Skip to main content

http://www.al.com/opinion/inde..._p.html#incart_river

 

According to figures published by Pew Research organization, the so called "rich" as jt would refer to them accounted for about 2.5% of those who filed income taxes, yet they paid 48.9% of the total income taxes in the country. When you lower the threshold to the new Commander in Chief (Commander and Thief) to the new definition of "rich" at $130K per year you will see that group makes up about 10% of those who file but they pay over 70% of the income taxes taken in by the government.  As I stood in line on Monday for 20 minutes to mail my tax returns and quarterly payments, it was not hard to be fuming mad by the time I got to the window with two employees working, another wandering aimlessly in the back and a fourth walking around trying to find her cell phone and calling it from the phone at the counter.  I was utterly astounded at the efficiency they were working as were the other ten or twenty people in line waiting. It is not their fault however, since they work in a system which is attuned to taking as little action as possible yet continuing to take as much as they want from its constituents.

So to all of the liberals out there who insist that the poor are supporting this country, and the taxes are unevenly distributed I would like to say, get your head out into the daylight and look at the real numbers.

 

wvpic

Hillary in 2016?  Why not?  We've already had one "girly man" serving in office for the past 7 years, we might as well give her chance as well!

Attachments

Images (1)
  • wvpic
Last edited by teyates
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Teyates, would you please tell me what I consider rich.

Good question jt!  I have tried for about 6 years to get that answer from the localist Liberal crowd, yet every one of them refrain from answering.  Why?  because much like Dire stated, their defintion of "rich" tends to be anyone who makes more than they do. It is easy to blame the ills of society on the "rich" when you don't have to identify who the "rich" are. I am certainly more well off than I was born into, and more richer than I rightfully deserve, but I have spent a great deal of time trying to better myself, give to charities and help out my friends when they need it. I do not begrudge those who need a hand out. But to perpetuate the falacy that those who make more money in a society do not pay their fair part is lie hatched in the depths of hell by a Liberal to make themselves look better.

Last edited by teyates

The full quote for Norwegians is "We consider  those who make one kroner more than ourselves as wealthy and hate them."   In Norway, one may look up the annual income of any citizen.  But, the government will not disclose the ranking of public schools in educating students  Another socialist paradise.  When, the North Sea oil runs out, they will follow Greece.

Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Teyates, would you please tell me what I consider rich.

Good question jt!  I have tried for about 6 years to get that answer from the localist Liberal crowd, yet every one of them refrain from answering.  Why?  because much like Dire stated, their defintion of "rich" tends to be anyone who makes more than they do. It is easy to blame the ills of society on the "rich" when you don't have to identify who the "rich" are. I am certainly more well off than I was born into, and more richer than I rightfully deserve, but I have spent a great deal of time trying to better myself, give to charities and help out my friends when they need it. I do not begrudge those who need a hand out. But to perpetuate the falacy that those who make more money in a society do not pay their fair part is lie hatched in the depths of hell by a Liberal to make themselves look better.

-------------------------

That's jt's and the other dem's definition, anyone making more than he makes. And, no matter how they got it he thinks they shouldn't have it. UNLESS it is a democrat or someone sympathetic to the dems socialist agenda, or atheletes or 'celebrities' that they never mention. What did bill clinton, hillary clinton, obama, reid, pelosi, biden, kerry, the kennedys and on and on do for their money? He cries about the Koch bros., he's at it again, but will never mention the **** soro's money and influence, among other foreign interests and money, in the democritic party. Jt is just a one trick pony when it comes to discussing the economy. To him it's failing because of the rich Republicans. Then they turn around and tell the lie that the economy is thriving. The democrats should be in a circus side-show, the people with two faces who can go blind when they don't want to see things the way they really are!!

 

Last edited by Bestworking

What is rich? A rich person makes more than me, but much more than a dollar. Or is it how much they make, or how much they have?  There is a lot of rich farmers that pay tax on less income than me, but in personal worth dollars, they are rich. Some don't have a lot of dollar value assets or income, but are rich in memories and family. Some have a lot of money and are miserable, are they rich. Some don't have any money, but are happy and have happy families, they are rich.

I can't answer the question of what is rich. 

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

 

I can't answer the question of what is rich. 

 

Yep, you and others on here continuously harp about how the "rich" are not paying their fair share, and should have to pay higher taxes. How does one expect to be able to identify who needs to be paying more if they cannot identify "who" they are referring to? When Obama entered the WH the "rich" by Democratic definition was those making over $250K, and when he saw he couldn't complete his agenda he lowered that standard to gain more tax income, to where I think now it is somewhere around $135K for a family. The rates continue to go up the more one makes, yet those who are not in that current bracket do not care. Well, I assure you jt, you and others better make it your perogative to be able to identify who the "rich" are when these politicians speak about raising your taxes, because sooner, rather than later, they will be moving that needle closer to your level of income and you will be the one who is being falsely accused of not paying your fair share. I pay more than my fair share now, perhaps you think I am not paying enough?

The dollar amount someone pays in taxes shouldn't be the issue. It is the the fact that most of the very wealthy pay a smaller percentage of their income than those with lower incomes. The only correct way to tax fairly is to have the same percentage in all brackets, with no deductions or loopholes to lower tax percentages. Or better yet, do away with income tax and go to a sales tax. With a sales tax, revenue would skyrocket because then even the under table and illegal money would be taxed. If you spent money then you would be taxed. Also, that would alleviate government expense since the IRS would be obsolete. 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

A sales tax would alleviate the non-collection of blackmarket operations.  However, perfidy is the name of man.  There would still be government auditors ensuring Uncle Sugar got his share.  But, the delving into our private lives would cease. 

=======

Let me try to understand that logic of yours. 
Are you really saying that if a person buys a lid of pot on the black market, that he would pay taxes on that , and that the illegal pot dealer would declare taxes on that ?  Are you saying that the "working girl" would charge taxes for her "services" and that her pimp would report those taxes ?
Wow ! did you just fall off the turnip truck ?

 

Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

 A rich person makes more than me, but much more than a dollar.

 

 

Well if not a dollar, then how much?  two dollars?  A hundred dollars? A thousand?

Or is the real definition..."just someone who makes more or has more than me?"

I thought we plowed this field before ! IMHO, a rich person's income would be about 40X the average income.Before Reagan's redistribution of wealth to the upper class, a CEO of a company made about 40X the income of the average person in his company. 
"Rich" is of course  an abstract number , depending upon where one lives and the cost of living there. In the Silicone Valley for example, a decent home may cost a couple of million dollars, where here it can be had for less than $200K.
However , on average, if 40X  average salary  defined a rich person before Reagan's reign of ruin, then if follows in my logic that if the average income today is around $51K then 40

x  $51K puts it a little over $2M / year.
Before you vote, check your wallet, it it ain't over $2M / year, you are nuts to vote for Republicans.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

A sales tax would alleviate the non-collection of blackmarket operations.  However, perfidy is the name of man.  There would still be government auditors ensuring Uncle Sugar got his share.  But, the delving into our private lives would cease. 

=======

Let me try to understand that logic of yours. 
Are you really saying that if a person buys a lid of pot on the black market, that he would pay taxes on that , and that the illegal pot dealer would declare taxes on that ?  Are you saying that the "working girl" would charge taxes for her "services" and that her pimp would report those taxes ?
Wow ! did you just fall off the turnip truck ?

 ________________________________________________

No, you just got run over by the turnip truck.  Of course, the pot, nor th services provided by the pavement princess would be taxed. However, they would pay a federal sales tax on every legal thing they purchased.  Uncle Sam would receive significantly more of a proportion of their income thru a sales tax, than the zilch now received. 

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

A sales tax would alleviate the non-collection of blackmarket operations.  However, perfidy is the name of man.  There would still be government auditors ensuring Uncle Sugar got his share.  But, the delving into our private lives would cease. 

=======

Let me try to understand that logic of yours. 
Are you really saying that if a person buys a lid of pot on the black market, that he would pay taxes on that , and that the illegal pot dealer would declare taxes on that ?  Are you saying that the "working girl" would charge taxes for her "services" and that her pimp would report those taxes ?
Wow ! did you just fall off the turnip truck ?

 ________________________________________________

No, you just got run over by the turnip truck.  Of course, the pot, nor th services provided by the pavement princess would be taxed. However, they would pay a federal sales tax on every legal thing they purchased.  Uncle Sam would receive significantly more of a proportion of their income thru a sales tax, than the zilch now received. 

 

========

Ok, so you are agreeing that a sales tax is dis proportionally taxing the poor and underprivileged and giving an almost free ride to the rich .

  

Tey, I'm not too sure what your religious affiliation is, but I know where you are from and I'm going to guess it is strongly Christian.

Upon that assumption, I suggest you check out what Jesus said in Romans 13:6-7

Romans 13:6-7New International Version (NIV)

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

A sales tax would alleviate the non-collection of blackmarket operations.  However, perfidy is the name of man.  There would still be government auditors ensuring Uncle Sugar got his share.  But, the delving into our private lives would cease. 

=======

Let me try to understand that logic of yours. 
Are you really saying that if a person buys a lid of pot on the black market, that he would pay taxes on that , and that the illegal pot dealer would declare taxes on that ?  Are you saying that the "working girl" would charge taxes for her "services" and that her pimp would report those taxes ?
Wow ! did you just fall off the turnip truck ?

 ________________________________________________

No, you just got run over by the turnip truck.  Of course, the pot, nor th services provided by the pavement princess would be taxed. However, they would pay a federal sales tax on every legal thing they purchased.  Uncle Sam would receive significantly more of a proportion of their income thru a sales tax, than the zilch now received. 

 

========

Ok, so you are agreeing that a sales tax is dis proportionally taxing the poor and underprivileged and giving an almost free ride to the rich .

  

____________________________________________

No, I said no such thing. Nor,, could you infer that from my response.

 

I prefer either something approaching the FAIR tax.  Or, a much more streamlined income tax law. With the highest bracket between 25 to 30 percent, which is the point when tax revenue declines/

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

 A rich person makes more than me, but much more than a dollar.

 

 

Well if not a dollar, then how much?  two dollars?  A hundred dollars? A thousand?

Or is the real definition..."just someone who makes more or has more than me?"

I thought we plowed this field before ! IMHO, a rich person's income would be about 40X the average income.Before Reagan's redistribution of wealth to the upper class, a CEO of a company made about 40X the income of the average person in his company. 
"Rich" is of course  an abstract number , depending upon where one lives and the cost of living there. In the Silicone Valley for example, a decent home may cost a couple of million dollars, where here it can be had for less than $200K.
However , on average, if 40X  average salary  defined a rich person before Reagan's reign of ruin, then if follows in my logic that if the average income today is around $51K then 40

x  $51K puts it a little over $2M / year.
Before you vote, check your wallet, it it ain't over $2M / year, you are nuts to vote for Republicans.

 

WE have to disagree on this! I am in the range "Thankfully" that the demos only know to tax tax tax until I am at the same income level of a unskilled worker.   If you get a regular pay check there are simply no legal deductions to vastly reduce your tax burden and 33 % of your income in my case is enough to pay.

Originally Posted by seeweed:

Tey, I'm not too sure what your religious affiliation is, but I know where you are from and I'm going to guess it is strongly Christian.

Upon that assumption, I suggest you check out what Jesus said in Romans 13:6-7

Romans 13:6-7New International Version (NIV)

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

======================

What bull.

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

 A rich person makes more than me, but much more than a dollar.

 

 

Well if not a dollar, then how much?  two dollars?  A hundred dollars? A thousand?

Or is the real definition..."just someone who makes more or has more than me?"

I thought we plowed this field before ! IMHO, a rich person's income would be about 40X the average income.Before Reagan's redistribution of wealth to the upper class, a CEO of a company made about 40X the income of the average person in his company. 
"Rich" is of course  an abstract number , depending upon where one lives and the cost of living there. In the Silicone Valley for example, a decent home may cost a couple of million dollars, where here it can be had for less than $200K.
However , on average, if 40X  average salary  defined a rich person before Reagan's reign of ruin, then if follows in my logic that if the average income today is around $51K then 40

x  $51K puts it a little over $2M / year.
Before you vote, check your wallet, it it ain't over $2M / year, you are nuts to vote for Republicans.

 

WE have to disagree on this! I am in the range "Thankfully" that the demos only know to tax tax tax until I am at the same income level of a unskilled worker.   If you get a regular pay check there are simply no legal deductions to vastly reduce your tax burden and 33 % of your income in my case is enough to pay.

---------

Well ole buddy, I doubt seriously I make as much as you , but I pay over 30% myself, but I'm not complaining - I'm doing all right . However, considering the cost of living, my bet is (again I don't know what you make)  that after you pay your 33% , you have more left to waste on beer and good seafood at the coast, than I do. .  Speaking of, I wanna go if it will ever quit raining.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

 A rich person makes more than me, but much more than a dollar.

 

 

Well if not a dollar, then how much?  two dollars?  A hundred dollars? A thousand?

Or is the real definition..."just someone who makes more or has more than me?"

I thought we plowed this field before ! IMHO, a rich person's income would be about 40X the average income.Before Reagan's redistribution of wealth to the upper class, a CEO of a company made about 40X the income of the average person in his company. 
"Rich" is of course  an abstract number , depending upon where one lives and the cost of living there. In the Silicone Valley for example, a decent home may cost a couple of million dollars, where here it can be had for less than $200K.
However , on average, if 40X  average salary  defined a rich person before Reagan's reign of ruin, then if follows in my logic that if the average income today is around $51K then 40

x  $51K puts it a little over $2M / year.
Before you vote, check your wallet, it it ain't over $2M / year, you are nuts to vote for Republicans.

 

WE have to disagree on this! I am in the range "Thankfully" that the demos only know to tax tax tax until I am at the same income level of a unskilled worker.   If you get a regular pay check there are simply no legal deductions to vastly reduce your tax burden and 33 % of your income in my case is enough to pay.

---------

Well ole buddy, I doubt seriously I make as much as you , but I pay over 30% myself, but I'm not complaining - I'm doing all right . However, considering the cost of living, my bet is (again I don't know what you make)  that after you pay your 33% , you have more left to waste on beer and good seafood at the coast, than I do. .  Speaking of, I wanna go if it will ever quit raining.

 

I am ready the first one is on me, we can solve more of the worlds problems.  "If they would just listen to us"

yea some of us are so smart that we know how to solve the worlds problem. alabama voted for a governor that will not take a salary first lie. the state is broke but we are not allowed to vote on lottery we might have money for our schools. if we did. every state around us nhas lottery or casino. but if alabama had one then the under the table money from indian casinos would not pay these so called hypocrites that lie like a dog. if anyone believes one political party is better than the other you ned to get your head out of your azz.

Originally Posted by big rick:

yea some of us are so smart that we know how to solve the worlds problem. alabama voted for a governor that will not take a salary first lie. the state is broke but we are not allowed to vote on lottery we might have money for our schools. if we did. every state around us nhas lottery or casino. but if alabama had one then the under the table money from indian casinos would not pay these so called hypocrites that lie like a dog. if anyone believes one political party is better than the other you ned to get your head out of your azz.

============

We missed the opportunity to get out ahead of the lottery back when Siegleman tried. 
We need now, to get out ahead of this marijuana thing and legalize and tax it like Colorado, before all the neighboring states do. Ga is very close , and there is now a group in Ms pushing to obtain the signatures in order to get it on a ballot. 
If those two states do it before we do, there will be a helluva lot of money flowing out of Alabama into those states, and there is a LONG state line border on both sides, so anyone living in the middle of the state will not have too long a drive one way or the other.

 

Originally Posted by big rick:

yea some of us are so smart that we know how to solve the worlds problem. alabama voted for a governor that will not take a salary first lie. the state is broke but we are not allowed to vote on lottery we might have money for our schools. if we did. every state around us nhas lottery or casino. but if alabama had one then the under the table money from indian casinos would not pay these so called hypocrites that lie like a dog. if anyone believes one political party is better than the other you ned to get your head out of your azz.

________________________________________

An article in the TD a few day ago verified that Bentley did not draw a salary from the state. 

The Poarch Indians have plead with the state to allow casinos, even sign an agreement with the state to share their revenue if Luther Strange stops prosecuting them.  That's an area where the state could save money  as the Indian casinos appear to be in accordance with federal law.  

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by big rick:

yea some of us are so smart that we know how to solve the worlds problem. alabama voted for a governor that will not take a salary first lie. the state is broke but we are not allowed to vote on lottery we might have money for our schools. if we did. every state around us nhas lottery or casino. but if alabama had one then the under the table money from indian casinos would not pay these so called hypocrites that lie like a dog. if anyone believes one political party is better than the other you ned to get your head out of your azz.

============

We missed the opportunity to get out ahead of the lottery back when Siegleman tried. 
We need now, to get out ahead of this marijuana thing and legalize and tax it like Colorado, before all the neighboring states do. Ga is very close , and there is now a group in Ms pushing to obtain the signatures in order to get it on a ballot. 
If those two states do it before we do, there will be a helluva lot of money flowing out of Alabama into those states, and there is a LONG state line border on both sides, so anyone living in the middle of the state will not have too long a drive one way or the other.

 

________________________________________________

Marijuana in Colorado is not bringing in the tax revenue assumed. 

"Colorado’s marijuana tax revenue is on pace to severely miss the mark. In February of last year, the office of Governor John Hickenlooper predicted that the legalization of weed would bring in $118 million, but now the projection has plummeted to $69 million. That represents a 42 percent decrease, reported the New York Times."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...2015-4#ixzz3Xn5dznB4

 

As medical marijuana is not taxed, many obtain prescriptions and avoid the tax, Plus, the blackmarket continues. 

 

I thought legalizing booze everywhere was supposed to make states filthy rich, have the schools rolling in money and solve all financial woes. A bit before my voting time, but wasn't/isn't that the argument/promise? Now they want to legalize dope. Oh yes, the dope heads are going to make us rich, just like the drunks were supposed to do.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I thought legalizing booze everywhere was supposed to make states filthy rich, have the schools rolling in money and solve all financial woes. A bit before my voting time, but wasn't/isn't that the argument/promise? Now they want to legalize dope. Oh yes, the dope heads are going to make us rich, just like the drunks were supposed to do.

 

+++

 

Oh, now it's my fault. 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×