Wealthy are leaving New York

[NazSpaz]

Quote from antitrust:

Since the top 5% own over 50% of the assets, How much of the taxes should they pay, you tell me. The bottom 50% own less then 15%. Again how much should they pay help me out here, whats fair.

We're not talking about taxes on what people own (outside of property taxes), but taxes on what people make. But even then, with the numbers you mention, that would be much more fair. If the bottom 50% paid 15% of all taxes instead of 0% that would work for me.

Bottom line is what made this country great is that it was built on CAPITALISM. That means not everyone makes the same amount or owns the same amount. The smart & hard working prosper and the losers flounder. Focusing on wealth distribution and seeing that everyone owns the same amount is called Communism, which used to be a bad word when I was a kid but now more and more seems to be where this country is headed, especially with more people saying things like "The bottom 50% only have 15% of the assets, give them more." What about the one that purposely dropped out of high school, smokes pot every day, never went to college, gets welfare for sitting and watching Springer and Oprah all day and having babies. You think we should take some more of - say - Bill Gates' or Warren Buffett's money and give it to them? What is their motivation to get off the couch and be useful to society then?

It is GREAT that some people make a lot of money and own a lot of stuff. That gives HOPE to all the young go-getters that if they work hard & smart they too can achieve that, it inspires generations. But the tax the wealthy and hand it all out to the losers system we now have punishes success and rewards laziness/incompetence, which will kill the enterprising nature that made the US so great. If we take all the money from the wealthy and villainize success, we kill capitalism and will lose the innovation and drive of the future generations.

 

[antitrust]

Quote from NazSpaz:

We're not talking about taxes on what people own (outside of property taxes), but taxes on what people make. But even then, with the numbers you mention, that would be much more fair. If the bottom 50% paid 15% of all taxes instead of 0% that would work for me.

Bottom line is what made this country great is that it was built on CAPITALISM. That means not everyone makes the same amount or owns the same amount. The smart & hard working prosper and the losers flounder. Focusing on wealth distribution and seeing that everyone owns the same amount is called Communism, which used to be a bad word when I was a kid but now more and more seems to be where this country is headed, especially with more people saying things like "The bottom 50% only have 15% of the assets, give them more." What about the one that purposely dropped out of high school, smokes pot every day, never went to college, gets welfare for sitting and watching Springer and Oprah all day and having babies. You think we should take some more of - say - Bill Gates' or Warren Buffett's money and give it to them? What is their motivation to get off the couch and be useful to society then?

It is GREAT that some people make a lot of money and own a lot of stuff. That gives HOPE to all the young go-getters that if they work hard & smart they too can achieve that, it inspires generations. But the tax the wealthy and hand it all out to the losers system we now have punishes success and rewards laziness/incompetence, which will kill the enterprising nature that made the US so great. If we take all the money from the wealthy and villainize success, we kill capitalism and will lose the innovation and drive of the future generations.

you don't think there any corralation betwwen assets and income are the bottom 50% some how making 50% of the income on 15% of the assets?

If you think about what kind of assets each group owns. It wouldn't be a streach to say that the upper group generates more income on the types of assets they own.

So if your fine with the bottom 50% paying 15% then i assume your fine with the top 5% paying 50%.

When you think about how much the people bitch about the bottom 50%. You have to ask yourself how sinifigant them paying taxes would be.

 

[NazSpaz]

Quote from antitrust:

you don't think there any corralation betwwen assets and income are the bottom 50% some how making 50% of the income on 15% of the assets?

If you think about what kind of assets each group owns. It wouldn't be a streach to say that the upper group generates more income on the types of assets they own.

So if your fine with the bottom 50% paying 15% then i assume your fine with the top 5% paying 50%.

When you think about how much the people bitch about the bottom 50%. You have to ask yourself how sinifigant them paying taxes would be.

Of course the upper group generates more income on the types of assets they own, in one sense that is WHY they are the upper group. If you had your way and say took all the assets from everyone and redistributed them equally, the upper group people would still make more on the same assets because they are better at it. They work at it. And they deserve it.

The top 3% pay 33%, I know you and Pelosi would love to get the top 5% paying 50%. I don't doubt that someday we will see that. And since you don't care about that it is safe to assume you'll be on the receiving end of that. But for someone in my shoes, that came from nothing, had nothing, and worked my ass off for decades to educate myself and risk my ass many times over to build a great income and net worth, I know how much it sucks to now have to cut these ridiculously large checks to the govt coffers and watch my hard work get spent on sending checks to people that sit on their ass and watch TV.

Funny thing is I know a few personally that are able bodied and of sound mind, just plain lazy. They look at me and how hard I work and laugh, they are in love with their kick-back do-nothing lifestyle, I look at them and am disgusted that my taxes fund them. Please tell me you are not one of them, just posting antitrust/anticapitalism statements whenever Springer is on commercial break.

 

[dafugginman]

the irony is that social mobility, or the ability to move up classes from your parents becomes harder and harder the more you move away from capitalism to socialism then communism. just look at all the new wealthy minority millionaires we have in this country.

in more quasi capitalist/socialist countries, nepotism, connections, and tenure are rewarded while the value of effort and merit drop in value. an example is union positons, where young harder working people can't supplant tenured union employees who know full well that a) their effort isn't going to be rewarded so why try b) their jobs are secure irregardless of performance.

the tax on capital in terms of income and regulations also has a much larger impact on small businesses (wage and job guarantees, benefit requirements, etc) than large businesses, which is the easiest way to raise a standard of living of one's family. an extreme example here is that it takes $2 million a year to satisfy sarbox regulations, not a large amount for MSFT, but quite a bit for a software start up with 10 million in revenue but losing money.

 

[antitrust]

Quote from NazSpaz:

Of course the upper group generates more income on the types of assets they own, in one sense that is WHY they are the upper group. If you had your way and say took all the assets from everyone and redistributed them equally, the upper group people would still make more on the same assets because they are better at it. They work at it. And they deserve it.

Well first I never said anything about reditribution of wealth( but thanks for asumming i did that say alot about you)

So you agree that the top 5% earn greater income per assets. So if they generate 60% of the income shoudn't they pay 60% fo the INCOME tax. What is unfair about that.

And ya i'm sure every dollor was earned honestly without lobbing for laws or stealing shareholders wealth. Because thats never happend.

Quote from NazSpaz:


The top 3% pay 33%, I know you and Pelosi would love to get the top 5% paying 50%. I don't doubt that someday we will see that. And since you don't care about that it is safe to assume you'll be on the receiving end of that. But for someone in my shoes, that came from nothing, had nothing, and worked my ass off for decades to educate myself and risk my ass many times over to build a great income and net worth, I know how much it sucks to now have to cut these ridiculously large checks to the govt coffers and watch my hard work get spent on sending checks to people that sit on their ass and watch TV.

Again more assumptions about me and my political views that are wrong. This is how all ET threads end up personal atacks. is that all you have to offer. I worked hard came from nothing, i'm the greatest etc. I do not know you and you do not know me so try not to things personal.

Quote from NazSpaz:



Funny thing is I know a few personally that are able bodied and of sound mind, just plain lazy. They look at me and how hard I work and laugh, they are in love with their kick-back do-nothing lifestyle, I look at them and am disgusted that my taxes fund them. Please tell me you are not one of them, just posting antitrust/anticapitalism statements whenever Springer is on commercial break.

The few people you know embodies the whole 50%? way to streotype, that must be what smart hardworking lads like yourself do.

funnier, I thought capitalism didn't have favorites. your capitalism certianly appears too.

But the question still remains if the top 5% earn 60% of the income what % of the total taxes should they pay

 

[BostonTrader339]

Quote from TraderZones:

If farmers keep trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, one day they may succeed.

I imagine that most wealthy people, who can live anywhere, would think hard about one place with 10% tax, and another nearby with 3%, like Pennsylvania. Say I am 65, with $50 million. Do I want to put my roots down in Bucks County PA, or Westchester County NY - where I can get a less for my money, and pay a lot more in taxes?

In fact, I would imagine a clever state would do the OPPOSITE. Wealthy people create businesses, jobs, etc. And they spend much money locally (who goes 800 miles to buy an RV, Mercedes, or yacht? Where do they build a luxury home? - you buy it in your area!!!).

wow, are you dumb. and poor, by the looks of it, you have no clue why the rich live where they do.

there are ways around paying more taxes, moron.

 

[stereo70]

Quote from TRYKtrading:

wow, are you dumb. and poor, by the looks of it, you have no clue why the rich live where they do.

there are ways around paying more taxes, moron.

Yeah, call UBS...

 

[pspr]

Quote from antitrust:

....But the question still remains if the top 5% earn 60% of the income what % of the total taxes should they pay

You have your data confused. According to the IRS the top 5% of income earners earn 36.6% of total adjusted gross income yet PAY 60% of total income taxes.

Furthermore, here is the percent of all taxes they have paid from the end of Clinton through Bush.

2001 - 53.25%
2002 - 53.80%
2003 - 54.36%
2004 - 57.13%
2005 - 59.67%
2006 - 60.14%

And here is the percent of taxes paid by the bottom 50% of all income earners.

2001 - 3.97%
2002 - 3.50%
2003 - 3.46%
2004 - 3.30%
2005 - 3.07%
2006 - 2.99%

Source: Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html ("Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile - Early Release")

 

[BostonTrader339]

Quote from pspr:

You have your data confused. According to the IRS the top 5% of income earners earn 36.6% of total adjusted gross income yet PAY 60% of total income taxes.

Furthermore, here is the percent of all taxes they have paid from the end of Clinton through Bush.

2001 - 53.25%
2002 - 53.80%
2003 - 54.36%
2004 - 57.13%
2005 - 59.67%
2006 - 60.14%

And here is the percent of taxes paid by the bottom 50% of all income earners.

2001 - 3.97%
2002 - 3.50%
2003 - 3.46%
2004 - 3.30%
2005 - 3.07%
2006 - 2.99%

Source: Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html ("Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile - Early Release")

but the rich control what percentage of total assets?

 

[Clubber Lang]

Quote from pspr:

You have your data confused. According to the IRS the top 5% of income earners earn 36.6% of total adjusted gross income yet PAY 60% of total income taxes.

Furthermore, here is the percent of all taxes they have paid from the end of Clinton through Bush.

2001 - 53.25%
2002 - 53.80%
2003 - 54.36%
2004 - 57.13%
2005 - 59.67%
2006 - 60.14%

And here is the percent of taxes paid by the bottom 50% of all income earners.

2001 - 3.97%
2002 - 3.50%
2003 - 3.46%
2004 - 3.30%
2005 - 3.07%
2006 - 2.99%

Source: Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html ("Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile - Early Release")

Nice find pspr.