If top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their 'fair' share?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-26-2012, 01:35 PM
road kill

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotts135

Not exactly sure how you are comparing them but I assume your premise is that private sector workers are somehow better and more worthy than Govt workers. Your know of course that our soldiers are Govt workers..............

Perhaps in employ, but not in treatment or perception by this administration!
11-26-2012, 01:36 PM
cotts135

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin S

The average salary for government employees is a little over 60% higher in this state than the average real worker :confused:. One cannot even begin to compare the benefit portion in any terms but if someone wants to argue it I'll be glad to oblige :).

As for the CEO's you have a vote as most of us who own stock do, my "NO" vote is registered but does not reach the 1/2 way mark as yet. I do what I can & send e-mails to those columnist who either are for or against these obscene CEO salaries as I do to my reps who are not fiscally cautious.

How many Government employee retirement funds made money from Romney's stint @ Bain Capital? For you lefties, that should be food for thought :-P.

But I do believe the ability to write off any portion of the interest on a second home should be stopped, along with other benefits not available nor normally exercised by the normal working class. In fact, while we are at it let's make congress a part of all laws enacted :cool:.

Yeah wouldn't that be a novel idea
11-26-2012, 01:38 PM
2tall

Stupid phone, can't seem to copy & paste. Anyway, the 4 to last paragraph addresses the imbalance.
11-26-2012, 01:46 PM
Buzz

Quote:

Originally Posted by HPL

The real question here, and I think I have heard it asked once or twice before is; Can we tax our way out of this? If we raised the rates on the uber-wealthy to say a confiscatory 80% or so, would that make any difference? What if we backed that up by raising the rate on the top 50% to, say 50%? Would that get us out of this hole?

I have some thoughts on that, but I need to work on a visual aid first. After I do some work that I can make money on that is...
11-26-2012, 01:52 PM
Buzz

Quote:

Originally Posted by road kill

You did:

But of course, it remains unanswered as the answer destroys the whole argument.
I'll bet if someone wanted to, they could find a chart to answer every one of these questions.:cool:

RK, this is kind of a bogus argument below:

Quote:

So Buzz, if/when YOU take 100% of the wealth the top 10% have, what would it solve?
Would it balance the budget?
Would it pay off the debt?
Would it pay to run the Federal Gov't?
If so, for how long??

Just askin'..............

My guess is, if you took 100% of most folk's wealth and tried to use it to pay off their debts, it wouldn't cover it.

I could liquidate most of my investments and pay off my mortgage, my truck, and my credit card. But I choose not to. I choose to pay it over time.
11-26-2012, 01:55 PM
road kill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzz

RK, this is kind of a bogus argument below:

My guess is, if you took 100% of most folk's wealth and tried to use it to pay off their debts, it wouldn't cover it.

I could liquidate most of my investments and pay off my mortgage, my truck, and my credit card. But I choose not to. I choose to pay it over time.

How does TAKING more from them solve anything?

Maybe we should use our credit card a little less and get out of that debt!!!

SPEND LESS!!!!

I tried it, it really works!!!!
I have more than I owe, it feels really good.................

Evidently when HPL asks the same question it is legit to you and you have thoughts on it???

BTW---I am about to purchase one of the products you and I discussed sometime back.
I hear nothing but good stuff about it, and it is my favorite brand.
11-26-2012, 01:57 PM
Marvin S

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2tall

At least Buffet is willing to put something back.

Patrick Johndrow described Buffet to a "T". Having had some dealings with the lefties idol through companies I owned a portion of I do not share your sentiment. Buffet will extract something from the administration for his support, rest assured.
11-26-2012, 02:55 PM
HPL

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotts135

Not exactly sure how you are comparing them but I assume your premise is that private sector workers are somehow better and more worthy than Govt workers. Your know of course that our soldiers are Govt workers..............

I'm sure that you have heard the old adage about assuming. That aside, I was not saying or even implying that civil servants are in any way inferior or not as worthy as those in the private sector. My point is that the comparison is simply not a valid one. When was the last time that you heard of a civil servant (and especially at the federal level) worrying about losing his job because his employer was going to be unable to make payroll? The public sector simply doesn't have the same market pressures driving it that the private sector does. In general there is no competition, and often little real accountability. When was the last time you heard about any real "downsizing" in the govt workforce? It certainly appears to me that a civil service job is a job for life unless one commits some truly egregious infraction. Being inefficient and spending too much of the "employer's" money seldom seems to be cause for dismissal. In the private sector, if I own a business and run it poorly, I suffer the consequences (as could my employees). In the public sector, if the managers are inefficient and run things poorly, it is the client that suffers the most (usually without an alternative for the service provided). I have plenty of friends that are educators, county agents, federal law enforcement, and military, and all are good honest, hardworking folks, but their jobs are much more secure than mine, my wife's, my brother's, or any of the folks I know in the private sector. So, I'll stand by my position that you really can't compare them.

I will also say that I'm pretty sure that the OP was referring to the real takers (those on straight up welfare) when using the term leaches, even if some wanted to interpret it as all who receive government checks.
11-26-2012, 03:33 PM
Uncle Bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by road kill

It doesn't matter what they pay.
It won't change a thing.
Obama knows that.
It was all a scam to get the little guy to hate the FAT CAT!!!
Class envy.....Obama's war on "the man!!"

It was all about VOTES.....bottom line.

This is the answer...nothing else needs to be said. Only the mental midgets in the nation think constant spending will continue throughout their lives. The concept of not being able to squeeze blood from a turnip is over their heads. None are smarter than a 5th grader...they voted for the ice cream.

UB
11-26-2012, 03:48 PM
mngundog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Bill

This is the answer...nothing else needs to be said. Only the mental midgets in the nation think constant spending will continue throughout their lives. The concept of not being able to squeeze blood from a turnip is over their heads. None are smarter than a 5th grader...they voted for the ice cream.

UB

That's a great line I know I recently read it, where again did you copy it from? the daily sheeple right? Another one of UB's highly valued resource. :D

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page