I used to be rich, by one of their definitions. I thought it was middle class in the lower half but one year I actually made the grade by working 11 1/2 months 7 days a week with no break. That was the barely over $100,000 year everything included and was a direct result of war. After taxes I wasn't rich anymore.
Now I've adopted an Alfred E. Neuman approach.
With whatever I have and it's all tax paid safely out of the country - What? Me Worry? It's not coming back. That paid for the house and boat the rest is in a non interest earning place.
But what I do still earn as a retiree each month is still four times as much as I had planned for figuring things could go wrong and half what I would need to afford living in the USA. Having retired to the upper lower class but still paying taxes. The answer was move to where I could live a comfortable middle class retirement life.
Besides I don't like single party systems of government and miss the Constitution.
PS The Boat is for just in case.
The $100,000 was combination of military retirement and 11.5 months of work.
The Russian insult used to be "May you live on your pay." In the USSA it may well be "May you live on your pension."
I'm just a little ole' retired state employee who just gets by but I say fair is everyone paying the same percent. Unfair is Big Brother spending like a drunken lord and expecting its citizenry to support gargantuan pork and unconstitutional socialism with a part of their incomes. I've listened to needful of staying in office Dem politicians enunciate THE RICH in a sentence in a raspy nasty kinda way with me left thinking, "So how much are you making right now?"
rich people are always using their funds to to paxes on what they earn, if the employ people they are paying taxes on them and of course they spend some of their money on personal things, food, vacations, cars etc and those monies are taxed as well. poor people don't necessarily contribute taxes and if 0 has his way they will not ever. So rich people are responsible for more than their fair share.
That's because limousine libs are fine with "income tax"... they just don't want a "wealth tax". As long as they don't have to work for a living like the little people, its their way of making sure they are always the high-society folk.
same old crap, if yhou have it, we want it and have the guns to take it! if there was less spent on redistribution, less taxes are needed. mismanagement at the government level in all cases is a core issue on fairness. ayn predicted the stock market run up for the insiders and the other phoney looks at saving the mob. time to ratchet it all down and get real. let's tax consumption and reward wealth accumulation. there will be new "million dollar familes" pretty quick and theyu won't just be the Asters! legal theft has run it's course
"Fair:" 6a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
Any taxation system whereby one person pays a higher percentage of anything is by definition UNFAIR.
FAIR would be very simple. EVERYONE pays 10% of all their income, EVERYONE pays 50% of their income, EVERYONE pays 5% of their income NO dedications, NO exemptions PERIOD.
Anything other than that is unfair to one group over another. Also by simple math lets just say a flat 10% income tax was to be paid by all. The person who earns $10,000.00 pays $1,000.00. The person who earns $500K pays $50,000.00.
The wealthier still pays MORE but the percentage of income is the SAME, THAT is fair.
I personally would just prefer a 10% flat tax on ALL products except for Food you consume.
Then you are in TOTAL control of what you pay in taxes. The "rich" person who buys that Bentley would pay 10% on that million dollar car would be paying 100K in tax. The poor person who buys the $1,000.00 dollar "beater" pays $100.00. Again totally fair.
This would meet the "equal protection" under the constitution also. Anything that requires one group to pay more than any other group as a percentage is "unfair"
Further, consider the people you employ. Whether they are statutory employees or contractors they pay taxes on the revenue they receive that was actually initiated by your desire to accomplish something. The progressives never consider this. If I were debating one of the great progressives I would point out "they didn't create that, NMA did!"
Being Libertarian is more than just NOT being Republican or Democrat. A Libertarian President would put forth free market solutions to problems. You campaigned and voted for Obama whose solutions are always based on Socialist principles. We break the cycle by electing politicians who promote freedom, liberty and capitalism.
capital gains is 15% of course losses are strategically arranged to offset profits. high income earners have a sliver of the wealth the rich do-they pay the bulk of taxes.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Now I've adopted an Alfred E. Neuman approach.
With whatever I have and it's all tax paid safely out of the country - What? Me Worry? It's not coming back. That paid for the house and boat the rest is in a non interest earning place.
But what I do still earn as a retiree each month is still four times as much as I had planned for figuring things could go wrong and half what I would need to afford living in the USA. Having retired to the upper lower class but still paying taxes. The answer was move to where I could live a comfortable middle class retirement life.
Besides I don't like single party systems of government and miss the Constitution.
PS The Boat is for just in case.
The $100,000 was combination of military retirement and 11.5 months of work.
The Russian insult used to be "May you live on your pay." In the USSA it may well be "May you live on your pension."
Unfair is Big Brother spending like a drunken lord and expecting its citizenry to support gargantuan pork and unconstitutional socialism with a part of their incomes.
I've listened to needful of staying in office Dem politicians enunciate THE RICH in a sentence in a raspy nasty kinda way with me left thinking, "So how much are you making right now?"
poor people don't necessarily contribute taxes and if 0 has his way they will not ever. So rich people are responsible for more than their fair share.
6a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
Any taxation system whereby one person pays a higher percentage of anything is by definition UNFAIR.
FAIR would be very simple. EVERYONE pays 10% of all their income, EVERYONE pays 50% of their income, EVERYONE pays 5% of their income NO dedications, NO exemptions PERIOD.
Anything other than that is unfair to one group over another. Also by simple math lets just say a flat 10% income tax was to be paid by all. The person who earns $10,000.00 pays $1,000.00. The person who earns $500K pays $50,000.00.
The wealthier still pays MORE but the percentage of income is the SAME, THAT is fair.
I personally would just prefer a 10% flat tax on ALL products except for Food you consume.
Then you are in TOTAL control of what you pay in taxes. The "rich" person who buys that Bentley would pay 10% on that million dollar car would be paying 100K in tax. The poor person who buys the $1,000.00 dollar "beater" pays $100.00. Again totally fair.
This would meet the "equal protection" under the constitution also. Anything that requires one group to pay more than any other group as a percentage is "unfair"
Load more comments...