Why do rich people complain about paying more taxes when they control most of the money???

[bzb]

...Some of it falls on the dumbass poor or middle class person who protects the 1% in some grand illusion that they might one day become part of the 1%.

@DEAD7

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Top 1% pays like 40% of the taxes

Its not unreasonable at all for the govt to cater to them

That whole thing is a symptom of a broken economic system. 1%ers shouldn't have that much money in the first place

 

[Brown_Pride]

Top 1% pays like 40% of the taxes

Its not unreasonable at all for the govt to cater to them

That whole thing is a symptom of a broken economic system. 1%ers shouldn't have that much money in the first place

Top 1% also places the people in the government into the government no? So isn't it really the top 1% taxing themselves?

 

[DEAD7]

@DEAD7

I think taxes should be lower for everyone
But I dont mind being wrongly labeled as "defending the rich"

 

[DEAD7]

Top 1% also places the people in the government into the government no? So isn't it really the top 1% taxing themselves?

 

[tmonster]

because taxes are anti-freedom and the rich want to protect freedom
there should be no taxes on anything or anyone
also there should be no society
just roving bands of wolfpacks of one person

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Exactly. 150k a year for a SINGLE person is rich i don't care what city you live in. That's "doctor" money. Hell i'd argue a married couple making 150k a year after taxes is bordering that "rich" line depending on where you're at.

Anytime you're making "doctor money" you're rich. So if you live in NY and make what a doctor makes in NY then you're rioch biotch.

150K in NYC is nothing dude. Wifey and I were making close to that together and moved because we couldn't afford to buy decent property to start a family. We are down in NC now and if things go well we'll be making way more than that

The thing with money is if you are responsible with it, 100K, 200K, 300K, 500K a year is good money, but you still need to work, save, etc. You can still go broke, you can still go bankrupt. I've seen it. To me "rich" = don't have to work. 100K, 500K = being able to save for retirement one day

 

[Brown_Pride]

150K in NYC is nothing dude. Wifey and I were making close to that together and moved because we couldn't afford to buy decent property to start a family. We are down in NC now and if things go well we'll be making way more than that

The thing with money is if you are responsible with it, 100K, 200K, 300K, 500K a year is good money, but you still need to work, save, etc. You can still go broke, you can still go bankrupt. I've seen it. To me "rich" = don't have to work. 100K, 500K = being able to save for retirement one day

Well that's the trouble with defining "rich".
TO ME you can be rich and need to work to continue to be so. You can be making mad dough and not have much if you have piss poor money management or are living above your means. The problem with your definition is that MC Hammer (multi millionaire MC Hammer) was never rich because he would always need to work to maintain his lifestyle. Mean while I know people who own very small businesses that by your definition could quite right now never work a day again in their lives but not really enjoying life like they used to had they kept working...

How about this.
If you can afford to take your family to disneyland AND you don't live in LA then you're rich...

I know we're 100+ post in but what is rich?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

We

150K in NYC is nothing dude. Wifey and I were making close to that together and moved because we couldn't afford to buy decent property to start a family. We are down in NC now and if things go well we'll be making way more than that

The thing with money is if you are responsible with it, 100K, 200K, 300K, 500K a year is good money, but you still need to work, save, etc. You can still go broke, you can still go bankrupt. I've seen it. To me "rich" = don't have to work. 100K, 500K = being able to save for retirement one day

We're talking 150k after taxes though. Gross is 200k

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Well that's the trouble with defining "rich".
TO ME you can be rich and need to work to continue to be so. You can be making mad dough and not have much if you have piss poor money management or are living above your means. The problem with your definition is that MC Hammer (multi millionaire MC Hammer) was never rich because he would always need to work to maintain his lifestyle. Mean while I know people who own very small businesses that by your definition could quite right now never work a day again in their lives but not really enjoying life like they used to had they kept working...

How about this.
If you can afford to take your family to disneyland AND you don't live in LA then you're rich...

I know we're 100+ post in but what is rich?

Anyone w/some credit cards can take their family to Disneyland. That's not rich. 1 time outward appearance stuff like that is easy to fake. Not having to work anymore is something you can't fake. That's why that's a better definition to me. Not to say income or w/e doesn't matter. But it sounds to me like you equate being rich with the kinds of things you purchase, which doesn't mean anything these days.

And I think "rich" people do have the right to complain about taxes. The curve is not fair. Even if it were a flat tax, rich people would pay more. But it's not. It's so progressive, a lot of people don't even pay federal income tax. We all work, we all benefit from the govt. So why should some folks be exempt from federal income taxes (or even worse get extra payments from the govt) because they make less, or chose to have kids, or chose to buy a house etc.?

 

[DEAD7]

That's the problem with making things "fair". Its completely subjective.

A true flat tax(no deductions or exemptions) is the only "fair" tax.

The Russian Federation is a considered a prime case of the success of a flat tax; the real revenues from its Personal Income Tax rose by 25.2% in the first year after the Federation introduced a flat tax, followed by a 24.6% increase in the second year, and a 15.2% increase in the third year.[16]

Some exemption for people below the poverty line would have to be made to make this tenable, but I think its reasonable.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

@DEAD7 pls dont dap my posts thanks.

 

[DEAD7]

 

[Brown_Pride]

Anyone w/some credit cards can take their family to Disneyland. That's not rich. 1 time outward appearance stuff like that is easy to fake. Not having to work anymore is something you can't fake. That's why that's a better definition to me. Not to say income or w/e doesn't matter. But it sounds to me like you equate being rich with the kinds of things you purchase, which doesn't mean anything these days.

And I think "rich" people do have the right to complain about taxes. The curve is not fair. Even if it were a flat tax, rich people would pay more. But it's not. It's so progressive, a lot of people don't even pay federal income tax. We all work, we all benefit from the govt. So why should some folks be exempt from federal income taxes (or even worse get extra payments from the govt) because they make less, or chose to have kids, or chose to buy a house etc.?

Don't get me wrong i'm admitting there's no simple way to define being rich, i just think your definition is lacking (as mine was clearly).

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Don't get me wrong i'm admitting there's no simple way to define being rich, i just think your definition is lacking (as mine was clearly).