Re: the last sentence, this is exactly the mindset they want you to have. The elimination of the carried interest tax loophole is not going to hurt you any more than AMT relaxation is going to hurt them.
Have you noticed in history what happens when there is a large gap between the wealthy and the poor? It has been the downfall of many a nation. A growing income and education gap is a problem.
We are talking about a growing gap between the wealthy and the poor. It doesn't just have to be Bill Gates level.
I don't know why it has to be that way, but whenever Congress raises taxes on the rich, they draw the lines such that they catch many people that few consider wealthy.
If you are referring to the AMT - the issue is that it has not been adjusted for inflation. But I understand your point, as I am rapidly falling into the same problem. Sucks to be upper-middle class - enough money to get the attention of the taxman, not enough money to get the attention of the politician who directs him.
Quick Question: I know this sounds simple but If The Government is taking say . . .25% of my income why is it wrong to take 25% of their income too? I like the Flat Tax There 25% is more than mine but that does not mean it means more to them than mine does to me Rocket River
The thing about the flat tax is that it does mean more to you than it does to them. 25% of someone making 40K a year would knock their income down to 30K. A person making 400K a year would drop down to 300K. A person who makes 300K instead of 400K feels it much less than the person who goes from 40K down to 30K. The flat tax hurts the lower income earners a lot more than it does the upper income earners even though they pay the same percentage.
That is true. Marginal value. A dollar to someone who makes 10000 a year is something he has to think about, a dollar to someone who makes 10000000 is nothing.
The rich get richer because they can buy the lawyers, lobbyist and politicians...that control the army and the police. They can also buy or influence the public information systems. What logical sense is there to charging 15% maximum on capital gains when that is about the minimum for earned income. Well, people that own things get capital gains, people that work for their income in general, don't pay lobbyist, lawyers and politicians. Wouldn't it make more sense to tax monies you don't have to work forthan the People that live from paycheck to paycheck? Personally, I would have nationalized all utilities, natural resources and transportation sysytems to pay for the federal government, things that should be owned by the people as a whole. But John D. Rockerfeller, Commodor Vanderbilt and William Randolph Hearst probably would have had the Pinkertons feed me to the pigs. The only advantage poorer people have is numbers, that can be used in strikes, populist movements and revolutions, But as long as people aren't starving and the TV is good, the rich will just keep getting richer.
You dont have to use my logic, they do b****. People well above that threshold b**** all the time. Read one of my earlier posts for specific example. But anyway the growing gap from the mere schlubs who scrape together high 6 low 7 figures and the new masters of the universe has been a subject of much controversy and a lot of media coverage recently. And please, if you think 364 g's per annum qualifies you as rich with respect to most major metropolitan areas where you can earn that much, you are simply off your rocker. 364 gs in manhattan means you can afford the 200k down payment and pay the 5000 monthly mortgage on your 1BR, then put together a nice little nest egg by saving a nice chunk every year. Comfortable? Yes. Rich? Hardly. Since you brought it up in the context of a douchey comment, if you want douchiness returned, look up the market rates of what a seventh year law firm associate makes in manhattan at a large law firm that pays market, which was my previous job. I don't get that anymore, but I'm pretty happy with the tradeoff I made and it hasn't affected my views on this issue. None of that is at all relevant to this discussion however.
There needs to be some physical barrier that separates us from the "have-nots". Quite frankly, they frighten me. Why not an underground city?
I hope everyone realizes that many people who have $1 million investable assets (not including real estate) do not consider themselves wealthy. The traditional rule of thumb is that if you withdraw 5% of your assets per year, your money will last about 20-30 years. 5% of $1 million is $50k. Add in SS $25k and you have a whopping $75k. Does anyone believe that $75k/year pre- tax is wealthy??
Space Ghost, yes, you did say "any party," but you also said it was raw economics at work, implying that not one particular party was at fault. I personally believe that is patently false. Bush and the GOP have largely created this mess we are in and the further mess we are decending into. Saying they haven't is, in my opinion, dishonest. Then you end it with, "If anything, I fault the democrats with the soci(a)lists views of everyone needing to be equal." I'm sorry if I seemed to you to come across a bit strong, and perhaps I did, but you should look at it from my perspective. I am a Democrat, a member of the Democratic Party, and have been for many years now. I've gone to county conventions as a delegate. I used to be an independent, but decided to go with the party that best expressed my views, warts and all. You are stating that Democrats have socialist views that everyone should be equal. That simply isn't true. If we, those Democrats you mentioned, could agree on anything, we'd have been running the country the last several years, instead of going through this Bush induced nightmare. I'm for equal rights for everyone, regardless of sex, creed, or color. That includes the equal right to not be as successful as the next person, the equal right to make more money than the other guy or gal, the equal right to do a host of things, good and bad, that others might not like. In short, the equal right to be whatever you can be, including a failure or a millionaire. If that's socialism, I'm a socialist. And guess what... a lot of Democrats wouldn't agree with part or all of that. It's just how we are. So I was responding more to the last sentence in your post than anything preceeding it, although it was in there as well. And if I offended you in doing so, I apologize. Impeach Bush.
Nothing is with the flat tax, I am all for a flat tax, much easier for everyone. As for your question, the top 1% earns about 22% of the total income, but pays about 40% of the total tax.
