Bringing politics to work

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I live in the South which is a very conservative area.

As such, I work with a lot of people who politically lean conservative.

This results in umpteen number of discussions at work that can be best summed up as Fox news talking point #1 vs. Fox News talking point #2.

For example last week I had the privilege to hear a conversation about how Obama plans to come take our guns away and that their may be an armed insurrection if that happens.

Last month it was complaining about the Fiscal Cliff nonsense and how Obama is destroying America by not playing ball on tax breaks for the wealthy.

Before that it was about how Obama and his goons are out to take over health care and send us all to death panels for evaluation.

And before that it was birther stuff.

I want to say something, but I know I need to keep my mouth shut because number one I need my job and number two I have no desire to get into a political debate with people at work.

But I can't stand getting stuck listening to these conversations. Unfortunately I can't just leave because of the requirements of my job. Often I need an escort or need to be with a certain group of people due to regulations.

So all I can really do is listen and act like I'm not interested.

[bara]

Thats the best call really to just not get involved in the conversations.

[mikoyan29]

Could one of them explain why the rich should pay a lower rate than everyone else?

[Racket_Man]

Could one of them explain why the rich should pay a lower rate than everyone else?

it boils down to this phrase in the contemporary contect: "They are job creators and as such need to have more money to create jobs"

Translation: all the rich want to do is accummulate MORE money and more power so theyt pay for the lobbies to get them even more breaks.

[protege]

Seems every office has someone who can't leave politics at home.

In my case, Amy was *constantly* doing that. She considered herself a liberal and therefore an expert on everything economic. When CNBC and the rest of us could say that taxing people into prosperity simply doesn't work...she'd simply not want to talk about it any more. That was just one example. That went on, until the boss told her to knock it off.

[siead_lietrathua]

it boils down to this phrase in the contemporary contect: "They are job creators and as such need to have more money to create jobs"

see,this i DO NOT get!
i can understand tax breaks for a company. but we are talking the people. we aren't talking Microsoft, but Bill Gates (or etc). do people not get that distinction?
Bill Gates doesn't create jobs. Microsoft does. treat them like the separate entities they should be. CEOs are on a salary like anyone else.
(just using bill as an example, i'm well aware he is a philanthropist)

to the topic: i agree with staying out of it at work. even if they they to drag you into the conversation, tell them you prefer to not deal with politics at work. (some BS like " i get enough of that from the news!" is vague and can be taken any way they choose)

[PepperElf]

Could one of them explain why the rich should pay a lower rate than everyone else?

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pa...ome-taxes.html

According to that, in 2009, the top 5% paid over 55% of income taxes. And the top 50% paid over 95%.

I think part of the issue isn't that people want the rich to pay less taxes than everyone else, but that... some of us want a cap on what's considered to be "their fair share".

The issue, in my opinion, is that as public opinion on what's "fair" goes up - and the people with money pay more and more taxes - they're going to hold on to what they have more and more.


So people sit on money instead of letting it circulate. And economy starts to stagnate. And thus the people who depend on commerce to make more money start to suffer more from the loss...

Perhaps the answer isn't to stick it to the rich again cos... well it's not working. So perhaps the answer IS to lower their taxes. encourage them to spend, right?



But this will never happen as long as we perpetuate the mentality of "hate the rich! it's their fault you don't have what you want."

[Andara Bledin]

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pa...ome-taxes.html

According to that, in 2009, the top 5% paid over 55% of income taxes. And the top 50% paid over 95%.

This is a prime example of "big scary numbers" in action.

Without context, it sounds terrible.

But when you realize that 40% at the bottom doesn't pay taxes at all, because they don't make enough money to live on, then you realize that you can't actually include them in a taxation chart without skewing the data horribly.

It's also worth noting that those in the bottom half of the income tax list pay substantially higher percentages of their incomes in other federal taxes, such as payroll taxes, and when combined with state-based income taxes, the top 1% pay a lower percentage than those on the bottom, paying only 8%, versus over 12% for those on the bottom.

Just talking about what the IRS takes is only part of the picture and it gives a notably inaccurate result.

Article at The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

^-.-^

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Perhaps the answer isn't to stick it to the rich again cos... well it's not working. So perhaps the answer IS to lower their taxes. encourage them to spend, right?

Except that didn't work. We gave the rich tax cuts, because that would "encourage them to spend" and "create jobs." That didn't happen.

What happened? They shuffled off more money (due to lower taxes) into their private bank accounts and still sat on it, removing even more money from the economy than before. Or it only circulated within the rich, not into the economy.

[Andara Bledin]

Except that didn't work. We gave the rich tax cuts, because that would "encourage them to spend" and "create jobs." That didn't happen.

What happened? They shuffled off more money (due to lower taxes) into their private bank accounts and still sat on it, removing even more money from the economy than before. Or it only circulated within the rich, not into the economy.

This.

There may have been something trickling down, but it sure as hell wasn't money.

^-.-^

[Duelist925]

This.

There may have been something trickling down, but it sure as hell wasn't money.

^-.-^

Im pretty sure it was something warm and salty that sure wasn't lemonade.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Im pretty sure it was something warm and salty that sure wasn't lemonade.

"I have some yellow liquid for your popcorn, AND IT'S NON-DAIRY!"

[mikoyan29]

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pa...ome-taxes.html

According to that, in 2009, the top 5% paid over 55% of income taxes. And the top 50% paid over 95%.

I think part of the issue isn't that people want the rich to pay less taxes than everyone else, but that... some of us want a cap on what's considered to be "their fair share".

The issue, in my opinion, is that as public opinion on what's "fair" goes up - and the people with money pay more and more taxes - they're going to hold on to what they have more and more.


So people sit on money instead of letting it circulate. And economy starts to stagnate. And thus the people who depend on commerce to make more money start to suffer more from the loss...

Perhaps the answer isn't to stick it to the rich again cos... well it's not working. So perhaps the answer IS to lower their taxes. encourage them to spend, right?



But this will never happen as long as we perpetuate the mentality of "hate the rich! it's their fault you don't have what you want."

Of course it's possible that the top 5% pay 55% of the income taxes because they take 55% of the income. I mean we got Romney to admit he pays around 15% and Buffet has said the same. I'm sure they aren't alone. 15% is certainly less than what I pay, especially when you lump payroll tax into income tax. But then again, that's why tables like this limit themselves to income tax...because that only tells part of the picture and it sort of makes the point that oh my god, the rich are paying so much.

[Nekojin]

Of course it's possible that the top 5% pay 55% of the income taxes because they take 55% of the income.

Actually, they take somewhere between 75%-80% of the income.

[s_stabeler]

the way I figure fair share, is if the percentage a group pays in taxes is roughly equivalent to their share of the income. In short, the rich don't pay anywhere near enough, (it works out to be 20-25% more) so they should not get tax cuts.