The rich paying their fair share

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
5,000
3,496
1,743
Florida
#81
No, it means that's what I can afford, regardless of what the government thinks.
I'm sure you can afford something else other than that particular car. Though it sounds like you aren't willing to extend yourself too far just for a car. That is just being smart. Though probably still cheap. Not a bad thing when it comes to depreciable assets.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,748
50,382
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#82
I'm sure you can afford something else other than that particular car. Though it sounds like you aren't willing to extend yourself too far just for a car. That is just being smart. Though probably still cheap. Not a bad thing when it comes to depreciable assets.
Thank you Mister Expert on My Finances.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,876
8,405
1,743
#83
I wish I could understand what you and ksu are referring to. I'd like to know how a person making $5 million per year uses more federal government resources than a person making $500000 per year.
Still not getting this either.

I’m single (divorced). Make a decent annual salary for a mid-level MFG exec in Oklahoma. Govt takes essentially a third of my paycheck every two weeks and I barely get any kind of a return come tax season. I’m not on any kind of Govt assistance.

But I have family (that I make 4x their annual earnings)... who chose not to go to college or learn a particular trade, or move from a very rural area, that are on full blown Govt assistance for medical insurance and food assistance programs and have drawn unemployment. Deal mainly in cash with their contracted jobs, pay very little taxes, and get full tax returns. For years.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad the assistance is there for them in a way. BUT, they also made their decision to not pursue college or any type of trade training NOR move to where better paying jobs are located.

They’ve drawn from Govt assistance substantially more than me.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
193
77539
#84
I’ve tried explaining it several times but I’ll try it once more and make it as simple as I can.
I’ll use 2 current person(s) as examples:
Elon Musk has received over $6B in taxpayer funds, his net worth is, or at least did, approach or even exceed $1B, I don’t know his salary nor do I care. What I care about is the taxpayer funded all his endeavors, all his companies profits combined don’t equal $500M. His companies routinely are unprofitable and routinely receive gvt benefits.
Jeff Bezos, his company has received massive subsidies by way of the taxpayers, prominent among those is his sweetheart deal with the post office, remember we pay the usps shortfalls.

These (as a % of the total) are proverbial drops in the bucket of the corporate welfare program in this country, those programs create substantial net worth for the primary shareholders in these companies.

Then there’s the bank bail (hand) outs, the airline bail (hand) outs, the auto bail (hand) outs, the rail road bail (hand) outs. Frankly, even this doesn’t do the gvt’s crony handouts list justice. The list is long and beneficiaries are mostly incredibly wealthy to begin with, that they’re wealthy is of no concern that the gvt uses my money to increase that wealth, with no returning benefit, is of great concern. As I mentioned I’ve benefited as well, as have many/most, that doesn’t make it any less wrong.
I'm very well aware of your examples. That has nothing to do with the vast majority of wealthy people. For the most part, you're talking about corporations. Corporations are owned by shareholders, of which, many people are owners-not just one. We all benefitted from these so-called handouts and we all aren't wealthy. Maybe if the government never took the money in the first place, we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with getting it back.
 
Mar 11, 2006
1,827
1,432
1,743
#85
I wish I could understand what you and ksu are referring to. I'd like to know how a person making $5 million per year uses more federal government resources than a person making $500000 per year.
They don’t. It is an obtuse argument based on one-off anecdotal information.
 

Brad M

Wrangler
Jan 16, 2017
116
103
93
56
Wisconsin
#86
I don't disagree with this... but your example sheds light on the paradigm question.

You can either tax that one family $48,000 or 32 families $1,500. I guarantee that the $1,500 is more important to those 32 families than the $48,000 is to the one. Keeping people at or just above poverty just creates more poverty.

It really doesn't matter anyways as we are probably heading to a breaking point.

For all those wealthy people who didn't want to pay a little bit more % in taxes will probably regret it when the mob drags them from their homes.
In general, who to tax shouldn’t be an either/or proposition. The one family should be taxed $48k AND the other 32 families should be taxed $1500.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
193
77539
#87
On a much smaller scale, I've made three overseas trips this year using airports, customs, TSA, etc. While airport fees cover some of this expense, the taxpayer covers the rest. Some low-income people may fly overseas once or even never. And the guy making $5-10 million is using these airports for his (or his company's) jet.
The government put most of these restrictions on us. Why should we have to pay for the vast majority of them? Why should we have to pay for a bunch of TSA agents to stand around watching each other provide security? Have you ever parked at an airport? Have you ever looked at all of the fees you pay when flying? Have you ever purchased food or drink at an airport? Have you rented a car at the airport? Have you stayed in a hotel near the airport? The taxes and fees are huge. They aren't hurting. When it comes to renovations or additions to the airport, the airline pays the vast majority of the bill. The local governments just sit there and take in all of the taxes.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,904
32,170
1,743
oklahoma city
#88
The government put most of these restrictions on us. Why should we have to pay for the vast majority of them? Why should we have to pay for a bunch of TSA agents to stand around watching each other provide security? Have you ever parked at an airport? Have you ever looked at all of the fees you pay when flying? Have you ever purchased food or drink at an airport? Have you rented a car at the airport? Have you stayed in a hotel near the airport? The taxes and fees are huge. They aren't hurting. When it comes to renovations or additions to the airport, the airline pays the vast majority of the bill. The local governments just sit there and take in all of the taxes.
Discussing that the government operates in ways that do no please you has nothing to do with my point that certain citizens (those with more money) benefit far more from air transport. Despite the fees you are complaining about, the general taxpayer funds also funds these services even if they never use an airport.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
193
77539
#89
Discussing that the government operates in ways that do no please you has nothing to do with my point that certain citizens (those with more money) benefit far more from air transport. Despite the fees you are complaining about, the general taxpayer funds also funds these services even if they never use an airport.
Actually, what the government is doing has zip to do with not pleasing me and EVERYTHING to do with the 4th amendment.

These poor people paying for my so-called luxury travel don't pay federal income taxes so they couldn't possibly be paying for a bloody airport.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,125
16,441
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#99
They don’t. It is an obtuse argument based on one-off anecdotal information.
There’s nothing anecdotal about it, the types of benefits I’m referring to are doled out every day and they typically have a ‘material’ impact on the top % of %.
Let’s use @StillwaterTownie ’s favorite subject as another example. I assume we all agree that bankruptcy is a legal transaction regulated by the gvt, assuming there’s agreement on this can you explain why an ultra high net worth individual can file 13 but you, I’m going to assume your net worth is just south of $500M (the unwritten cutoff for ultra wealthy), can’t. As I tried, unsuccessfully evidently, to point out in my first post, the original comment was correct but it severely limited the definition of a gvt benefit. Food stamps and welfare are symptomatic of the disease even if you alleviate those symptoms the disease will march forward unaffected.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
193
77539
There’s nothing anecdotal about it, the types of benefits I’m referring to are doled out every day and they typically have a ‘material’ impact on the top % of %.
Let’s use @StillwaterTownie ’s favorite subject as another example. I assume we all agree that bankruptcy is a legal transaction regulated by the gvt, assuming there’s agreement on this can you explain why an ultra high net worth individual can file 13 but you, I’m going to assume your net worth is just south of $500M (the unwritten cutoff for ultra wealthy), can’t. As I tried, unsuccessfully evidently, to point out in my first post, the original comment was correct but it severely limited the definition of a gvt benefit. Food stamps and welfare are symptomatic of the disease even if you alleviate those symptoms the disease will march forward unaffected.
I don't see Chapter 13 as a benefit of the rich. It's a detriment of the rich.