Venting!!!!!!!

Maybe if the top 2% paid their fair share of taxes we wouldn't have to make up the difference? :huh:

Lets go back to the tax rates of the last great republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Top marginal tax rate under Eisenhower (1953-1961): 91-92%
 
Pack66Dad said:
Maybe if the top 2% paid their fair share of taxes we wouldn't have to make up the difference? :huh:

Lets go back to the tax rates of the last great republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Top marginal tax rate under Eisenhower (1953-1961): 91-92%
Click to expand...

Here you go again. In all your rantings, as far as I can tell, you have failed to say what (in your opinion) the "fair share" should be for the top 2% or even the other 48% that do actually pay income taxes. Considering the top 2% pay about 40% of all taxes paid as of today, I wonder what more you expect from them? Quoting tax rates from directly post-WW2 is a little far out too.

You have stated in previous posts that you believe that you do not pay enough tax. You have not yet explained why it is that you feel that way. How much do you think you should be paying? More importantly, you have not given an explaination as to why you are not sending additional money to the IRS every year if you feel you are not paying enough. Better yet, why are you not sending that amount to a charity? Just curious.
 
Last edited:
jason78 said:
Here you go again. In all your rantings, as far as I can tell, you have failed to say what (in your opinion) the "fair share" should be for the top 2% or even the other 48% that do actually pay income taxes. Considering the top 2% pay about 40% of all taxes paid as of today, I wonder what more you expect from them? Quoting tax rates from directly post-WW2 is a little far out too.

You have stated in previous posts that you believe that you do not pay enough tax. You have not yet explained why it is that you feel that way. How much do you think you should be paying? More importantly, you have not given an explanation as to why you are not sending additional money to the IRS every year if you feel you are not paying enough. Better yet, why are you not sending that amount to a charity? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I think I have stated my point very clearly, and I gave you an example of what I think is fair. And the fact they only pay 40% of the taxes but hold almost 60% of the wealth in this country proves it!

What do you think the top 2% should pay in taxes? Or do you feel like the privilege of living in our country should be free to those with large Swiss bank accounts? :huh:

Remember to consider the fact that the top 2% use an exponentially disproportionate amount of government services like courts and law enforcement.

And I might add, unless you are actually one of the top 2% you need to stop drinking the kool-aid dude. They don't give a crap about you or your family or our country. :smt009

I don't talk about giving to charity (Don’t Let Your Left Hand Know What Your Right Hand Is Doing).
 
Last edited:
jason78 said:
You have stated in previous posts that you believe that you do not pay enough tax. You have not yet explained why it is that you feel that way. How much do you think you should be paying? More importantly, you have not given an explaination as to why you are not sending additional money to the IRS every year if you feel you are not paying enough. Better yet, why are you not sending that amount to a charity? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Answer: because it is his money.
 
This Pack66 guy just comes across as someone who has gone through life and now looks in the mirror and is not real happy with himself. It's obviously someone else's fault because it sure can't be his. He sounds bitter and disappointed and wants others to "pay" for his wasted time and wasted life. He looks at someone's "bigger boat" or "nicer house" and the only thing his little angry mind can come up with is that someone is not paying their fair share because he doesn't have "enough."

I've been on both ends of the social standing... bottom 2% and top 2%... and this country provides EVERYONE with equal opportunity. In fact, I would argue that if you are in the bottom 2%, you have more opportunity than someone in the middle. Just because the guy down the street has a bigger house does not stop anyone from doing the same. Most of the people I know in the the upper 2% got there from sacrifice and doing things that most people would never do because they are content with their current job and don't want to "step outside the system." Building wealth doesn't come from going to work 9-5 in a union job and putting 10% of your check in a 401(k). It comes from taking risks, falling on your ass a few times, being very broke, being persistent and hopefully getting some reward back. Contrary to popular belief, it does not come from "gaming" the system. If you want to stay in your "no-future work place" and not take risk, then shut your pie hole because you sound like a bitter old man that lives under a bridge telling goats you are going to eat them.

I work with entrepreneurs on a daily basis and if the US government keeps raising taxes, the entrepreneurial back bone of this country will be gone. I just saw a talk from a group in Singapore where the government is recruiting the motivated young entrepreneurs to their country with low taxes and big capital infusions in small companies... Why? Because that activity creates jobs and opportunity for everyone. Other countries will suck every last motivated person out of this country and then all the bitter lazy asses can sit around and talk about how life is not fair.

Get off your ass and change your position in life. Nothing is holding you back. Winners take responsibility and losers blame someone else. What are you?
 
Last edited:
Pack66Dad said:
They don't give a crap about you or your family or our country. :smt009

I don't talk about giving to charity (Don’t Let Your Left Hand Know What Your Right Hand Is Doing).
Click to expand...


Dude, you seriously have to listen to yourself here. My boss is a multi millionaire. His company is 300 legal Americans. Over these last two years while other companies were laying off--he had not one layoff. He took over a million dollar loss in 2009 and we are in the red this year, and still, he lay-ed no one off. I am certain he was not alone in this practice. He gives away Disney Cruise trips at a blink of an eye, Trips to Paris, out of the blue bonus checks, full company w/family retreats.

There are many other in the majority out there that have those same principles. who do care about our family and country. And there would be more like him if taxes were not this f-ing high.

under your pretzel logic, this guy and others like him should be penalized further. Do you see the domino effect here. If he was over taxed more like you want him to be, unemployment would have been at 20% or 30% with your riots that you predicted in another thread.

your railing/venting about a few bad examples of abusers, but even those abusers are abusing because of the liberal policies that you seem to want to defend. You push someone into a corner and he/she will do what they need to get out of that corner. These Libtards are pushing businesses into a corner and they will do what they need to get out of that corner Like moving oversees.

It simply amazes me that you cannot see this right in front of you.

It is these Liberal/Socialist policies Buddy, not the people. Go after the cause of the problem--liberal/socialist policies caused what you hate but yet you want more of these policies.

So answer the question, What do you think a fair tax rate should be and at what earnings.

Do you really think that $200K defines RICH? (Which BTW, Obama's Tax policies are not aimed at the $200K, they are aimed at the $40K--in his mind $40 is Rich) but let's use the 200K figure since the Libtards follow him blindly into the abyss.
 
I think one of the fundamental flaws with packerhead is he feels the total wealth in the country is fixed. If he would have paid attention in class after the 2nd grade, he would have learned the economy here doesn't work that way. If you have $1000 and your neighbor has $2000, it doesn't mean you have to take away $1000 from your neighbor to get $2000 yourself. The total value of this country is not "fixed."... You can go make it to $2000 just like your neighbor did... your neighbor having $2000 is not putting a ceiling on what you can do... So this argument of "most of the wealth in the country is going to the top 2%" thing doesn't fly... Money is not like a box of legos that has to be divided up. I personally believe the increasing "gap" between the top and bottom is because there are more opportunities today than there were 30 years ago and the motivated people are grabbing them. And the rest are just letting the opportunities slip on by...

I'm currently working with a 60-year old entrepreneur who immigrated here from China 40 years ago, got a PhD and has sacrificed everything for the last 20 years building a medical device company. I think she now has one of the most significant products that will come to market over the next few years and some liberal as-holes think she should be punished... I say she should get rich...
 
Four Suns said:
I think she now has one of the most significant products that will come to market over the next few years and some liberal as-holes think she should be punished... I say she should get rich...
Click to expand...

Good Bless her and I wish you and her nothing but success. I wish I had that drive but since I don't, I will elect ass-holes to steal her money and give it to me. So thanks again for all your and her hard work so I don't have to risk anything but still reap the rewards.

Private message me if you like, I am in IT in Heath-care and would be interested in seeing what she is working on.
 
MaddyDean said:
I wish I had that drive but since I don't, I will elect ass-holes to steal her money and give it to me. So thanks again for all your and her hard work so I don't have to risk anything but still reap the rewards.
Click to expand...

Exactly... She obviously is gaming the system...
 
The other piece of advice I can give to the packerhead is to stop looking around worrying about what you don't have and be thankful for what you do have...
 
He is just pissed because he wants a bigger boat and can't afford one. You (Gary)took all the money that should have been directed at him !
 
I wonder which one is Pack??

life-is-not-fair.jpg
 
Dems: If we don't raise taxes on the top 2% it will "COST" 700 billion and add to the deficit!


The top 5% earners in this country already pay 80% or more of this country's taxes!! Not my numbers, these are the numbers of the IRS!

I am a long, long way away from being in this group. However, since when is reaching in MY pocket for more cash costing the government money? It's my money not Pelosi and Reid’s money!

If you don't want to add to the deficit, then cut costs FIRST, balance your bank account and stop forcing your way into my wallet for more cash, because there isn't anything there anymore!:thumbsup:

But then again some Dems want this country to become a nanny state!
 
That "$700B" number is a pile of horse crap... First, it's over 10 years... Second, it's $700B that would be deployed into spending, investments or savings instead of confiscated by the government. It's essentially a fight over who can better deploy $700B over 10 years... private investors or the government... and it's not the government's money...
 
Four Suns said:
<snip> he feels the total wealth in the country is fixed. If he would have paid attention in class after the 2nd grade, he would have learned the economy here doesn't work that way. If you have $1000 and your neighbor has $2000, it doesn't mean you have to take away $1000 from your neighbor to get $2000 yourself. The total value of this country is not "fixed."... You can go make it to $2000 just like your neighbor did... your neighbor having $2000 is not putting a ceiling on what you can do
Click to expand...

Agree fully. Wealth is not fixed. Opportunity is NOT fixed. You want better? Go out and get it.

... So this argument of "most of the wealth in the country is going to the top 2%" thing doesn't fly...<snip> I personally believe the increasing "gap" between the top and bottom is because there are more opportunities today than there were 30 years ago and the motivated people are grabbing them. And the rest are just letting the opportunities slip on by...
Click to expand...

Do not agree. Most of the wealth is DEFINATELY going to the top. In my company last year, there was a corporate pay freeze. The CEO's salary was 10% higher than the year before.

Not that I am saying anything is wrong with that: I am just saying it is a fact of life. At the bottom; you pay 2% to get your check cashed. You pay interest on credit cards. In the middle. . .you don't pay to have your checks cashed and if you are smart you don't pay interest on car loans and credit cards. At the top. . you get someone else to pay for your car.


- - - - - -

Regarding tax cuts: Personally, I would prefer to get the phrasing correct.

Nobody in the current Democratic or Republican leadership has (seriously) proposed increases in base income or capital gains rates. There will be no tax hike at the end of the year. There was a "temporary tax cut" enacted 7 years ago. They expire this year. That is not a "hike". That was the plan as voted and approved years ago by a different set of political leaders. You can thank the Republicans that controlled the House, Senate and White House from 2000 to 2006 for these ridiculous yo-yo tax rules. You can thank the Democrats for the pile of inane tax breaks for "clunkers", "new car sales", "home buyer credits", and "home improvements" we currently have.

The current argument is to either (a) create a new temporary tax cut, (b) create a permanent tax law change (with lower rates), or (c) do nothing.

My view is "yo-yo tax code" is stupid. Set the rate. . .and stick to it. For the record, I favor a temporary extension of the 2005-2010 rates for another 2 years as an economic stimulus.

------------

My view is that if you plan to cut revenue, you should plan commensurate spending cuts. Given that the government is operating in deficit, they should plan spending cuts even if revenue is not cut.

Of course, I have heard the argument that cutting tax rates increases revenue because it is an economic stimulus. I am sure that if this was even remotely true, then someone would be providing numbers on how the increased revenue closes the deficit. Absence of any sort of numbers (cooked or otherwise) on this point says that nobody remotely believes it will happen.
 
Last edited:
Guess who is packerhead

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlWddAXSRA[/YOUTUBE]
 
comsnark said:
- - - - - -

Regarding tax cuts: Personally, I would prefer to get the phrasing correct.

There will be no tax hike at the end of the year. There was a "temporary tax cut" enacted 7 years ago. They expire this year. That is not a "hike". That was the plan as voted and approved years ago by a different set of political leaders. You can thank the Republicans that controlled the House, Senate and White House from 2000 to 2006...
Click to expand...

Not really true--in order to get the rate of cuts the bill was passed via reconciliation and with the Dem's expirations time line stipulations in 2001. The original cuts were proposed larger and if they would have come for a vote, would have been filibustered. so reconciliation was used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,253
Messages
1,429,347
Members
61,130
Latest member
VaBreeze
Back
Top