Hillary Clinton Says The Rich Are Not Paying Their "fair" Share.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Raising out top tax rate to 99% should really encourage the rich to create even more wealth.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Raising out top tax rate to 99% should really encourage the rich to create even more wealth.

The highest it ever reached was 94% But your right, it is a good vehicle to limit excessive pay such an 80 million dollar payouts.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Sousuke

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I still like a national sales tax, everyone pays when they buy something.

By the way I didn't really explain why it would reverse the tax system.

So we do away with income tax and we have a national sales tax of 18%. A poor person who uses say 98% of their income to purchase things to survive gets taxed at 17.6%.

A very wealthy person who uses 50% of their income to purchase things would be taxed at 9%.

[Texanadian 10]

*sigh*.....

Considering that 47% of Americans paid no federal income taxes last year and many of them got more back than they put in, I think it's kind of hard to blame the rich for not paying their fair share. How is fairness defined when people who pay ZERO complain that others who do pay aren't paying enough? Or that people getting the subsidy complain that the people paying the subsidy aren't paying enough, as in the case of the people getting more money back than put in.

Income tax isn't even a wealth tax. It's a tax on getting wealthy. Somehow we've decided that people who earn a lot of money. People who have a special talent. People who went to university for a decade. These people should pay more because of their success. Why?

The Capital Gains tax rate of 15% is only for long term capital gains. The people day trading get taxed on that just as if it were regular income. But let's take the long term capital gainer. What is the effect of that person? They've decided to take money they've saved up and contribute it to companies so that those companies can expand. Buy new machinery. Hire more people. Pay higher salaries. Donate charitable gifts to the localities. All of this is good. Long term capital gains are people who've saved up for retirement. Pension funds. IRA's.

Actually the 15% rate is only for long term gains for people in the 25-35% income tax brackets. People in the 15% income tax bracket pay 0%!

If you really want to tax people on capital gains, why not just eliminate IRA's and 401k's? Would that be more fair? And would it benefit the economy and/or the creation/advancement of jobs for the poor?

To take matters to a different level, we could eliminate all personal income taxes for everybody if we went back to 1999 Federal government spending levels. The total federal budget would be the same. I don't think Hillary should have a problem with that since it was her husband that approved the budget in 1999. Of course the economy would rock on. Sales tax collections would skyrocket.

But the argument on income taxes is always how much somebody else should pay. There are very few people who think they themselves and only themselves should pay more. New Hampshire actually created a "tax me more" fund for people who didn't like that the state has no income or sales tax. They can voluntarily contribute more money to the NH government that way.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

By the way I didn't really explain why it would reverse the tax system.

So we do away with income tax and we have a national sales tax of 18%. A poor person who uses say 98% of their income to purchase things to survive gets taxed at 17.6%.

A very wealthy person who uses 50% of their income to purchase things would be taxed at 9%.

I like your sensibilities, but your assumption would lead us to believe that a poor person has a disposable* income of 94%, while a rich person has only a 50% disposable income. If that was indeed true, then perhaps we really should start charging the poor more in taxes.

*Disposible income: That portion of personal income in excess of living expenses, for example, housing, insurance, utility bills, food, etc. Such items are usually except from sales taxes.

Edited May 28, 2010 by ##########

[Obama 2012 1,714]

*sigh*.....

Considering that 47% of Americans paid no federal income taxes last year and many of them got more back than they put in, I think it's kind of hard to blame the rich for not paying their fair share. How is fairness defined when people who pay ZERO complain that others who do pay aren't paying enough? Or that people getting the subsidy complain that the people paying the subsidy aren't paying enough, as in the case of the people getting more money back than put in.

Income tax isn't even a wealth tax. It's a tax on getting wealthy. Somehow we've decided that people who earn a lot of money. People who have a special talent. People who went to university for a decade. These people should pay more because of their success. Why?

The Capital Gains tax rate of 15% is only for long term capital gains. The people day trading get taxed on that just as if it were regular income. But let's take the long term capital gainer. What is the effect of that person? They've decided to take money they've saved up and contribute it to companies so that those companies can expand. Buy new machinery. Hire more people. Pay higher salaries. Donate charitable gifts to the localities. All of this is good. Long term capital gains are people who've saved up for retirement. Pension funds. IRA's.

Actually the 15% rate is only for long term gains for people in the 25-35% income tax brackets. People in the 15% income tax bracket pay 0%!

If you really want to tax people on capital gains, why not just eliminate IRA's and 401k's? Would that be more fair? And would it benefit the economy and/or the creation/advancement of jobs for the poor?

To take matters to a different level, we could eliminate all personal income taxes for everybody if we went back to 1999 Federal government spending levels. The total federal budget would be the same. I don't think Hillary should have a problem with that since it was her husband that approved the budget in 1999. Of course the economy would rock on. Sales tax collections would skyrocket.

But the argument on income taxes is always how much somebody else should pay. There are very few people who think they themselves and only themselves should pay more. New Hampshire actually created a "tax me more" fund for people who didn't like that the state has no income or sales tax. They can voluntarily contribute more money to the NH government that way.

Mike Huckabee did the same thing when he was Governor. Guess how long that lasted with people voluntarily contributing more money....

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I like your sensibilities, but your assumption would lead us to believe that a poor person has a disposable* income of 94%, while a rich person has only a 50% disposable income. If that was indeed true, then perhaps we really should start charging the poor more in taxes.

*Disposible income: That portion of personal income in excess of living expenses, for example, housing, insurance, utility bills, food, etc. Such items are usually except from sales taxes.

Ah thats true I suppose. No tax on food? really?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Ah thats true I suppose. No tax on food? really?

Unprocessed foods do not usually have sales tax on them.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Unprocessed foods do not usually have sales tax on them.

lol so thats 5% of an americans diet.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Couldn't we trade brain dead Hillary to Ukraine for Yulia Tymeshnko? We'll throw in Bill, and Chelsea.

And $40 billion

And the first round drfat pick from the New York Yankees

And General Motors

And WalMart...all of them.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Since the rich pay most of the taxes now wouldn't it be better to make the middle class pay more and the poor start paying something?

[DEDixon 39]

i agree with her, tax them out of their natural resource wasting 20 thousand square foot homes. do it! there should a "super" tax for the super rich. i can't control it as a tiny shareholder, but corporations are paying their executives way too much and that does effect, in the long term, the share price (tick me off). a lot make at least 10 million, but some make hundreds of millions and they aren't worth it. company founders, i find exception to them for, they do deserve a major share of the stock.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Since the rich pay most of the taxes now wouldn't it be better to make the middle class pay more and the poor start paying something?

FAIR TAX. Read the book

[Craneman 2]

As some one who has paid both Brasilian and U.S. taxes, at the same time by the way, Brasils taxes are mmuch higher.

The government is twice as corupt

The poverty is makes the poorest Americans look rich.

Homelessnes is rampent.

The poor live in makesift shanties with trap roofs.

Rio's slums make Afagsaniatan look like romper room, running gun battles with the police about every day.

The main roads are almost as good as the back country two lanes in the U.S.

The only place I have been that has speed bumps on dirt roads.

The sewer systems are open and drain directly into the streams and rivers.

Average wages are like $800 U.S. per month.

No welfare.

No unemployment benefits.

There are the very rich, and the very poor, virtually no middleclass.

Brasil is a great place if you have lots of money.

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/brazil/brazil_taxes.asp

Check out Brazil's tax rates. The personal income tax rates look quite decent actually. Top rate of 27%. But those Social Security taxes are a killer.

[Darnell 8,478]

I must dig in to the 'stimulus package' again, see just what the tax break is on small and medium sized-business, to hire/train new workers and acquire new IT products. hmmmm