Do people actually believe celebs like sarah Silverman will actually pay 60% of the millions they make?

uhmmm... wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

That's what her hero Bernie would have had her pay at least. 53% federal + 14% state (CA) + property taxes etc

Have they passed the bill to change the law?

Ummm, I can't actually answer the question for someone else. Some people made a lot od donation to charity. Mitt Ramney paid ~14% in tax (he actually donated a lot of his income to charity). Bernie paid about as much in % for tax (some donation + deduction). I, on the other hand, paid at a higher rate because I didn't donate as much and didn't know there's as much one can deduct (learned a bit from Bernie). BUT, we're all much better than 0% Trump, aren't we?

Is there a point to this rambling?

MetroDancer wrote:

Sure, the Warren Buffets of the world pay low rates...

Why do people refuse to understand that Buffet paying a low rate is still paying more than a lower earning person paying a high rate? We pay for things with money not percentages.

Cole Robby wrote:

I usually find Sarah Silverman to be one of the most overrated comics working. But that sh!t yesterday was great.

It seemed to me like she made a mess of things. She ridiculed Bernie supporters. The started chanting "Bernie!, Bernie!" She and Al Franken at first thought they were chanting for Hillary and then when they realized they weren't she tried to start a "Unity" chant.

Also, was Al Franken ever funny? Sliverman embarrassed herself but did have a few funny lines along the way.

I hope each and every Bernie backer down there listened..

Silverman is a star.

They are nothing.

She knows what everyone should think

She's famous

They are not.,

Hillary a politician of the people!

You really muddied the water.

Buffett pays capital gains taxes; his secretary pays taxes on wages. The US government passed laws that treat the income differently. They both are obeying the law.

Buffett can write a check to the Treasury if it bugs him that much.

luv2run wrote:

You really muddied the water.

Buffett pays capital gains taxes; his secretary pays taxes on wages. The US government passed laws that treat the income differently. They both are obeying the law.

Buffett can write a check to the Treasury if it bugs him that much.

You missed my point. I was explaining why Buffet's tax rates are lower and why they should be lower.

luv2run wrote:

You really muddied the water.

Buffett pays capital gains taxes; his secretary pays taxes on wages. The US government passed laws that treat the income differently. They both are obeying the law.

Buffett can write a check to the Treasury if it bugs him that much.

He also absorbs corporate tax rates since they cut into his capital gains

Of course they will, and will be happy to do so. Put up or shut up.

The question that has to be asked is, 50-60% of what? If you ask do they want to pay that amount on every dollar of their gross income, then my answer is no. If you ask if they would pay that amount after: 1. Money is diverted to Sarah Silverman LLC, 2. any tax deferred IRAs are fully funded, 3: all itemized deductions (mortgage interest, charitable donations) are taken. 4. the first $250,000 of their income is taxed at a lower rate. Then, I would guess they probably would pay that amount.

Pander festival wrote:

Does anyone think Sarah Silverman, Rosario Dawson, Katie Perry, and the other bourgeois folks want to turn over 50-60% of their extremely high incomes to the government?

Or do they just advocate for these things, knowing that they've already got an army of lawyers and accountants to work around the rules?

I'm legitimately curious what people think.

You are NOT, but I AM better than Trump.

I did NOT SCAM any body! (I do have a standard)

I did NOT cheat on my TAX return.

Is there a point to this rambling?[/quote]

You don't seem to have a basic understanding of this country's tax system: you don't pay at a plain rate.

Need I say more?

HardLoper wrote:

uhmmm... wrote:

Are you a #1 idiot?!

Why would someone pay 60% of tax?

That's what her hero Bernie would have had her pay at least. 53% federal + 14% state (CA) + property taxes etc

Only income over an extremely large number that 99.9% of the people will never make.

Are we supposed to cry of people have to pay 67% of their annual income in excess of $10 million.

Stop being a house slave defending his master.

GuessCo wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

That's what her hero Bernie would have had her pay at least. 53% federal + 14% state (CA) + property taxes etc

Only income over an extremely large number that 99.9% of the people will never make.

Are we supposed to cry of people have to pay 67% of their annual income in excess of $10 million.

Stop being a house slave defending his master.

No one will ever pay 67% no matter what you try to enact. They tried it in France and the rich found it's easier to just leave the country.

GuessCo wrote:

Only income over an extremely large number that 99.9% of the people will never make.

Are we supposed to cry of people have to pay 67% of their annual income in excess of $10 million.

Stop being a house slave defending his master.

If you didn't get the memo yesterday, the Revolution is cancelled. Time to grow up.

luv2run wrote:

The rich also are the ones who can hire people to find the exemptions and deductions in the overly complicated tax code.

This is BS. Less rich people can hire people to find exemptions and deductions too. Or they can do it themselves. The tax code is written in English. Anyone saying otherwise is lazy and or ignorant.

Limousine Liberals wrote:

[quote]GuessCo wrote:

No one will ever pay 67% no matter what you try to enact. They tried it in France and the rich found it's easier to just leave the country.

1. Not so. The top income tax rate in this country in 1960 was 91% and nobody was leaving the country.

2. If they leave, screw em. Good-bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out. You don't deserve to live here anyway.

GuessCo wrote:

Are we supposed to cry of people have to pay 67% of their annual income in excess of $10 million.

Stop being a house slave defending his master.

Yes, you are supposed to cry for anyone not being treated equally or discriminated against. Not just the people that are like you. Whether they are rich, poor, slave, or slave master.

Bourgie Nights wrote:

Pander festival wrote:

Does anyone think Sarah Silverman, Rosario Dawson, Katie Perry, and the other bourgeois folks want to turn over 50-60% of their extremely high incomes to the government?

Or do they just advocate for these things, knowing that they've already got an army of lawyers and accountants to work around the rules?

I'm legitimately curious what people think.

I hate to be that guy, but you are not using the term "bourgeois" correctly. It is kind of a pet peeve because my sister does it a lot, despite me correcting her on it...

So teach us!!!

GuessCo wrote:

Limousine Liberals wrote:

No one will ever pay 67% no matter what you try to enact. They tried it in France and the rich found it's easier to just leave the country.

1. Not so. The top income tax rate in this country in 1960 was 91% and nobody was leaving the country.

2. If they leave, screw em. Good-bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out. You don't deserve to live here anyway.

1. Because no one was paying it. It was so high it only applied to two people and neither of them paid the whole thing. Also, back then there was nowhere to run. Now there are many other advanced nations with lower tax rates to move to.

2. Nice sentiment, but that still means (and is already resulting in) less tax $$$$ for us.

Cole Robby wrote:

I usually find Sarah Silverman to be one of the most overrated comics working. But that sh!t yesterday was great.

Did she joke again about cutting living human fetuses to pieces?