回複UnBelDi的評論:
民主和共和兩黨，各自的理念當然非常不同；而以政治為職業的那些高級黨員們，不是事業心太野就是身不由己。想對社會表達點什麽，留給平民百姓的隻有一張選票了（令人想起牛仔的時代？）。不求理解，隻管投票吧。
說個輕鬆的：據說來自Winston Churchill： “"If you're young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you're old and not conservative, you have no mind.”早已有所聞吧？
貼主的確是鐵杆民主黨，強調用稅收平衡社會財富和貧富懸殊。美國目前的焦點，如某回帖已提到，是如何恢複強勢經濟，創造就業機會。否則什麽社會保險和福利都沒有未來。如果在這點上有共識，就得放共和黨一馬：cut government spending,不要大政府，不養官僚。同樣，鼓勵人們劫富濟貧，不如教育民眾各盡所能，創造財富。
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
回複zpw的評論:
1%的最高收入者支付了全部稅收中的40.4%；這個是事實。
Obama 要給富人加稅，marginal tax rate （Federal plus state) is already over 45%. If you earn $1, 45cents are taken away.What is the incentive to invest? Sit at home, enjoy your hobby, and collect unemployment benefits.
labo88 發表評論於
Are you really stupid or playing dumb?
The rich already pay plenty taxes, 50% of Americans don't even pay taxes. How is that fair?
And why do you think Obama can do anything? He got elected because of the white guilt in this country. Are you white?
武勝 發表評論於
回複A-mao的評論:
After 2012, the top tax bracket will restore to 39.6%, and it applies to dividend too. Please take it into account.
你這個數字還可以dramatic一些--top百分之0.01的人交的稅占的全部稅收的比例。哈哈，你看看Buffet怎麽說的，他交的稅的稅率是大約17-18%，因為他的收入沒有SS,大多數是Long-term Capital gainn/qualified dividend。這種收入是15%的稅率。他比他秘書的稅率低得多。
Not necessary if considering the SS as a tax. The rich people really benefit from their long-term capital gain and qualified dividend, for which the first generation people rarely enjoyed.
I think it is hard to pass, too. The reason I wanted to mention was trying to answer that no matter what, the rich will pay more, even with a flat tax rate. They should because they benefit more form the society.
A-mao 發表評論於
回複Yangtze430030的評論:
Haha, always around. Just use different IDs to wonder around.
The taxation in the U.S. is too complicated. A lot of folks do not know how the system really works. I have spent sometime to study it and try to take advantage the system.
Thanks for your support. Still remember you wrote in one of my articles about merit-based and need-based scholarship. I have always hoped more my fellow Chineses can understand the system.
Long time no see. I totally agree. The so called democracy is not working. Extreme right would rather run the country dowm in order to get rid of Obama. Actually Obama is center left who is willing to compromise with the right and is the best democratic President Republicans can dream of. It's Republicans who don't want to compromise. Debt ceiling debate is a manufactured one. The priority now is economic growth and job creation rather than spending cuts. Republicans made entitlement a bad word. We paid to social security and medicare in our whole life, it's our money and should not been subjected to cuts. Social security and medicare are the safety net of middle class. But every time big businesses win and middle class people are the victims.
But look at the bright side. Obama kept social security, medcare and medicaid untouched though some cuts to the health providers. This is the best Obama can accomplish since Republicans don't want to compromise anything. Bush tax cut will expire next year if it's not extended. I would rather the president evoke 14th Amendmentbut but then Republicans will throw all those impeachment crap to the president. The voters should know who are the unreasonable ones and will speak wiht their votes.
