Ummm for a little Houston flavor ... A company like Gallery Furniture ... Does Matress Mac owe anything to the government because he was successful. Hell No! He worked his butt off and deserved everything he has just like most owners of businesses ... Just because he was successful doesnt mean I think he should pay more for my highways and whatever else the government uses the tax money for than I do.
Just as an FYI, the Nasdaq closed at a 2.5 year high today. Apparently someone thinks the economy is rebounding.
So you don't have any emprical data and are just talking out your ass..somehow I'm not surprised... BTW, as for owing things to me, I am single, rent an apartment in Manhattan, and work on Wall Street, do the math, bud...you think I don't know about paying taxes or subsidizing the rest of you guys? The difference is, I pay my fair share and then some and don't b**** about it like the rest of you pikers. You owe ME a great big check by your logic...tell me when I can expect it as I plan on buying a new TV soon...
He will pay a darn sight less than that. After all his deductions and expenses along with all the other loopholes his accountant can think of, he will not even approach the number you stated. While I agree that this guy deserves to keep as much money as possible, you have to open your eyes and see that the doctor you mention owes more than other people in debt to the society which gave him the path to his current stature. If this doctor actually paid what you claim he did, I would agree that his tax burden does not need to be raised, but you and I both know that your numbers are a fallacy. Of course I see a difference, but the tax cuts you are so vehemently defending are also going to take away the estate tax and capital gains tax, both of which apply exclusively or nearly so to the inheritance babies you decry. These tax cuts are going to bankrupt this country and could force us to have to scrap social security, which is probably the aim of these neo-con f***s to start with. Do you see the difference now? The tax policies you are supporting are going to penalize the vary people you say will be hurt by them. Working people will bear the brunt of taxation so that trust fund babies and wealthy families get to amass wealth without paying their fair share. Ask yourself why, over the last 60 years, the only group to see an actual reduction in taxes has been the very wealthy. Why do they get to legally shirk their responsibility while those among us who work for a living get the shaft?
OK, let's look at this one... Furniture goes in houses and many houses are bought through federal loan programs. The people who own those homes and buy that furniture are usually educated and most of those educated are taught in public schools and public universities. Even if it's a private university, there's a good chance that Federal funds contribute to the financial stability. Also, what kind of business success would Mac have if he couldn't hire an educated workforce? Those highways are essential to Mac for both moving goods into the stores and moving the goods to the home. Mac also knows that there is a police force that will protect his investments and that a foreign army will not invade Houston and appropriate his inventory. And so on... It's not that there is a direct quid pro quo relationship, but the society as a whole contributes to any one person's success in many ways. If the world worked like you describe, it would be anarchy. Yes, individual initiative does have a great role, but if the conditions are such that society does not allow the initiative to be realized, it doesn't matter how hard you work. (Look at Sparta or the Soviet Union for examples of wasted intellectual and entreprenuerial potential. )
I said I want the rich to pay their fair share. I read an article by Warren Buffett (one of the world's richest men) in which he stated that he pays far, FAR less than the average American. This situation will only get worse if these tax cuts you support are allowed to go into effect permanently. You are deluded, aren't you?
maybe i just know the exceptions...but everyone i know who is worth in excess of $1 million earned it. they worked their butt off for it. not because their daddy left them a nice trust fund.
As recently as 2 years ago, over 65% of redistributed wealth was inherited, not earned. Another huge chunk came as the result of legal action. The remainder could, excluding such oddities as lottery winnings, etc., be chalked up to earning.
Odd, because that's where the building I walk into every day is located. I suggest you edit out those pesky spelling errata, btw.
Sam, it is my personal opinion that lawyers who do securities work and/or corporate law as it relates to investment banking transactions are grunts. Trust me, as a former Wall Street executive, I can tell you that I bossed around quite a few lawyers from Sullivan & Cromwell, Cravath, White & Case etc. Let's save the title of "working on Wall Street" for the investment bankers. thanks
So if a persons relatives earned millions of dollars and passed it on to them ... the person they give it to should then be taxed more because they didnt earn it themselves? That is absurd. If you make the money, then you have the right to pass it on and the people you give it to should not be penalized.
Yes if you have been in a high tax bracket, then yes you have been overtaxed. I'm not b****ing because I pay too much. I have just graduated college and do not make that much money, and I do not feel over taxed. I just don't think its right for someone to owe a higher percentage of their money to the government just because they have more. Maybe under you opinion the gov't should implement a plan where every person who makes at least X dollars should be required to donate a percentage of their money to a charity. I believe in giving more money if you have been blessed and trying to help other people out, but I believe it should be of free will and not FORCING someone to do it just because they have it. Your logic is like the bum on the street that gets pissed at you becuse you won't give him a dollar since you have so much. Charity is NOT an obligation. And forcing someone to pay more for government programs just because they have more is no different than forcing someone to give to charity.
If that money is given, from father to son or some such, then it should be taxed. What did the inheritee do other than win the genetic lottery? Why should they be able to go through life without working and then when they inherit money, not pay their fair share of the tax burden? We all need to pay our fair share, but right now the rich are busily getting their taxes lowered while the rest of us shoulder more of the burden.
OK ... Yes a furniture store uses gov't services such as police, highways, etc. I never said that they should pay no taxes but there is no reason that Matress Mac should have to give a much higher % of his money to gov't because he made good use out of those gov't programs. Everyone has the same opportunity and they earned their money and doesnt owe ANYTHING more than the same percentage as any other person.
It's not charity. People on the top benefit, have benefitted, and continue to benefit indirectly from everything that the government does: Schools, parks, roads, jails, courts, prison, police, armies, etc etc etc.. IN fact, they have benefitted more than anybody else, as signified by their wealth, and have the largest stake in keeping things the way that they are. Accordingly, they should foot the bill.
