Republican Congressman says he can barely feed his family with $400K extra

[Yeekim]

Statistically speaking wealthy business owners pay less in taxes % speaking than someone who makes $50k a year due to all the loopholes

Your rage is unwarranted to say the least

Then focus on closing the loopholes. But VRWCAgent's idea is completely sound.
Flat tax on taxable income is the way to go.

 

[Lone Cat]

The 'loopholes' such as 'donation' things. I doubt that those foundations are really contribute to our society.

The Income Tax rating should be progressive. with respect to one's annual income
or anyone has better ideals?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Nothing wrong with $400K a year. Why should he be punished for his success by being at a higher percentage than someone else? He already pays a hell of a lot more just by virtue of making more and having that taxed.

Yeah, woo USA #1, punish success.

Reagan increased taxes 7 times yet never was attacked liked this. He also expanded the government. Were not talking big tax increases here either, match this will budget cuts. It cant be all taxes increases and it cant be all cuts.

the additional tax will amount to less than one half of one penny for every dollar he earns

 

[Yeekim]

Listen to the experience of those who actually know what a budget surplus is.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

From short article

"job creators" ... created a job." ... "This is all about creating jobs"

Gee, I wonder what the main political issue is these days. And it's funny business that in time of great unemployment these people are kind enough to place the blame upon themselves. If you people are job creators, what have you been doing the last 3 years? Not creating jobs, that's for sure. During times of crisis when jobs are laid of, shouldn't "job destroyers" be more appropriate?

Anyway, just to let the "job creator" know, as a "job consumer" my heart bleeds to hear they have to start paying the same tax as the "job consumers". It's unheard of.

 

[MobBoss]

I think people should be taxed fairly; and the productive not overly taxed to pay for the unproductive....

However.....

This particular guy isnt helping. At all.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The unproductive is such a wide group of people.

I know you mean the people who are able to and have the opportunity to work but rather have a gov check in the mail, but it's a little ambiguous term when unemployment rates mean that many who desire to work are also unproductive. Mind, I know what you meant, so this is not a criticism about that, but still, a question.

Are you comfortable with paying for people who lost their job due no fault of their own but due to the crisis, and are willing to work but can't find employment?

 

[Lone Cat]

From short article
Gee, I wonder what the main political issue is these days. And it's funny business that in time of great unemployment these people are kind enough to place the blame upon themselves. If you people are job creators, what have you been doing the last 3 years? Not creating jobs, that's for sure. During times of crisis when jobs are laid of, shouldn't "job destroyers" be more appropriate?

Anyway, just to let the "job creator" know, as a "job consumer" my heart bleeds to hear they have to start paying the same tax as the "job consumers". It's unheard of.

heh! this have more things to do with the crisis. and the 'Wall street culture'... the culture that had ruined American economy right now i think... well if not mention to Chinese mercantilisme.

 

[Godwynn]

We got the government we deserve.

 

[emzie]

Which the rich 'pay forward' by paying more in absolute numbers. If you want to argue against this, then give me facts that refute it. Show me exactly how much more they benefit, by the penny, more than someone that only makes $50K a year. Really, just how much more do the police spend on the wealthy than they do the poor or middle class, eh? Let's see figures. Do those figures add up to more than the wealthy pay in taxes just by virtue of making more and being taxed for more income?

Oh, and hey, part of 'paying it forward' is actually, you know, employing people. So let's not take that image quote too seriously.

You're misstating my argument.

I'm not arguing for the rich to "pay it forward" -- I'm arguing that the rich pay a higher percent of their income than you, so that they can continue earning more money than you. Your example of police protection illustrates your confusion on this matter. I never argued that the police protect one group more than the other (though this actually could be argued); rather, I argued one group benefits more than the other by the existence of police. This should be obvious when you consider that wealthier people have more stuff to protect than you do.

 

[Traitorfish]

“class warfare has never created a job."

Not a man well-versed in labour history, is he?

 

[Leoreth]

I hope people like him who are so easy with the word "class warfare" will experience actual class warfare at some point.

 

[downtown]

This a perfect microcosm of why this Congress is completely hopeless.

The guy represents a fairly poor district in one of the poorest states in the entire country. Most of his district would be thrilled to make 1/8th of what he has "left over". There is nothing wrong with being wealthy, but this attitude shows that he is completely divorced from the reality his constituents face, making him a pretty terrible representative.

Plus, this guy got rich from being a franchisee of Subway and UPS stores, which rely almost entirely on the lowest wage labor. He just should have known better.

 

[Cutlass]

From short article
Gee, I wonder what the main political issue is these days. And it's funny business that in time of great unemployment these people are kind enough to place the blame upon themselves. If you people are job creators, what have you been doing the last 3 years? Not creating jobs, that's for sure. During times of crisis when jobs are laid of, shouldn't "job destroyers" be more appropriate?

Anyway, just to let the "job creator" know, as a "job consumer" my heart bleeds to hear they have to start paying the same tax as the "job consumers". It's unheard of.

Not the last 3 years. The last 10. There has been essentially no private sector job creation in the US since the first Bush "tax cut".

 

[Yeekim]

You're misstating my argument.

I'm not arguing for the rich to "pay it forward" -- I'm arguing that the rich pay a higher percent of their income than you, so that they can continue earning more money than you. Your example of police protection illustrates your confusion on this matter. I never argued that the police protect one group more than the other (though this actually could be argued); rather, I argued one group benefits more than the other by the existence of police. This should be obvious when you consider that wealthier people have more stuff to protect than you do.

Firstly, it is debatable that they benefit more than the other by the existence to police.
Lack of police for super-rich would mean they'd need to spend (more) on private security, thus threatening their finances. For the poor, lack of police would threaten their lives.
Secondly, even if we accept that they benefit more, why isn't the fact that they also pay more (in absolute terms) enough? I can't find the source atm, so I may err here a bit, but I recently read that top 10% of US population finances 80% of its budget, with bottom 40% financing nothing.

 

[Gooblah]

I think people should be taxed fairly; and the productive not overly taxed to pay for the unproductive....

Arguably everyone supports "fair taxation", the issue is that it's incredibly subjective , even if we try to quote economic data and whatnot. As a bigger question, who are the "unproductive"?

However.....

This particular guy isnt helping. At all.

Amen to that.

 

[IglooDame]

This a perfect microcosm of why this Congress is completely hopeless.

The guy represents a fairly poor district in one of the poorest states in the entire country. Most of his district would be thrilled to make 1/8th of what he has "left over". There is nothing wrong with being wealthy, but this attitude shows that he is completely divorced from the reality his constituents face, making him a pretty terrible representative.

Plus, this guy got rich from being a franchisee of Subway and UPS stores, which rely almost entirely on the lowest wage labor. He just should have known better.

Don't worry, he won't be a representative for more than another year or so. He just handed his future opponent 20% of the vote in his district.

 

[downtown]

Don't worry, he won't be a representative for more than another year or so. He just handed his future opponent 20% of the vote in his district.

He's a conservative white dude in Louisiana. He's going to be fine. He beat the last guy by 25 points.

 

[IglooDame]

He's a conservative white dude in Louisiana. He's going to be fine. He beat the last guy by 25 points.

The last guy wasn't armed with this interview footage. Friendly wager for November 2012?

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

so when will they finally resort to violence to bring guys like this one down, I wonder.

it'll be hilarious when it happens!