Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Increasing Tax for Rich people

41 posts in this topic

Posted

The real question regarding Romney's income is should dividend income be taxed at a rate higher than it is now. To be honest, I am not sure of the answer to that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

sorry... the mormon church doesn't count as "charity."

It does as much as any other church.

Don't like churches being charities....can understand that. But, thinking one is ok and another is not is ridiculous.

And, for those of you who think that the Mormon Church is any more of a cult than any other religion has no idea what they are talking about. I do....because I attended the church as a teenager and know what they REALLY believe and not the ill informed sound bites that are floating around out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Understood, and to be honest I have no idea how the wealthy are charged when it comes to ss and medicare.

Considering Romney lives in Mass, I bet he does pay a hefty state tax though.

The SS and Medicare taxes are a big issue and area of debate. Because they are capped at just over $110k, the effective rate that the wealthy pay for this tax is much, much less than the average person.

Raising the limit is a huge issue to me, because it would be a significant tax increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It does as much as any other church.

also not ok.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah but Medicare is one of the "good"* handouts for conservatives.

*good being defined as giving things to white baby boomers more than minorites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

let's suppose we do raise taxes and 4 years from now we are WORSE off. then what? everybody gets a fishing pole and a slap on the back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

let's suppose we do raise taxes and 4 years from now we are WORSE off. then what? everybody gets a fishing pole and a slap on the back?

free fishing poles? pfff... f*ck that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I would love a new fishing pole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

602403_814406765873_523089529_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

mitt romney: shoebomber?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

ahh. one is for the common man and the other uses the comman man. clever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'd like progressives on here to explain a logical inconsistency that's been bugging me for a while.

The progressive stance on labor is that workers need to be offered substantive benefits to encourage them to work longer and harder. They're given higher minimum wages, more breaks per working hour, and better working conditions. All as incentives to continue contributing to the economy and keep the world spinning, etc. This rests on the fundamental principles that (a) workers should be rewarded for working harder, and (B) incentives are needed to keep people productive.

How, therefore, is it logically consistent to punish the wealthy by demanding that they pay more taxes, make less money, etc., if this is counter-intuitive to the progressive culture of fair rewards for fair work?

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites