Republicans.....what do they intend to change?

[Gilding the Lily]

Ummm...6% is ridiculous when you and I in the working class are paying 30+%. It is not a secret that there are many tax deductions to the rich and that many have been added recently. It is unfair that you and I are unfairly propping up the funding for things like Iraq, Afghanistan, education, infrastructure, etc (contrary to your assertions, taxes are for much more than welfare and other handouts...most of them are currently going to Iraq). It's humurous to me that you have been so brainwashed by those in charge that you are defending the fact that they are paying much less of a percentage in taxes than you are. It pisses me off but I guess you like taking it in the shorts so that Cheney (and many others, I'm sure...including Clinton, etc) can pocket millions that should have been part of their tax liability. The wealthy owe it to their country to pay a fair share of taxes. 6% is not a fair share.

You also have the opportunity to decrease your tax liability. Learn how to take some deductions; start by itemizing rather than standard deductions. Take a class at a local school... and then take tax credits. You have so many legal options... learn how to use them to your advantage. Although I am not certain, I can almost guarantee you that Cheney gave a significant portion of that money to Charitites and other similar NFP groups. This is, in essence, similar to a tax anyways. Our taxes would, partly, fund welfare, medical serivces, medial research etc. Obviously, hundreds of charities and NFPs do this same type of thing.

 

[MrAeroMan]

OK...fair enough...let's make this relative. ANY deficit will add to the debt. We still have a mounting debt...one that made Bush raise the ceiling on Debt. If we budget a huge deficit every year, the debt increases and the dollar loses value. It's simple.
Ummm...6% is ridiculous when you and I in the working class are paying 30+%. It is not a secret that there are many tax deductions to the rich and that many have been added recently. It is unfair that you and I are unfairly propping up the funding for things like Iraq, Afghanistan, education, infrastructure, etc (contrary to your assertions, taxes are for much more than welfare and other handouts...most of them are currently going to Iraq). It's humurous to me that you have been so brainwashed by those in charge that you are defending the fact that they are paying much less of a percentage in taxes than you are. It pisses me off but I guess you like taking it in the shorts so that Cheney (and many others, I'm sure...including Clinton, etc) can pocket millions that should have been part of their tax liability. The wealthy owe it to their country to pay a fair share of taxes. 6% is not a fair share.

Actually, you're not quite on with your figures again. See if this helps.
Who pays the most in income taxes?

 

[Ch. 12]

Actually, you're not quite on with your figures again. See if this helps.
Who pays the most in income taxes?

Duh. $500k in taxes is far more than I even earned in 2005 and Cheney makes far less than the top earners. I doubt he's even in that top 10% category. Take a Warren Buffet that makes billions. If he can whittle down to only owing 2%, that would be twenty MILLION dollars per billion earned. Hell yes that's alot. But for INCOME taxes, he wouldn't really be paying much relative to what he earned. It's easy to try to twist your numbers but you've got to understand that the top 1% doesn't simply make $100k. They make a ton and pay a very, very small portion of it to income taxes. Not fair but you keep supporting them b/c maybe you'll be in that group someday. It's funny how naive you can be, though.

Lily- I like to think that I am fairly well-versed in the tax code and am aware of many breaks. What people like me don't have much of is disposable income. Therefore I cannot throw much of it to charities so those writeoffs are rather small. I also do not have enough extra income to throw into multitudes of businesses and investments that draw further tax breaks. The ultra-rich do have these funds. You, Aero, and Leto over-simplify what I can't help but believe that you really know more about. Unfortunately, it is part of your platform to support such tax breaks for the wealthy so you can't back down. But being that you are on an airline message board I tend to believe that you are no better off than the middle class like me so you and I are paying an unfair share of the total taxes. It's pretty simple.

 

[delldude]

Bunch of CSMFAH's 😉

 

[Seatacus]

They make a ton and pay a very, very small portion of it to income taxes.

Whatever their portion is the top 50% of all earners still pay 96% of all income taxes.

 

[local 12 proud]

Duh. $500k in taxes is far more than I even earned in 2005 and Cheney makes far less than the top earners. I doubt he's even in that top 10% category. Take a Warren Buffet that makes billions. If he can whittle down to only owing 2%, that would be twenty MILLION dollars per billion earned. Hell yes that's alot. But for INCOME taxes, he wouldn't really be paying much relative to what he earned. It's easy to try to twist your numbers but you've got to understand that the top 1% doesn't simply make $100k. They make a ton and pay a very, very small portion of it to income taxes. Not fair but you keep supporting them b/c maybe you'll be in that group someday. It's funny how naive you can be, though.

Lily- I like to think that I am fairly well-versed in the tax code and am aware of many breaks. What people like me don't have much of is disposable income. Therefore I cannot throw much of it to charities so those writeoffs are rather small. I also do not have enough extra income to throw into multitudes of businesses and investments that draw further tax breaks. The ultra-rich do have these funds. You, Aero, and Leto over-simplify what I can't help but believe that you really know more about. Unfortunately, it is part of your platform to support such tax breaks for the wealthy so you can't back down. But being that you are on an airline message board I tend to believe that you are no better off than the middle class like me so you and I are paying an unfair share of the total taxes. It's pretty simple.

Sounds like class envy, perhaps you should find your Heinz Catsup

 

[Garfield1966]

6% is greater that "Zero". $529K is much greate than "Zero". Do you even know what Cheney deducted for? Maybe he gave it all to charity 😉 You and I can also declare deductions. I don't know why you think that the wealthy owe something to you anyway. I have no intention of leeching off them. I don't have the right and neither do you.

Who wants to leech? I just want them to pay their fair share. I just looked at my 2005 tax return. My tax rate was 6.33%. The difference is I did not make $8 million. Did not make $500k either. My taxable income was over 55% of my gross income. Cheney’s taxable income was only 6% of his gross income. That’s where the problem is. They do not pay their fair share. That is what I am p1ssed off at. The rich get richer and we, the middle class are paying the bill. I would love to pay 6% tax on only 6% of my gross income.

What you guys do not seem to get is that if you use Cheneys tax as an example, he only paid on 6% of his income. Yes he paid more in taxs but he did not pay tax on the same percentage of income that I did. I paid on 55% of my income, not 6% like Cheney. So those states on your link while they look very pretty, they do not tell the whole story. I had my tax’s checked out my a CPA and I took every deduction I could take. I do not have much left over for charities. I certainly do not have enough to donate so that I am only taxed on 6% of my income.

So, you boys want to try again?

 

[delldude]

In your Cheney envy.....

Did you bother to check what John boy and his wife Theresa paid 😱

So, you boys want to try again?

you lib's get too wrapped in this class envy thing....Cheney,Bush,kerry...they're all kings and unless you just fell off the turnip truck,we're all paupers and thats the way it will be forever...

 

[Ch. 12]

In your Cheney envy.....

Did you bother to check what John boy and his wife Theresa paid 😱
you lib's get too wrapped in this class envy thing....Cheney,Bush,kerry...they're all kings and unless you just fell off the turnip truck,we're all paupers and thats the way it will be forever...

Uh...not everything is about red and blue. I alread mentioned the Clintons...I thought that would have tickled you pink. The wealthy are on both sides of the aisle. However, the right side of the aisle has continuously created tax loopholes to further break down taxable income for the top earners. No class envy...just fairness. Again...you will support anything that the right does (like tax breaks for the wealthy) even if it is hurting you and creating a bigger burden on you. That is the problem with our political system...it's a "subscribe to all or nothing" on the platform. When it comes down to that, I suppose I'm independent b/c I still believe in capital punishment, personal accountability, and many other things that are "red". Only a lemming would subscribe to EVERYTHING that their party asks them to even if it hurts them personally.

Seatacus- Do you think that it is unfair that the top 1% (i.e. those that actually take in over 20% of all income in the US) should pay less than those that don't have enough money for milk? Your lack of basic math skills is alarming. The top 50% of earners make over 85% of TAXABLE income. I just showed you how one rich person (let's disregard names b/c there are pleny of blue and red ultra-wealthy people) actually made 400% MORE than what was represented as "taxable". And you still can't figure out the math. Just pointing out % of INDIVIDUALS at various income percentiles is pointless...you have to look at the % of TOTAL INCOME by income level...far different. Just b/c the US mint makes fewer $100 bills than they do pennies doesn't make the $100 bill less valuable. Get a grip.

 

[delldude]

However, the right side of the aisle has continuously created tax loopholes to further break down taxable income for the top earners.

They may create them but usually it takes a bunch from your side to get it into law....

Again...you will support anything that the right does (like tax breaks for the wealthy) even if it is hurting you and creating a bigger burden on you.

So then you tax the dickens out of the rich,they don't invest and we get a recessionary cycle no good for anyone..so where do we draw the line?BTW I don't carte blanche support any and all from the right.Some yes,all no.

When it comes down to that, I suppose I'm independent b/c I still believe in capital punishment, personal accountability, and many other things that are "red".

I can identify with those views too....no independent party to really make a dent yet....so its dem or repub for now.....

I alread mentioned the Clintons...I thought that would have tickled you pink.

Clinton was ok in many things he did....I see the office of POTUS as an institution and I have problems with some of the things he did when in office....do they all do it? I don't know....but like Tricky Dicky...he got caught.Thats my Clinton issue....what he did to bring disrespect to the office.

I'll tell you though,you tell me Fat Ted doesn't suffer from class envy at least as far as you and I go,hes the one who always worries about the rich not getting taxed enough....while he counts his daddys rum running fortunes...

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Lily- I like to think that I am fairly well-versed in the tax code and am aware of many breaks. What people like me don't have much of is disposable income. Therefore I cannot throw much of it to charities so those writeoffs are rather small. I also do not have enough extra income to throw into multitudes of businesses and investments that draw further tax breaks. The ultra-rich do have these funds. You, Aero, and Leto over-simplify what I can't help but believe that you really know more about. Unfortunately, it is part of your platform to support such tax breaks for the wealthy so you can't back down. But being that you are on an airline message board I tend to believe that you are no better off than the middle class like me so you and I are paying an unfair share of the total taxes. It's pretty simple.

We do not need to throw as much of our disposable income to charities. We make much less; thus our tax liability (before writeoffs and credits) is less than the ultra-rich. Therefore, we do not need to give as much of our disposable income away to receive the appropriate amount of 'breaks'. For the last four years I have received about 85% of my taxes back. It was all done legally, as I was audited 2 years ago and everything was A-ok. I am not ultra-rich. Rather, I am in the upper-middle class (most likely the same as everyone else on this board).

Second, do not necessarily lump me into a category that ALWAYS request tax breaks for the ultr-rich. I never suggested that we should do that... I was just giving examples of how to deal with the cards you are being dealt... whether favorable or not.

 

[Ch. 12]

We do not need to throw as much of our disposable income to charities. We make much less; thus our tax liability (before writeoffs and credits) is less than the ultra-rich. Therefore, we do not need to give as much of our disposable income away to receive the appropriate amount of 'breaks'. For the last four years I have received about 85% of my taxes back. It was all done legally, as I was audited 2 years ago and everything was A-ok. I am not ultra-rich. Rather, I am in the upper-middle class (most likely the same as everyone else on this board).

Second, do not necessarily lump me into a category that ALWAYS request tax breaks for the ultr-rich. I never suggested that we should do that... I was just giving examples of how to deal with the cards you are being dealt... whether favorable or not.

Now I think you're just feigning naivity or simply being obtuse on simple math. Yes...our tax liability as a dollar amount is less...no kidding. Our tax liability as a percentage of what we actually gross is much higher. In other words...I could not offer up much to support charities therefore could not claim 80% of my income as "non-taxable". You are far better off than you allude if you could. I trust that you "get it" more than you pretend so I don't think I need to keep saying the same things over and over...it's simple math.

Receiving 85% of your taxes back simply means that you overpaid throughout the year and gave uncle sam an interest-free loan...it doesn't mean you are liable to report only a very small fraction of what you took in to the IRS. You aren't even talking about the same thing.

And I agree...we should deal with the cards we were dealt. But there is no reason why the group holding all of the Aces should then be given handouts ( like welfare to the poor) of Kings and Queens so that they are not very liable for what they bring in. If you all think they are "investing it into the economy", you are sadly mistaken b/c the only "economy" that the majority of "no-name" ultra-wealthy people feed is their own through personal investment/savings. They aren't buying with all of their extra money...they are using it to get more for themselves. Money kept out of the economy doesn't feed the economy, does it?

 

[Leto2]

Lily- I like to think that I am fairly well-versed in the tax code and am aware of many breaks. What people like me don't have much of is disposable income. Therefore I cannot throw much of it to charities so those writeoffs are rather small. I also do not have enough extra income to throw into multitudes of businesses and investments that draw further tax breaks. The ultra-rich do have these funds. You, Aero, and Leto over-simplify what I can't help but believe that you really know more about. Unfortunately, it is part of your platform to support such tax breaks for the wealthy so you can't back down. But being that you are on an airline message board I tend to believe that you are no better off than the middle class like me so you and I are paying an unfair share of the total taxes. It's pretty simple.

You don't get it. If they put money into charities, should they be taxed on it? I certainly don't think so. Also, if they turn their money around and invest it, then that is helping the economy. Both of those cases are better use of money than anything the govt would do with it. Besides, if they eventually want to take money out of their investments, they will be taxed on it, and by then it will be even more to give to the govt .

I'm all for a FLAT tax. 18% or so across the board (I'm not sure what it would take). No deductions, no brackets, just a FAIR flat tax. But the liberals would never support that.

 

[Garfield1966]

In your Cheney envy.....

Did you bother to check what John boy and his wife Theresa paid 😱
you lib's get too wrapped in this class envy thing....Cheney,Bush,kerry...they're all kings and unless you just fell off the turnip truck,we're all paupers and thats the way it will be forever...

Do you actually ever argue the issue at hand instead of trying to flip it into a “well he does it toâ€￾ thing.

I don’t care who it is. Cheney was used as an example and I went with it.

When the rich start paying 6% on 55%060% of their income then we can talk about it. When Cheney or Clinton only have to pay 6% on 6% of their income that is BS and there are no two ways about it.

Lily,

Not sure who you work for but I sure as hell am not upper middle class. I do not have enough money to give any way. My wife and I make enough to live comfortably. I paid 6% on 55% of my income. You let me know when you do that or when Cheneny et al do that and we can talk. Till that time happens it is my contention that the tax code favors the well to do so that they can get more money and the folks like my self have to work twice as hard to make half as much.

You don't get it. If they put money into charities, should they be taxed on it? I certainly don't think so. Also, if they turn their money around and invest it, then that is helping the economy. Both of those cases are better use of money than anything the govt would do with it. Besides, if they eventually want to take money out of their investments, they will be taxed on it, and by then it will be even more to give to the govt .

I'm all for a FLAT tax. 18% or so across the board (I'm not sure what it would take). No deductions, no brackets, just a FAIR flat tax. But the liberals would never support that.

18%? Are you out of your mind? I paid 6% on 55% of my income and I could barely afford that. We do not waste. I brown bag my dinner every night. I have not seen the inside of the company cafeteria in several years. My wife and I rarely go out. My car is nearly as old as the length of time I have been with AA. My wife’s car is 7 years old.

6% is just fine with me, as long as the rich pay it on the same % of income that I do.

Yea, the liberals would not go for it? You really believe that BS? THERICH WOULD NOT LET IT PASS. Then they might actually have to pay taxes. It’s the same crap with election money reform. No one really wants it. Someone brings it up, and every one votes it down or it gets squashed very quietly in committee. They don’t want tax reform, I want it, you want it but the powers that be sure as hell don’t want it.

 

[Seatacus]

I'm all for a FLAT tax. 18% or so across the board (I'm not sure what it would take). No deductions, no brackets, just a FAIR flat tax. But the liberals would never support that.

It's not gonna happen. The majority of people who pay would find 18% tax as an increase. They would also find 18% tax as a decrease for the rich. And the real estate lobby would not allow no mortgage deductions.