Are you "fortunate" if you work hard?

[Cracker]

This declaration by our president bothered me:

"The most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/...z1JS5CJgjX (Shut up, direct quote, he said it no matter who reported it.)

I don't think $250,000 a year is rich. It is a very nice living, but the more you make, the more you spend. Most people spend similar percentages of their incomes for housing, transportation, food and entertainment, etc. Why should people who make over $250,000 pay a much higher tax rate than someone who makes less? If you want to make more money, get more training and work harder. Why is it OK to punish people who do well?

Are the people who work harder the "fortunate" ones? I think the lazy fuckers who sit home all day and get fed like fucking pets are pretty damn "fortunate."

What do you think? I guess I am a Capitalist Pig, but I think hard work should be rewarded, not taxed.

The man is a socialist.

[AriGold]

This declaration by our president bothered me:

"The most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/...z1JS5CJgjX (Shut up, direct quote, he said it no matter who reported it.)

I don't think $250,000 a year is rich. It is a very nice living, but the more you make, the more you spend. Most people spend similar percentages of their incomes for housing, transportation, food and entertainment, etc. Why should people who make over $250,000 pay a much higher tax rate than someone who makes less? If you want to make more money, get more training and work harder. Why is it OK to punish people who do well?

Are the people who work harder the "fortunate" ones? I think the lazy fuckers who sit home all day and get fed like fucking pets are pretty damn "fortunate."

What do you think? I guess I am a Capitalist Pig, but I think hard work should be rewarded, not taxed.

The man is a socialist.

[Fibonacci Prima]

It can also be noted that those "fortunate" ones are so as a result of hard work getting an education and paying their dues. All the years of prep, and hard work? I don't particularly like paying everyone else's lazy ass way.

[Cracker]

I do OK, but not that well, and I get FUCKED by the tax man. Why should I strive to make more if I am going to end up with same yield? I don't understand the mindset, I guess.

I had to listen to two ladies discuss their tax "refunds" in the post office today. They got back more than they contributed. I had to listen to that shit while I was waiting to send a certified letter to Uncle Sam proving I did, indeed, donate that much to charity last year so I didn't have to write an even bigger check. I guess I also donated to the fat cow charity. I wanted to pull their hair and tell them they were taking food out of my childrens' mouths.

Tax time always pisses me tf off.

[Midwest Spy]

Are the people who work harder the "fortunate" ones? I think the lazy fuckers who sit home all day and get fed like fucking pets are pretty damn "fortunate."

See, the problem I have with this thought is that 'fortunate' people, from a standpoint of wealth, are not necessarily 'harder' workers. There certainly is some correlation, but there are also hard-working stiffs who have a finite ceiling as far as wealth building is concerned.

Also, think of all the rich people in this country who've been born into their wealth. Or knew someone who hooked them up in a lucrative position.

In this instance, the Presidents use of 'fortunate' seems right to me.

All that being said, I'm against taxing the rich just because they're rich.

[BlueTiki]

This declaration by our president bothered me:

"The most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more."

Why not?

Ten percent of earners provide seventy percent of the government's revenue.

Go ahead. Squeeze me for another four percent.

And increase entitlements, too.

But have the decency to give me the title of professional "Wet Nurse".

[Cracker]

Spy:

$250,000 a year gross is not rich. Especially after taxes.

All jobs are open to all people. Why do people stay at very low-paying jobs when they could make more money? (If money is their "thing." I like to have enough to take a few vacations a year and eat good foods, other than that, it isn't my main motivation.) All people should pay the same tax rate. If we quit giving so many handouts and fake "refunds," people might find their motivation again instead of becoming gov't cattle.

Flat tax is fair. You pay your fair share. Why should one person's share be a bigger percentage than another person's? That makes no sense to me and it causes our current lowered standards. Why reward mediocrity?

I share what I have. I like to share, until some fucker takes it without my consent. Then I resent it.

[Cracker]

In this instance, the Presidents use of 'fortunate' seems right to me.

Many two-income households make $250,000. They should have to pay extra because the woman goes out to work instead of sitting around the hizzy all day?

That seems right to you? That was his cutoff point, $250,000.

Even if people ARE rich, it is THEIR money, not mine. Why should I get any of THEIR money?

[QueenBee]

Maybe I am not totally understanding the question here but is fortunate totally income based? My husband and I both work full time...we both work hard at our jobs. Our combined gross income is about $50,000 (majority is his). Are we fortunate? Our house is paid off, we have two new cars, we have food. We also have credit card debt. But I guess we are fortunate to have all we have, and that we both do work for our income, rather than having it handed to us.
3 years ago I collected disability checks for 3 months...felt I was being "dependant" even though I did earn the "right" to collect those benefits. It was nice being off work, but it felt great to be back to work.

[Cracker]

I think everyone should earn a year or two of "lay around the house" pay/benefits per lifetime. I would like two years off. That would be lovely. The people who have had 20 years off suck.

[Cracker]

Maybe I am not totally understanding the question here but is fortunate totally income based?

Yes. Even though people who make over $250,000 spend that much more proportionately, Obama said they can afford to pay more taxes. Which means they get less benefit from the money they earned. That is the part I don't get.

How is that fair at all? Why does the gov't think they should take more money from someone who does well? That is fucked up logic to me.

Take the same percentage from everybody.

[Midwest Spy]

In this instance, the Presidents use of 'fortunate' seems right to me.

Many two-income households make $250,000. They should have to pay extra because the woman goes out to work instead of sitting around the hizzy all day?

That seems right to you? That was his cutoff point, $250,000.

Even if people ARE rich, it is THEIR money, not mine. Why should I get any of THEIR money?

The real issue I have with being taxed, is feeling as if I don't have a direct say in where that money goes. In reality, you and I, Joe and Judy taxpayer, will simply hand over our 'hard' earned money for someone to use, and never be able to spend it on something/somebody we want.

It certainly is not fair to impose a higher tax rate on those that earn more. As you stated, it's Socialism at it's finest.

Earlier, I was trying to point out that 'hard' workers don't all make the same wage.

[Maggot]

I just wish the tax code was not so fucked up. GE should have paid their 35% and people who get more back than they put in, that needs adjusting also. I have always liked the Forbes "flat tax" idea........the deficit would vanish.

[Cracker]

That's true. I worked "harder" when I made less money. I didn't like that shit, so I changed careers.

I am mostly worried for the small business owners. They are the ones who show larger profits on paper because they don't get paid by the hour. They are the ones who bear the brunt of the fuckupedness. Tax the employers and see how many more people lose their jobs.

[username]

This declaration by our president bothered me:

"The most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/...z1JS5CJgjX (Shut up, direct quote, he said it no matter who reported it.)

I don't think $250,000 a year is rich. It is a very nice living, but the more you make, the more you spend. Most people spend similar percentages of their incomes for housing, transportation, food and entertainment, etc. Why should people who make over $250,000 pay a much higher tax rate than someone who makes less? If you want to make more money, get more training and work harder. Why is it OK to punish people who do well?

Are the people who work harder the "fortunate" ones? I think the lazy fuckers who sit home all day and get fed like fucking pets are pretty damn "fortunate."

What do you think? I guess I am a Capitalist Pig, but I think hard work should be rewarded, not taxed.

The man is a socialist.

I don't want to pay more in taxes but I also don't think the answer is cutting education funding, foreign aid, research in to alternative energy resources or necessarily sticking it to seniors and the poor in Medicaid/Medicare. I have this scary vision of Mexico...kids living in squalor out on the streets offering to wash my car windows. In that regard, I understand the inclination to tax the "haves".

I don't mind dealing with S.S. (maybe raising the age limit) and some overhauls to medicaid/medicare. I also think we need to address the defense budget. And maybe look at immigration reform and stop bringing people in (or kicking those out) who are relying on our social welfare dollars!

I don't want to end the Bush tax breaks (or cut itemized deductions) but we need to look at the ²⁄_3^rds of the budget that is the biggest part of our expenditures. Defense, Medicare, Medicaid--and not try to balance the budget on the small portion that makes up difference (alternative energy, education spending etc).

I hate both plans being put forward.

[Cracker]

I would rather see decreased spending vs. increased taxes, too. Increasing taxes is never the answer unless you impose a very small increase across the board.

It isn't just the "haves" who are getting had. I'm not poor, nor rich, but I surely noticed the difference between this year and last year.

[Cracker]

"Obama said his stimulus program provides a tax cut for "95% of working households" and later said that a cut would go to 95% of "working families." That calls for some explanation. The key words are "working" and "cut."
He's referring to the "making work pay" refundable tax credit, which is only available to workers. There would be no credit for retirees or those who are unemployed; a more modest 75.5% of all households would benefit, whether their members are working or not.

It is also questionable whether all of the tax refunds can properly be called "tax cuts." The credit is refundable and, therefore, is going to many who earn so little that they pay no federal income taxes in the first place. The White House calls them tax cuts, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office officially scores the bill's refundable credits under "direct spending." "

[Cracker]

Plus, (yes, still bitching) $250,000 in New York City is NOT the same as $250,000 in Reno. It's just bullshit.

[Cracker]

I don't want to pay more in taxes but I also don't think the answer is cutting education funding, foreign aid, research in to alternative energy resources or necessarily sticking it to seniors and the poor in Medicaid/Medicare.

Most people don't realize schools are funded 90% by their state/local taxes. The feds only kick in about 10% and that money is earmarked for special education. You aren't getting any education benefit k-12. The feds just make mandates (NCLB) that are UNFUNDED. Colleges also get a majority of their funding from state sources. Federal education dollars at the college level are mostly used for the very poor (Pell Grants). USDOE also makes LOANS that have to be repaid in full.

Companies will fund alternative energy research because they want the benefit of the patents/protected discoveries. Feds give grants to these companies, but most of the benefit is used first for military sources years before anything trickles down to local usage.

Let China take over our foreign aid obligations. They can afford it.

Medicaid/Medicare, entitlements, Social Security, and military spending account for over 70% of the budget. Obama hasn't cut any military spending, in fact, he is increasing it with our spending in Libya (yep, we are still paying for it as of today, go figure). We are going to have to 1.) actually end a war, or 2.) cut entitlements. Most disabled people (I said most, Queen Bee) in America are "emotionally disabled" due to their own abuse of alcohol and drugs. That shit should end NOW. If you fry your brain, tough shit.

[BlueTiki]

I just wish the tax code was not so fucked up. GE should have paid their 35% and people who get more back than they put in, that needs adjusting also. I have always liked the Forbes "flat tax" idea........the deficit would vanish.

This is why Forbes was always my choice.

I strongly believe corporation taxes need to be reduced to encourage domestic development, investment and hiring.

The more hires (employment) . . . the more income.

The more income . . . you get the picture. The crazy thing? It works with either our convoluted (yet dynamic) tax code or flat tax.

My opinion on a five year tax credit for corporate R&D and capital expenditures is a subject for a different date. However, these credits come with a price. Execs or management will receive no bonuses during (or retroactively) at the time of these credits. Again . . . another time.

I believe tax incentives should be given to the "fortunate" and corporations for the funding of social services that are now under the aegis of government or NPCs. Or . . . like the mandatory healthcare, penalize those "fortunates" and corporations refusing to participate in this program.

Let the Social Security and Medicare funds be managed by the same folks you bailed out and are now receiving mega bonuses.

Hell . . they gotta be doing something right. Look at their effin' bonuses.

And no more pensions for elected officials. If you're so damn confident in handling our money effectively and efficiently, then you should be geniuses in planning for your own retirement. Go on . . . be the stewards, you swore to be, to your constituents. . . with your own goddamned money! You certainly won't need mine.

It's easy to go after the "fortunate". After all, the ones on the tit are far more numerous and necessary for your votes. You don't want to piss them off.

Yes. I find his plan lacking. Not because he's black . . . but half black.

I guess Janeane Garofalo only got it half right.