Fair share? Fine- How's THIS for FAIR SHARE?!?

Skyhook · 10-10-2012, 06:40

".. the top ten percent of income earners in the United States pay in federal income taxes as opposed to any other industrialized nation in the world.

According to Moore, these earners pay almost half (45 percent) of the country's total taxes. This conclusion flies in the face of the liberal concept that top earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes."

Read more: PICKET: New book shows U.S. top earners pay larger share of taxes than any other industrialized nation - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...#ixzz28tpRxK9M
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Brucev · 10-10-2012, 07:20

So what? They pay. Fine. A progressive tax structure works like that. Apply it to all "persons," including those fine "corporate person." Tax them up the wazo rather than letting them get a free ride. Tax them till the wingtippers can no longer have their bonuses. Tax them till they are out of business... or until than actually do real capital investment and real job creation in the U.S.

Skyhook · 10-10-2012, 07:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brucev

So what? They pay. Fine. A progressive tax structure works like that. Apply it to all "persons," including those fine "corporate person." Tax them up the wazo rather than letting them get a free ride. Tax them till the wingtippers can no longer have their bonuses. Tax them till they are out of business... or until than actually do real capital investment and real job creation in the U.S.

You're serious, right?

How do you feel about 50% of the population contributing nothing? Is that fair?

valvestem · 10-10-2012, 07:57

My thoughts are a flat tax, on everyone, no exceptions, and if you do not work, you do not get a say (vote). By do not work, I mean freeloaders, who should and can work, but choose not to.

**aircarver** · 10-10-2012, 08:04

'Fair share' means 'you pay' ...

.

beforeobamabans · 10-10-2012, 08:06

I am aware of a company that does $12 billion per year of sales in the US. Because of a major warranty problem a decade ago, they have not paid one dollar in federal income taxes due to the Loss Carry Forward provision of the tax code. With the LCF consumed, they will begin paying 35% next year. Two extremes, eh? If Romney can eliminate this "loophole" then lower the corporate rate to 25%, that seems a good compromise to me and provides an excellent example of his model generating more income for the Treasury.

FLIPPER 348 · 10-10-2012, 08:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyhook

You're serious, right?

How do you feel about 50% of the population contributing nothing? Is that fair?

It's been that way for decades.

Skyhook · 10-10-2012, 08:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLIPPER 348

It's been that way for decades.

So, the present system is historically unfair?

Ok.

What ever happened to 'Nobody rides for free'?

ChuteTheMall · 10-10-2012, 08:24

We didn't even cross the 40% threshold until the Obama regime; 42% in 2009, 41% in 2010.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/put...eturns-chart-6

**aircarver** · 10-10-2012, 08:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyhook

So, the present system is historically unfair?

Ok.

What ever happened to 'Nobody rides for free'?

It simply wasn't well known how unfair it was until recently, because of media complicity.

The damn-nocrats are fine with it, and the republi-can'ts didn't want to have to do anything about it ...

.

Skyhook · 10-10-2012, 08:37

Folks the excellent input here has me thinking when Obama says "fair share" he must be talking some kind of code.

To whom is he speaking that code, huh?

Zombie Surgeon · 10-10-2012, 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLIPPER 348

It's been that way for decades.

So was slavery.
That didn't mean it was right.

nursetim · 10-10-2012, 08:45

Corporations don't pay taxes, they pass it unto the consumer of whatever product. Can't afford a vacation? Thank corp. taxes. Food cost skyrocketing, than corp. taxes. Want to see phenomenal growth in GDP, do away with corp. taxes and make our country attractive to foreign investment and business.

I turned down an opportunity recently to start my own practice. The thing that stopped me was the hostile business environment. Are others starting and running successful businesses in the hostile environment? You bet. I just do not have the confidence to do so.

***series1811*** · 10-10-2012, 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLIPPER 348

It's been that way for decades.

Not exactly a smashing rebuttal there.

countrygun · 10-10-2012, 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brucev

So what? They pay. Fine. A progressive tax structure works like that. Apply it to all "persons," including those fine "corporate person." Tax them up the wazo rather than letting them get a free ride. Tax them till the wingtippers can no longer have their bonuses. Tax them till they are out of business... or until than actually do real capital investment and real job creation in the U.S.

"From those with the greatest ability, to those with the greatest need"

Bruce H · 10-10-2012, 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brucev

So what? They pay. Fine. A progressive tax structure works like that. Apply it to all "persons," including those fine "corporate person." Tax them up the wazo rather than letting them get a free ride. Tax them till the wingtippers can no longer have their bonuses. Tax them till they are out of business... or until than actually do real capital investment and real job creation in the U.S.

Let me guess, you have an MBA. Is it from Harvard because all of theirs don't have a clue.

podwich · 10-10-2012, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brucev

So what? They pay. Fine. A progressive tax structure works like that. Apply it to all "persons," including those fine "corporate person." Tax them up the wazo rather than letting them get a free ride. Tax them till the wingtippers can no longer have their bonuses. Tax them till they are out of business... or until than actually do real capital investment and real job creation in the U.S.

Wow. You really are evil.

Cool that is not.

Snowman92D · 10-10-2012, 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce H

Let me guess, you have an MBA. Is it from Harvard because all of theirs don't have a clue.

Sounds more like the University of Havana. Wonder who signed his sheepskin...Raul, or Fidel?

Chronos · 10-10-2012, 17:50

IMO, brains are not "paying their fair share" of resources to the cancerous tumor in the lungs.

Brucev · 10-10-2012, 20:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyhook

You're serious, right?

How do you feel about 50% of the population contributing nothing? Is that fair?

"Feel?" Feeling hasn't got anything to do with it>

"Fair?" Even those who spout about the "fair tax" are careful to stipulate a floor for income. So... why is it fair to have a floor for the fair tax but, surprise... to not tax the income of poor people is an outrageous affront to the twits who get their shorts in a wad about such things... but have absolutely no problem with those (people and those faux corporate persons) who park their money off-short to dodge paying taxes?

Brucev · 10-10-2012, 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by countrygun

"From those with the greatest ability, to those with the greatest need"

Why do you read such stuff?

countrygun · 10-10-2012, 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brucev

Why do you read such stuff?

To get to the roots of your inspiration

Brucev · 10-10-2012, 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce H

Let me guess, you have an MBA. Is it from Harvard because all of theirs don't have a clue.

The little boys with their harvard mba's, whatever, are the ones who did such an expert job of crashing the U.S. economy. Blue collar Americans were busy going to work each day.

Why are you so impressed with the mba screw-up?

Brucev · 10-10-2012, 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by podwich

Wow. You really are evil.

Cool that is not.

Evil? In the post-modern world, evil is just a silly word used by moralists. It has no place in discussions about business... or taxation. After all, if one cannot expect businesses to act in a morally but to always and only be concerned about their bottom line regardless of who gets hurt, then why oh why would anyone expect that a tax code would be moral, regardless of who gets hurt.

Louisville Glocker · 10-10-2012, 20:28

More people going after the 47%.

Have you examined who they are? Largely the elderly, who have worked for decades and are no longer working so do you really expect them to be paying income tax? And also the working poor. Who are working, and ARE contributing in the form of payroll taxes (Social security, medicare) as well as state taxes, local taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc. As a percentage of income, even with zero federal income tax, many are still paying a reasonably high percentage towards taxes.

So you're saying the elderly and working poor don't contribute? Well boo hoo...go cry in your bedroom....most of those have worked, or are currently working, just as hard as the average person around here. And those two categories are the bulk of the 47 percent you and romney dismiss.