Tax the rich!!!

[Ming]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't really care to read the entire thread but could someone explain to me why anyone should pay 90% of thier income to the government as MRT wants?

The 90% figure is a "marginal tax rate"... they don't truely pay 90% of their income to taxes. If you view it under a graduated tax scale, they pay a far lower percentage on their income up to a certain level... a higher rate on dollars earned above that level... until finally, the last amount of dollars earned are taxed at 90%. The actual "average" tax rate they may pay could be as low as 40%.

[Arrian]

Hmm, checked your link, GePap. I don't get it. I thought the threashold was 600K. Yet I plug in $1.5 million, married, and get no estate tax.

First off, whose marital status are we talking about here? The person who dies, or the person inheriting? If the latter, what about the fact that most estates are split up amongst several inheritors?

-Arrian, now confused.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The limit is moving upward. I think it is now at 1.5 Mil or very soon willl be. We just went through this as we set up our will with the lawyers.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You wish.

So, how much of the US population live below the GLOBAL income average, median AND mode

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Sara your definition is too narrow.

For the PETA freaks who think animals deserve every right of humans you need consider the GLOBAL income average, median and mode including dogs,cats, horse, pigs, etc.

[Saras]

Sorry, I feel such an insensitive piece of crap

[Berzerker]

Frankly, I think it would be cool if the Libs got themselves a state and set up their ideal society as an experiment. Right next door to the Commies. Hows about New Hampshire (Libs) and Vermont (Commies)? Wait, no, scratch that, I like those states and I like to go skiing there. Montana & Wyoming?

If libertarians were running New Hampashire, you could still ski there But if you want to ski in Vermont you'll just have to pay all the taxes they'll tack on unless they decide skiing is bad for the environment.

[OzzyKP]

Re: Re: Re: Ozzy

Originally posted by atomant


Come to africa, were people earn less than a dollar US per day. That is poverty. There was a picture on the front page of teh national newspaper of a guy skinning mice for his evening meal.

Exactly my point. THAT is poverty. Making $40,000 a year and driving a new car is NOT poverty or anywhere close.


And yes poverty is relative, but I live in a rather expensive area of a rather expensive country and make a fourth as much as Mr. 40k and I wouldn't describe myself as living in poverty.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Berzerker


If libertarians were running New Hampashire, you could still ski there

I bet your skies would be nicked if you stepped into the bathroom for just one minute, though.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Berzerker

If libertarians were running New Hampashire, you could still ski there But if you want to ski in Vermont you'll just have to pay all the taxes they'll tack on unless they decide skiing is bad for the environment.

That assumes that NH will be a functioning society, as opposed to one experiencing systemic breakdown, as I suspect it might.

In VT, the ski resorts wouldn't last a year.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian
Hmm, checked your link, GePap. I don't get it. I thought the threashold was 600K. Yet I plug in $1.5 million, married, and get no estate tax.

First off, whose marital status are we talking about here? The person who dies, or the person inheriting? If the latter, what about the fact that most estates are split up amongst several inheritors?

-Arrian, now confused.

I believe its the person whose estate it is, ergo the ones who might die.

[David Floyd]

That assumes that NH will be a functioning society, as opposed to one experiencing systemic breakdown, as I suspect it might.

Well, if the Free State Project kicks off, we'll get to see firsthand instead of just talking about it.

[Kidlicious]

There is property in my family. I've seen it affect people in different ways. My paternal grandfather was a salesman, and earned enough money to start his own company. That company did very well since my grandfather was a very good salesman and business man. However, as my paternal grandfather accumulated assets he worked less and less since more and more of his income came from his assets.

The other side of my family has owned property from as far back as we know of. My maternal grandfather inhereted a sizable amount of property. However, he educated his self (hated farming) and earned quite a bit of money himself. He also saved a lot compared to the amount that he had. Unfortunately, his children have not done a damn thing with their lives. They are all rich bums.

People should have to work for their money. It's better for them.

[David Floyd]

People should have to work for their money. It's better for them.

Hmm, I suppose you see my point about welfare now.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Hmm, I suppose you see my point about welfare now.

I'm against welfare as long as there is an alternative.