I wholeheartedly agree. What a generalization. My father and his brothers and cousins came here from India, without more than a couple dollars in each of their pockets. They couldn't even afford their ticket over here, and had to borrow money from one of their uncles who had came here a few years earlier and had already seen some success. They grew up in the villages of India. They were barely middle class in India. And now all of them are extremely successful businessmen because they worked their asses off. They would have 2-3 jobs during the day and go to night school at UH. Those jobs were working in a fan factory and throwing newspapers. They are now in the top 1% of the country. That's the American Dream and that's why my dad is my hero.
so if the tax rate for the highest bracket went from 35 to 39%. you'd forgo the extra 100 grand because you had to work for 139 thousand instead of 135 thousand? ps: read about the laffer curve. output wont be hurt anywhere near 39%.
tell me when your father came did he have education? did he have family support? perhaps a scholarship to go to school? did yall have a tradition of education in the family? were yall discriminated against for centuries in america? did your father grow up in a single parent household? did he grow up around a lot of crime? were the police after him constantly growing up? was his school in utter disrepair and around drugs? (this is all in india of course) also. in india they were in a village right? were they landowners in the village? if not were the land owners extremely wealthy and opulent? did he live across the railroad tracks from million dollar homes? was there extreme relative poverty thrown in his face constantly? and even if all this wasn't the case, its still not right. why should i expect everyone who wants to succeed to work this hard to live a decent life when i pretty much have coasted by because i went to a great school and going to college and grad school were expected of me and supported by the family. when i never had to be around crime and never had to go thru the things people in the inner cities or rural towns or indian villages have to. why should my education and safety, which are a direct result of how we have distributed tax payer funds, be so advantageous to me when other people have really crappy education and live in unsafe areas.
The irony of taxing high income earners is that it only penalizes those working professionals who only know about doing their profession well and not about all the accounting shenanigans the millionaires use to get out of paying half of their true net worth every year in taxes. Most small businesses aren't llc's so the owners are personally liable for the debts of the company and these sort of taxes do hammer them hard. That is why people say it will negatively impact small business. More generally, unless you are an accountant you're gonna get hosed by the US tax code plain and simple. Unless your business is money, you aren't ever going to get "rich." What type of policy is that?
Running a business takes risks. Sometimes you make money, sometimes you lose. If the return is not worth the risk, you put your money somewhere else, like international markets, tax free bonds, etc... Ross Perot had $2billion in tax free bonds and collects $120million every year tax free.
Government intervention in student loans and housing affordability has increased demand for those services. Prices rose in accordance with the increased demand. Prices now make it even more difficult for Americans to pay for education and housing. Government then promises to help even more. Chicken. Egg. Chicken. Egg.
yes lets make housing and education unaffordable. nothing i hate more than uppity immigrants who betray their pasts. so you wouldn't risk making a 100 grand because you may have to pay 4 thousand dollars extra? but if you had to pay 4 thousand dolalrs less you would take those risks? gosh. i thought we were rational actors.
Hahaha...i figured you'd call me an elitist rather than an 'Uppity immigrant'. If you don't understand the concepts i'm discussing as a philosophical argument then you should go back to the crayons.
There are more than 1 way to make $100 grand. If someone were to make a $2Million a year, it's definately going to put a dent in his pocket. You may be able to live on his dent, but it's still his dent.
This whole debate has been blown way out of proportion by the prole on this board so let me restate my position on this. I DO NOT HATE POOR PEOPLE NOR WANT THEM TO SUFFER FOREVER. My issue is that why I should pay a single dime more to the prole than I already do? People tell me the country is in ruins, economy is down, prole are struggling with inadequate nutrition, housing, education etc...plus the have a ton of debt, bad mortgages, no savings, no equity, no investments, no retirement, NOTHING. Undeniable Fact: the prole and the rich BOTH elected the Bush administration with their votes. So why do only the rich have too pay the price for this disaster? The question is not can the rich afford it but should they be the only one responsible for the current state of affairs in this country? You keep repeating that I can afford a few extra thousands dollars but this a matter of entitlement. Mark these words, I am willing to personal give away DOUBLE the amount I would owe in tax under this proposed plan to charities rather than let these communist handout my hard earned money to pay for the votes they buy in these elections.
How do you know that the people who disagree with you here are not wealthy? Because the amount you pay now is rather arbitrary. You could ask the same question ten years ago, or 20, or 30. You shouldn't be asking why should I pay more than I do now, you should be asking what is an acceptable amount for me to pay. You invalidated your own question with the paragraph just above it. It is not the rich who are paying for this disaster. They will survive and be fine despite an economic recession. However, the poor and the middle-class will be greatly affected as you just mentioned. So the question could be easily turned around. Why shouldn't the rich also have to pay the price for this disaster.
Since you keep ignoring my question, I'll ask it again: 1. Do you consider the current tax rates to be "fair" in terms of their progressiveness? 2. If so, what makes this fair but adding 3% to one particular rate is unfair? The current system is a complete random series of changes by about 80 years worth of administrations. Are you suggesting we got to this perfect balance now? 3. If not, what would you consider to be a fair tax system? And why are you railing about a minor new change, but not about the current system?
its a bit more complicated than hiring an accountant to do your taxes for you. It has to do with how your entire financial structure is set up Its the fundamental distinction in the ways successful business owners make money compared to simple salaried employees. (Its why warren buffet's secretary pays a high % of her income in taxes than he does.) Guess who the evil millionaires are (hint, they aren't salaried employees)
because he is an idiot who lacks the desire or ability to make a rational analysis on the issue...instead he buys into the talking points that he believes best serves him
I believe I already answered your question. 3% is not a problem with me but I will not pay for votes bought by Barrack Obama. Why should I? If the communist want to buy votes then fine get your pals like Buffet to handout billions if he wants but I am not turning over a single dime.
He is not an idiot (or at least I would not call him that). He is just upset and not thinking about the situation rationally. That's quite common among us humans. There may be some rationality behind his arguments, but unfortunately we cannot see it through the anger. It's difficult to respond rationally to emotion, so we come to an impasse. ghettocheeze won't think critically about his or her current views until he or she can calm down (if that's possible). It turns out that this thread was just a rant, not a request for discussion.
This is not an answer to my question. Also, by your last statement, are you suggesting you will be committing tax fraud if Obama is elected?
I find the dichotomy of reactions between the Bush tax-cuts and the proposed Obama tax-cuts fascinating.
