations income, as this class includes millionaires and billionaires and not a single person in poverty...

Would you feel better that the bottom 50% paid the same amount of taxes as the top 50%?

I'll answer a few questions: Pelosi and Reid got elected by their home states. Some parts of the country are more liberal than others.

And now for the tax question:

Nobody is saying that the rich should pay the same amount...but they shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage. If a guy makes 1,000,000 a year, then 10% of that is 100,000. If a guy makes 30,000 a year, then 10% is 3,000. The rich still pays a much higher amount...but he shouldn't have to pay a much higher percentage of his earnings.

As for the last comment about jobs going to china? The reason they're going to china is because even the poor in our country is rich compared to other countries. The simple answer is that labor is cheaper in other countries. If/when people here are willing to do the work, they'll stay here--it just has to be economically viable. I'm sorry, but I can't expect corporations to run as charities. Their shareholders expect them to maximize profits.

I'm not sure how you're going to stop that. It's a product of our own wealth.


*** One more comment about Buffet --- you know why he pays less taxes, than his employees, right?

He doesn't take a salary--or a very small one. He is rich beyond imagination--but he does not actually take much of a paycheck every week. So it's a bit misleading.

if he wanted to pay more taxes, as he seems to indicate, I'm sure the IRS would be happy to accept a check for a few billion dollars.

[GMinSWO]

I will try answering your questions laserdisque;

The district for whom Nancy Pelosi represents is left of center; how much left of center I will leave for others to discuss. So it is easy for someone of her political viewpoint to win there. Just like it is is easy for someone who is right of center to win the third district in Nebraska.

To answer why Obama won the election is more difficult but I will give my humble opinion. Look at the 2nd district in Nebraska; some native Omahans may think we are "progressive or left leaning" (which we are compared to the rest of the State) but I would argue that the district is a good example of "mainstream" America, which is probably on the whole a right leaning group. In the district there are some staunch conservatives; some staunch liberals (most of my friends being this group) and lots of centrist "independents" who usually like to keep the status quo, unless there are extraordinary circumstances. ie bad economy, cult of personality (good song by the way), etc. These circumstances were both present, the independants were swayed away from the status quo and now Obama is president. Being a Libertarian I did not like either candidate, but the guy I voted for got less than 1% of the vote so obviously I am pretty fringe.

[ehenningsen]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

I'll answer a few questions: Pelosi and Reid got elected by their home states. Some parts of the country are more liberal than others.

And now for the tax question:

Nobody is saying that the rich should pay the same amount...but they shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage. If a guy makes 1,000,000 a year, then 10% of that is 100,000. If a guy makes 30,000 a year, then 10% is 3,000. The rich still pays a much higher amount...but he shouldn't have to pay a much higher percentage of his earnings.

As for the last comment about jobs going to china? The reason they're going to china is because even the poor in our country is rich compared to other countries. The simple answer is that labor is cheaper in other countries. If/when people here are willing to do the work, they'll stay here--it just has to be economically viable. I'm sorry, but I can't expect corporations to run as charities. Their shareholders expect them to maximize profits.

I'm not sure how you're going to stop that. It's a product of our own wealth.


*** One more comment about Buffet --- you know why he pays less taxes, than his employees, right?

He doesn't take a salary--or a very small one. He is rich beyond imagination--but he does not actually take much of a paycheck every week. So it's a bit misleading.

if he wanted to pay more taxes, as he seems to indicate, I'm sure the IRS would be happy to accept a check for a few billion dollars.

The government figures disposable income..

Money 'after' the average cost of living... You know, food, rent etc...

There are many tax breaks too for the rich, many that people with less money don't see..

[Todd4]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

I'll answer a few questions: Pelosi and Reid got elected by their home states. Some parts of the country are more liberal than others.

And now for the tax question:

Nobody is saying that the rich should pay the same amount...but they shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage. If a guy makes 1,000,000 a year, then 10% of that is 100,000. If a guy makes 30,000 a year, then 10% is 3,000. The rich still pays a much higher amount...but he shouldn't have to pay a much higher percentage of his earnings.

As for the last comment about jobs going to china? The reason they're going to china is because even the poor in our country is rich compared to other countries. The simple answer is that labor is cheaper in other countries. If/when people here are willing to do the work, they'll stay here--it just has to be economically viable. I'm sorry, but I can't expect corporations to run as charities. Their shareholders expect them to maximize profits.

I'm not sure how you're going to stop that. It's a product of our own wealth.


*** One more comment about Buffet --- you know why he pays less taxes, than his employees, right?

He doesn't take a salary--or a very small one. He is rich beyond imagination--but he does not actually take much of a paycheck every week. So it's a bit misleading.

if he wanted to pay more taxes, as he seems to indicate, I'm sure the IRS would be happy to accept a check for a few billion dollars.

Mainstream politicians and most economists don't believe in a "flat tax" because most people understand that a set % on a family making $35,000/yr is going to be much more of a burden then that % on a family making $300,000/yr.

Simply because things like food, gas, education, healthcare, automobiles and every other product are not purchased on a sliding scale.

i.e. (20% - $7,000 on a $35,000 income is going to have a far greater impact on a family than $60,000 on a family that makes $300,000)

[kdbrich]

You make a good point. I still don't understand though, why they should be penalized by a higher percentage of taxes for being successful.

[ehenningsen]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

You make a good point. I still don't understand though, why they should be penalized by a higher percentage of taxes for being successful.

Actually, that is not what it is about..

for those that make a lower wage the burden per tax dollar is much greater..

If I had it my way, it would be a flat tax, but it would be detrimental for those that don't make much..

[Todd4]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

You make a good point. I still don't understand though, why they should be penalized by a higher percentage of taxes for being successful.

I think that an argument could be that certain people have been given more advantages (family wealth, intelligence..etc.) than others and therefore it is their moral obligation to help maintain a somewhat safe and balanced society so that they can continue to prosper.

[kdbrich]

Ironically, Obama proves that false, doesn't he?

He didn't have all the advantages and he's been elected prez.

[ehenningsen]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Ironically, Obama proves that false, doesn't he?

He didn't have all the advantages and he's been elected prez.

That is true, and your right that it is not impossible...

But the fact remains that the ones born into wealth and fame have a much, much higher success rate in life..

Second that to the fact that the poor (or backbone of the entire economy) has enough troubles with their bills..

A few extra hundred dollars a year for the poor goes very far, and helps sustain them..