Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!

The funny thing is that the article demonstrated how cutting taxes actual increases the amount of taxes paid to the federal goverment. From eveything I have read this has been true anytime that taxes hve been cut. Its only lip service so the lower class can get that warm fuzzy feeling that they are sticking it to the mean old rich people.
And yet Obama still wants to raise taxes on the rich.

I feel so bad for the rich. They will only be able to afford a new Bentley every other year now.

I feel so bad for the rich. They will only be able to afford a new Bentley every other year now.
Class envy?

Not at all. I'm actually in favor of a flat percentage tax. But people that make the most money in this country should do more to support it. Most of the people that whine about the rich being over-taxed aren't anywhere close to that bracket, and they play more when the ultra-rich get savings.

Not at all. I'm actually in favor of a flat percentage tax. But people that make the most money in this country should do more to support it. Most of the people that whine about the rich being over-taxed aren't anywhere close to that bracket, and they play more when the ultra-rich get savings.
Well what facts do you have that supports that the rich gets ultra savings? Anything I have ever seen is that they are a small % of the tax payers but pay a much greater % of all the taxes collected. Like the top 1% pays 40% of all the taxes collected. That does not sound like ultra savings to me. I don't whine about it and your right I'm not in their bracket but I do think they pay more than their share as it is and that article even pointed out that raising their taxes will not increase tax revenue as Obama thinks it will.

Firstdown, I'm running out now so no time to back up the numbers I have heard with statistics, so Ill try to remember to get into that later. My thing is if one household brings in 10 million dollars a year, and lose 40% of that, it's a huge chunk. If another household brings in 100,000 a year and lose 40% of that, they're crippled.

Firstdown, would you be okay if everyone paid (just pulled a number out, statisticians would have to come up with an accurate number for this) 20% of their income at the end of the year to the government? I think doing it on a base percentage is the best way to go about it. Although I still don't know if the very poor could handle something that large.

I guess I just have no sympathy for someone paying more taxes that has all the money/luxuries they need. The top 1% won't come tumbling down because of their taxes. I'm more concerned about the folks that lose their homes because they can't pay property tax, or that have to choose between putting food on the table and paying the government.

Firstdown, I'm running out now so no time to back up the numbers I have heard with statistics, so Ill try to remember to get into that later. My thing is if one household brings in 10 million dollars a year, and lose 40% of that, it's a huge chunk. If another household brings in 100,000 a year and lose 40% of that, they're crippled.

Firstdown, would you be okay if everyone paid (just pulled a number out, statisticians would have to come up with an accurate number for this) 20% of their income at the end of the year to the government? I think doing it on a base percentage is the best way to go about it. Although I still don't know if the very poor could handle something that large.

I guess I just have no sympathy for someone paying more taxes that has all the money/luxuries they need. The top 1% won't come tumbling down because of their taxes. I'm more concerned about the folks that lose their homes because they can't pay property tax, or that have to choose between putting food on the table and paying the government.

Why are you saying $10 million? The top 1%, per this article, make above $388,000. There's a huge difference between that and $10 million

Firstdown, I'm running out now so no time to back up the numbers I have heard with statistics, so Ill try to remember to get into that later. My thing is if one household brings in 10 million dollars a year, and lose 40% of that, it's a huge chunk. If another household brings in 100,000 a year and lose 40% of that, they're crippled.

Firstdown, would you be okay if everyone paid (just pulled a number out, statisticians would have to come up with an accurate number for this) 20% of their income at the end of the year to the government? I think doing it on a base percentage is the best way to go about it. Although I still don't know if the very poor could handle something that large.

I guess I just have no sympathy for someone paying more taxes that has all the money/luxuries they need. The top 1% won't come tumbling down because of their taxes. I'm more concerned about the folks that lose their homes because they can't pay property tax, or that have to choose between putting food on the table and paying the government.
I'm for anything better then what we have in place today. Either a flat tax or a consumer tax which I believe is around 22% and the lower income receives back tax credits. Neil Bortz (spelling) has a book out on the consumer tax which I have not read but have heard about. Your example of someone making $100,000 is not very good because they do not pay that much in taxes. I agree that yes the rich can afford to pay more (which they do) but that upper bracket starts with families with incomes around 350,000. While that is very well off its far from your example and they end up paying around $140,000 in taxes. So now they are bringing home 210,000 which just doe not seem right. Think they have to work almost 5 months just to pay their Federal Taxes and this does not even enclude state and other taxes. The main problem is Federal, State, and local goverment has become to big and way to waistful. We have plenty of money to meet the needs of the people we just need to cut out the waist in all three.

Why can't they just add more tiers to the current system, so that the "ultra-rich" (the ones Daseal is referring to...) are taxed heavily, but the people making "only" $350k don't give up a disproportionately large chunk of their income. It seems as if the official definitions of "rich" are far outdated.

I'm for anything better then what we have in place today. Either a flat tax or a consumer tax which I believe is around 22% and the lower income receives back tax credits. Neil Bortz (spelling) has a book out on the consumer tax which I have not read but have heard about.
Neal Boortz actually has two books out, the first is "The Fair Tax Book", the second is "The Fair Tax Answers the Critics" (I believe). I highly recommend you read them both. I read the first and haven't finished the second. Fair Tax is a great program. More info at: www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org)

A tax structure which fully funds the government, protects the poor, eliminates corporate and capital gains taxes, taxes earnings of the underground economy (drugs, other illegal activity, illegal immigrants) and most importantly takes a great deal of power away from the lobbyists on K St. and out of DC has my support.