The State of the Nation Address

[Wade]

if we look in the gospels, jesus fed 5k and 7,000 on two occasions. If you actually read, it says 5 and 7 thousand men, let's double that for women and throw in a few for kids. so maybe over 10k at one time. And ya gotta figure a whole ton showed up to gawk while he was on the cross.

I was under the impression that the crowds were much smaller, and he only became well known and understood, after his deciles spread his teachings after his death. And, the printing of the first bibles.

Anyway, my point was that Hilter gave speeches to hundreds of thousands. He drew hugh crowds, for his captivating oratories. Much the same as our new messiah.

Originally Posted by ruffryder View Post
Yah, that you are confused... To simplify it I was making the case that good speaker = bad person is not true, since there are many good speakers that are good people, I used Jesus as an example. Lincoln could be another one, MLK another too...

Yha, Lincoln, the great killer of Americans. And, MLK, wasn't he a socialist?

 

[89sandman]

how can you not want the higher paid peeps not to pay thier fair share of the tax burden??? when a family of 4 making less than 50k a year is paying almost 30% of thier income compared to a family of 4 making 300,000+ a year paying less than 15% you do the math. this guy at least has some ideas, unlike bush who did nothing but run our country into the ground for 8 years. all you repulicans just keep on doing the same and you'll be in the same boat forever, whine and cry about someone trying to do some good and make a idol out of the man who got us there...

 

[Ollie]

how can you not want the higher paid peeps not to pay thier fair share of the tax burden??? when a family of 4 making less than 50k a year is paying almost 30% of thier income compared to a family of 4 making 300,000+ a year paying less than 15% you do the math. this guy at least has some ideas, unlike bush who did nothing but run our country into the ground for 8 years. all you repulicans just keep on doing the same and you'll be in the same boat forever, whine and cry about someone trying to do some good and make a idol out of the man who got us there...

First of all, the top 10 percent of the country pays 70 percent of the taxes as it is. 42 percent of the nation PAYS NO TAXES AT ALL, also, your percentages are backwards. A guy making 50k will pay 15-18% in fed taxes while a guy making 300k will pay 38%. But never let the truth get in the way of liberal rant.

Now, we did the tax the chit out of the rich back in the 70's under Carter.
Ended up with a major recession. Why?
When the rich don't make money or can't make money, they stop paying people to do things. They don't start companies, they don't expand existing buisnesses, etc.
This is a concept that liberals JUST DON"T GET.

 

[ruffryder]

First of all, the top 10 percent of the country pays 70 percent of the taxes as it is. 42 percent of the nation PAYS NO TAXES AT ALL, also, your percentages are backwards.

First of all, while that statement is mostly used to feel sorry for the wealthy as they pay such a high percentage compared to most, it should more importantly show just how much money people are making at the top, when compared to those in the middle and at the bottom.

A guy making 50k will pay 15-18% in fed taxes while a guy making 300k will pay 38%. But never let the truth get in the way of liberal rant.

Shouldn't you use tax liablilty figures and not gross for income? I think there was an accountant on here that said most tax returns for people making more then 300k, had a tax liability of 150k or so that they were being taxed on. So while the guy is being taxed at a higher rate on his 150k, he isn't being taxed at all on his other 150k....

Remember that you only pay taxes on your liability, there are many ways to decrease your liability, and many more opportunities if you have a lot of money.

Anyways, while I don't think the burdon should only be on the rich to pay taxes, there is something to be said about the growing inequality between the rich and the middle class. I don't think those classes should be the same, but it should at least be constant and not growing wider.... Seems the rich have benefited the most during the last economic boom.

 

[xrated]

oh boy class warfare....I'm gonna need a beer!

Anyway, my point was that Hilter gave speeches to hundreds of thousands. He drew hugh crowds, for his captivating oratories. Much the same as our new messiah. -and a good point it was. Hitler tried and failed until Germany had huge money issues and then he told the people what they wanted to hear, and gave them a group to pin it all on....then the people said OK we will let you have the power. Then they went "crap" where did our country go?

 

[shortstop20]

I'm trying hard to buddy, but maybe help me out a little.

Read a history book and it'll all come to you, or at least it should.

 

[ruffryder]

Read a history book and it'll all come to you, or at least it should.

Seems like the answer of a man who doesn't know enough to actually try and answer a question asked to him....

Way to go....

 

[bigfoot]

Seems like the answer of a man who doesn't know enough to actually try and answer a question asked to him....

Some folks say the same about you, Ruffy.

 

[shortstop20]

Seems like the answer of a man who doesn't know enough to actually try and answer a question asked to him....

Way to go....

You can think that if you want. I just wish people would accept the importance that history plays in the future of the country. For example many people that are my age(22) are clueless that we were at war with Iraq in the early 90's. These same people want us to duck and run from Iraq right now. I just don't see how people can make a logical decision when they don't know what happened in the past. I'm not saying he doesn't but I just thought he should look into the history of events to make a decision on what we should do now.

Bad US foreign policy has played a part in this Iraq fiasco. We used to provide arms to Saddam.

My point is we should finish the job in Iraq so we aren't doing this crap again in 30 years when the second coming of Saddam comes into power.

During times of civil war a Republican form of government most often loses out to totalitarian governments, dictatorships, monarchies, etc. With our troops there we have the chance to keep peace and setup a solid, mostly peaceful Republic state much like ours. From that point the people of the Middle East will see through the lies that the radicals try to brainwash them with and they will see the beauty of Democracy and it will no doubt spread in the middle east.

Maybe I'll get some pictures of my medals from when I was a freshman in high school and got 1st place in a US government, US history and general politics competition, all three being separate events.

What was that you were saying?

 

[Ollie]

Shouldn't you use tax liablilty figures and not gross for income? I think there was an accountant on here that said most tax returns for people making more then 300k, had a tax liability of 150k or so that they were being taxed on. So while the guy is being taxed at a higher rate on his 150k, he isn't being taxed at all on his other 150k....

Remember that you only pay taxes on your liability, there are many ways to decrease your liability, and many more opportunities if you have a lot of money.

You are correct. The rich do things like.
Give money to non-profit orgs as a tax write off.
Invest money in things they KNOW will lose money as a tax write off.
Sponcer everything from Drag races to breast cancer walks.

The rich don't just get to say "I don't want to pay some of my taxes". They have to invest or put that money somewhere.

Another thing liberals hate to talk about is this.
Isn't it the american dream to become rich?
Why is it as soon as you start achieving the american dream you become the enemy these days?
Why is it that it has become the governments job to PUNISH those that work hard and have succeeded. Granted some at the top are crooks, the vast majority are just incredibly hard working people who have earned what they got.
Now we have liberals telling them and us, that because there are people WAY to lazy to do it themselves we have to punish those that arn't lazy.
Am I the only one that gets it?

 

[Wheeline]

how can you not want the higher paid peeps not to pay thier fair share of the tax burden??? when a family of 4 making less than 50k a year is paying almost 30% of thier income compared to a family of 4 making 300,000+ a year paying less than 15% you do the math. this guy at least has some ideas, unlike bush who did nothing but run our country into the ground for 8 years. all you repulicans just keep on doing the same and you'll be in the same boat forever, whine and cry about someone trying to do some good and make a idol out of the man who got us there...

When I start making 300K a year I want you to be my accountant. Seriously, you pay tax on your taxable income. Income - deductions = taxable income. Your family of 4, assuming they were married filing jointly with 2 kids, would be 50k - 12,700 = 37,300 taxable.
0 - 16,050 @ 10% = 1,605
16,051 - 37,300 @ 15% = 3,187.50
total tax 4,792.50 / 50k = 9.6% of annual income

Now lets take the same family and give them a raise to 300k. 300k - 12,700 = 287,300 taxable income.
0 - 16,050 @ 10% = 1,605
16,051 - 65,100 @ 15% = 7,357.50
65,101 - 131,450 @ 25% = 16,587.50
131,451 - 200,300 @ 28% = 19,278
200,301 - 287,300 @ 33% = 28709.67
total tax 73,537.67 / 300k = 24.5% of annual income

Maybe you should check your math and do a little research before you start spouting off your liberal opinions.

 

[MTdream]

I love liberals and their lack of logic...they think things are fair or need to be made more fair...which translated means "I should get what I dont deserve, and what I didnt earn....because it is not fair someone else had the passion and desire to work hard, while I screwed off"

but simple fact is, that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes...is that fair?

Top 10% pay 65% where/how is that fair?

and here is a kicker for you...The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes

 

[Fosgate]

When I start making 300K a year I want you to be my accountant. Seriously, you pay tax on your taxable income. Income - deductions = taxable income. Your family of 4, assuming they were married filing jointly with 2 kids, would be 50k - 12,700 = 37,300 taxable.
0 - 16,050 @ 10% = 1,605
16,051 - 37,300 @ 15% = 3,187.50
total tax 4,792.50 / 50k = 9.6% of annual income

Now lets take the same family and give them a raise to 300k. 300k - 12,700 = 287,300 taxable income.
0 - 16,050 @ 10% = 1,605
16,051 - 65,100 @ 15% = 7,357.50
65,101 - 131,450 @ 25% = 16,587.50
131,451 - 200,300 @ 28% = 19,278
200,301 - 287,300 @ 33% = 28709.67
total tax 73,537.67 / 300k = 24.5% of annual income

Maybe you should check your math and do a little research before you start spouting off your liberal opinions.

And to continue on, Alot of people who "make" 300k are many times small business owners. When I was an Insurance Agent/ Financial Advisor the first couple years was starvation. Sure on paper I made $80k my first year, but take into account what is taxable income after I pay my bulding lease, fuel expense, computer and desk lease from home office, NASD Fees, Errors and Omission Business Insurane, Payroll, Lodging during travel to meetings, Advertising etc. At the end I had a reported income something like 9k to my name. The second year I had a gross of about $140k but I added full time staff that took away $30k so then I was up to about $29k. But the amount of debt owed to the company took alot of that back so it was as bad or worse than the first year. Granted Had I stuck in longer eventually would have paid off. But as you make more you have to hire and improve your structure to keep things running thus carving out of gross earnings. The way my business was going, had the company not cut commissions by nearly 50% (14 out of 18 agents packed up and left within a year of this). It would have taken me 5yrs before I would have seen daylight and would have need to be on pace for about $450k before my actual taxable income would be at about 50-70k after business expenses.

I got into business thinking, "Sweet, time to make the big bucks!" then you see where it goes and write out your check out to the IRS for 15k and expenses and you look at what you have left. You think "What the heck am I doing? I could find a salary job at 40-50k and be alot happier. There were alot of ramen noodle nights and some skipped meals in those days. And not just for me but alot of young business owners starting out and every new agent that came into my district. But hey everyone thinks running a business is a gravy train like I did before I started right?

 

[bigfoot]

good last few posts.

 

[JSCC]

And to continue on, Alot of people who "make" 300k are many times small business owners. When I was an Insurance Agent/ Financial Advisor the first couple years was starvation. Sure on paper I made $80k my first year, but take into account what is taxable income after I pay my bulding lease, fuel expense, computer and desk lease from home office, NASD Fees, Errors and Omission Business Insurane, Payroll, Lodging during travel to meetings, Advertising etc. At the end I had a reported income something like 9k to my name. The second year I had a gross of about $140k but I added full time staff that took away $30k so then I was up to about $29k. But the amount of debt owed to the company took alot of that back so it was as bad or worse than the first year. Granted Had I stuck in longer eventually would have paid off. But as you make more you have to hire and improve your structure to keep things running thus carving out of gross earnings. The way my business was going, had the company not cut commissions by nearly 50% (14 out of 18 agents packed up and left within a year of this). It would have taken me 5yrs before I would have seen daylight and would have need to be on pace for about $450k before my actual taxable income would be at about 50-70k after business expenses.

I got into business thinking, "Sweet, time to make the big bucks!" then you see where it goes and write out your check out to the IRS for 15k and expenses and you look at what you have left. You think "What the heck am I doing? I could find a salary job at 40-50k and be alot happier. There were alot of ramen noodle nights and some skipped meals in those days. And not just for me but alot of young business owners starting out and every new agent that came into my district. But hey everyone thinks running a business is a gravy train like I did before I started right?

Great post.
Really makes you wonder if its worth it at times....

 

[Wade]

Shouldn't you use tax liablilty figures and not gross for income? I think there was an accountant on here that said most tax returns for people making more then 300k, had a tax liability of 150k or so that they were being taxed on. So while the guy is being taxed at a higher rate on his 150k, he isn't being taxed at all on his other 150k....

Remember that you only pay taxes on your liability, there are many ways to decrease your liability, and many more opportunities if you have a lot of money.

Anyways, while I don't think the burdon should only be on the rich to pay taxes, there is something to be said about the growing inequality between the rich and the middle class. I don't think those classes should be the same, but it should at least be constant and not growing wider.... Seems the rich have benefited the most during the last economic boom.

Come on Ruffy, use your head. What he didn't tell you, was that most of those people making 300K, where business owners. Individual tax rates are better than corporate tax rates, so most small businessmen use individual tax reporting. So, say you make 300K, but you spend 125K on business expenses, and another 25K in personal deductions. You never made 300K, you made 175K. And, paid tax on the 175K. A guy like me, makes a lot, and I pay about 40% in taxes, when it's all said and done. I don't have many deductions. Just the house, that's it. And, if you make enough, you don't get to deduct all of that, because they slap AMT taxes on you.

Can you even explain how a average person could get 50% deductions. I'd sure like to know.

Figure it this way, a husband and wife that pull in 200K, will end up keeping 120K or so, and end up paying 80K in taxes.

A guy that makes 40K, will probably end up paying around 4 or 5k.

Does that really sound fair. Not to mention, the guy that paid 80K, then has to listen to others tell him how it's not fair, that he makes so much. I mean, it's not fair that carved 7 years out of his life to get a advanced college education, it's not fair he work 50 hours a week, it's not fair that his company can point to him, and say hey, we can't do without you, so were going to give you lots of money to keep you here.

Geezzzeee. That wasn't all directed at you Ruffy, I'm just tired of hearing how life's not fair to those that don't try.

Now, if you want to talk about CEOs that run their company into the ground, and make 7 figures, and another 8 figures in zero dollar stock options, we have something in common. Those guys are a bunch of crooks.

 

[Van Epps]

The following is a quote from Ruffy:

"Shouldn't you use tax liablilty figures and not gross for income? I think there was an accountant on here that said most tax returns for people making more then 300k, had a tax liability of 150k or so that they were being taxed on. So while the guy is being taxed at a higher rate on his 150k, he isn't being taxed at all on his other 150k...."

Ruffy........ That person did not make 300k, he/she made 150k. Expenses are not income. What would you propose? That this person be taxed on "his other 150K"? There are very good reasons why "his other 150K" is not being taxed, as Im sure you are aware. Yet you still make the statement?? Do you disagree with business/real estate/home owners/slum lords being able to write off their related expenses?? What is your point?

Another quote from Ruffy:

"Remember that you only pay taxes on your liability, there are many ways to decrease your liability, and many more opportunities if you have a lot of money".

Ruffy, do you currently, or have you ever owned a business? If the government was taking 40% of every dollar of your income, I think you would look to write off as much as possible. Look closely at the graphs above and tell us all here that you think the current system is fair.

I see I am late in responding as Wade did it quicker....... and better! BTW Wade, what is AMT tax? (great post)

 

[ruffryder]

You can think that if you want.

I just thought your response to a person asking for more help / info on a subject was lame. "Go read a history book" So my response was targeted as such.

Maybe I'll get some pictures of my medals from when I was a freshman in high school and got 1st place in a US government, US history and general politics competition, all three being separate events.

Are we going to compare buttons too? lol

 

[ruffryder]

Geezzzeee. That wasn't all directed at you Ruffy, I'm just tired of hearing how life's not fair to those that don't try.

Who said this had anything to do with fair? I was merely trying to state that you need to take into account the difference between gross income on a pay check, and income as it counts with the IRS. The difference is much higher for those with money, then it is from those that don't have money.

Ruffy........ That person did not make 300k, he/she made 150k. Expenses are not income. What would you propose? That this person be taxed on "his other 150K"? There are very good reasons why "his other 150K" is not being taxed, as Im sure you are aware. Yet you still make the statement?? Do you disagree with business/real estate/home owners/slum lords being able to write off their related expenses?? What is your point?

Again the point is the deductions seem to never be taken into account when doing the Johnny makes 30k and pays this percentage while Janny makes 300k and pays this percentage. Making that comparison using those numbers, and the taxe rates from the IRS is not accurate as the duductions for the person making the 300k can be quite large.

No where did I say it was wrong, or that I had a problem with that. Just stating for comparison purposes it should be taken into account.

Look closely at the graphs above and tell us all here that you think the current system is fair.

What does fairness have to do with anything? Since the tax is on income, it will always be scewed to the top, because that is who makes all the money. If a smaller and smaller percentage of people make a larger and larger percentage of all the money, it should be easy to see that a tax structure based on income would show that the small percentage on the top will have an increasingly large percentage of tax payments, as the small percentage of people increases in percentages of income.

 

[Ollie]

What does fairness have to do with anything? Since the tax is on income, it will always be scewed to the top, because that is who makes all the money. If a smaller and smaller percentage of people make a larger and larger percentage of all the money, it should be easy to see that a tax structure based on income would show that the small percentage on the top will have an increasingly large percentage of tax payments, as the small percentage of people increases in percentages of income.

Why?
Who says because you have achieved the american dream we get to rob you blind?

Why can't they be taxed at the exact same rate as everyone else?
They will still pay WAY more than you or me (well, at least me).