Bill Gates claims he doesn't pay enough tax

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has claimed he doesn't pay enough tax, and says wealthy Americans should contribute more in order to solve the deficit problem.

This follows the State of the Union address in which Barack Obama called for the rich to aid with the growing deficit problem in the United States by increasing taxes for those who can afford it.

Speaking on BBC World, Gates said taxing the rich, was "just justice".

Gates also says in the video that everyone should take responsibility for the deficit, which includes higher taxes for the rich and concludes that he probably isn't paying as much as he should.

What do you think? Does Bill Gates already do enough, or does he need to do more? Let us know in the comments below.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

iPhone hacker "GeoHot" departs Facebook; still hacking

Next Story

Nokia Lumia 900 launching March 18 for $99.99

175 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

replying to mikien
1-2 If Gates is an egalitarian it is said that every high income earners should pay more taxes together to benefit the society as a whole. If you're a libertarian the you would believe paying taxes for purpose other than providing legal framework for contracts and nation security equal to slavery. I highly doubt we're going to settle our ideological difference today but don't be clueless about what Gates actually believe in and why he would act that way.
3. Ad Hominem
4 - 5. Under Obama administration, federal government employees numbers is lower than that during the Reagan administration. Raising taxes and cutting programs at the same time is another way to balance the budget, just like what Clinton have done in the 90s.
6. Considering the Laffer curve, the question is how high the tax rate will decrease incentive and how low the tax rate will cripple the government ability to spend.

These sorts of statements, like Gates saying he doesn't pay enough taxes, really strike me as some sort of spoiled, self-indulgent, BS. If you think you don't eat healthy enough, or you weigh too much, or drink too much etc., fine -- Do Something About It but don't come whining to me or the rest of the world! The media isn't a confessional [sorry Enquirer] & I'm not a priest whose going to give you absolution for your sins.

If gates thinks he doesn't pay enough taxes he can call his accountants or financial people or whomever & have them pay more taxes today -- Right Now!!! There's Nothing stopping gates from giving away his fortune immediately!

Instead gates is trying to make the rest of the world take the place of his psychologist or psychiatrist -- there's a LOT of stress in hating yourself, but if the world hates you too then maybe it's all right & you won't feel so badly about it. And then, after showing us just how messed up he really is, gates wants us to believe he has any clue about what's just & what's not! This is the guy whose charity won't give away money without strings, the same guy who relished trying to crush the competition illegally, the same guy whose company was successfully taken to court not just by one country, but by major portions of continents! Maybe as he ages he's trying to mellow out, develop a sense of humor, & this is all just some sort of satiric parody gone horribly, tragically wrong?

Of course, there might be some folks who, along with perhaps believing in unicorns, think that gates might actually be on to something... 1st there's grade school math -- if Johnny has 3 apples, he can't give 4 apples to Sue. Any government that keeps hiring more & more employees, & then continually increasing their pay & benefits, regardless merit, is eventually going to run out of money. Any person or company or government that spends more than they have is going to go into debt. If running out of money or acquiring debt is a problem, Stop Doing That! Simply asking for & receiving more money has never cured overspending -- ask any loanshark why they employ leg breakers?

2nd, when you're looking for a solution, choose what works. If your car or your house needs painting, chances are you don't go & grab your kid's watercolor paint set & start finger painting. Won't work too well. OTOH if it's lunch time & you're hungry, most of us try to eat lunch -- we've proven to ourselves over the years that does usually work. Governments have been around almost as long as our species -- when they've needed more cash, what's worked & what hasn't? Simple. It might take a bit of research, but there's Really Not a whole lot of theory involved... it's basic biz marketing.

If you want to sell something, you first figure out how much your buyers will pay. The number of sales X price - costs = money you get to keep. Now Apple could have priced the iPhone at $10,000, make a much larger profit on every sale, but they wouldn't have sold anywhere near as many iPhones, & overall they would have made less cash. Taxes work the same way -- the gov is selling the country, as a place to live, as a place to keep your money, as a place to locate your biz etc. Set the price too high, some people & biz will leave, others won't come, & you drive a larger portion of the economy underground, i.e. to the black market.

Anyone can talk about justice &/or fair shares or any of that stuff, and it can work when you're looking for charity, or mercy, or running for election, but not so much anywhere else. If justice & fairness really meant as much as gates said it does, Windows would be $9.95 starting tomorrow.

OMG with this "fair share" garbage. We don't need communism because the poor are envious. Whether or not the money was earned by dubious means, it's not your money.

In the same vein, we need the rich to stop acting as if they're losing body parts because programs like welfare exist. If I personally grossed three million dollars a year and only took home a million, do you know what I would say about it? "Me having a million dollars is awesome!"

You're always going to have lazy moochers and greedy hoarders. The solution isn't to make everyone poor or to make the poor even worse off. The solution is to reform tax laws because people certainly aren't gonna do what's right for society themselves.

Davo said,
OMG with this "fair share" garbage. We don't need communism because the poor are envious. Whether or not the money was earned by dubious means, it's not your money.

In the same vein, we need the rich to stop acting as if they're losing body parts because programs like welfare exist. If I personally grossed three million dollars a year and only took home a million, do you know what I would say about it? "Me having a million dollars is awesome!"

You're always going to have lazy moochers and greedy hoarders. The solution isn't to make everyone poor or to make the poor even worse off. The solution is to reform tax laws because people certainly aren't gonna do what's right for society themselves.


Nice job attacking a straw men. No one want communism and the poor are not envious. Republicans have become so extreme right now that they had voted against GI bill for the veterans, wanted to cut Pell grants for poor students and wanted to eliminate head start program that provides early childhood education to the children of low-income parents.
These government programs are essential to provide equal of opportunity so that the poor can have chance to move up the social ladder.

sopharine said,

...Republicans have become so extreme right now that they had voted against GI bill for the veterans, wanted to cut Pell grants for poor students and wanted to eliminate head start program that provides early childhood education to the children of low-income parents...

Ummm, what flavor was the Kool-Aid?

If you're really interested do a bit of fact checking -- if not just keep repeating the mantras of those on the extreme left. Reality is the middle between both extremes, right & left.

mikiem said,

Ummm, what flavor was the Kool-Aid?

If you're really interested do a bit of fact checking -- if not just keep repeating the mantras of those on the extreme left. Reality is the middle between both extremes, right & left.


It's all on the records. You can't for equality of opportunity while against any form of government income redistribution.
http://www.theexaminernews.com...ns-should-support-veterans/
http://www.businessweek.com/ne...ll-grants-public-radio.html

I'm about sick & tired of "the rich" that say they don't pay enough taxes. FINE, you think you don't pay enough taxes? Then write a check to the IRS anytime you fricking want to! There is NOTHING stopping you from paying whatever you want to the government. Just write a check to them for a few billion dollars if that will make your conscience feel better, and leave the rest of us that pay too much tax alone already! Bunch of income redistribution clowns!

naap51stang said,
I'm about sick & tired of "the rich" that say they don't pay enough taxes. FINE, you think you don't pay enough taxes? Then write a check to the IRS anytime you fricking want to! There is NOTHING stopping you from paying whatever you want to the government. Just write a check to them for a few billion dollars if that will make your conscience feel better, and leave the rest of us that pay too much tax alone already! Bunch of income redistribution clowns!

Except gates already gives a whole heap of money away - perhaps more than most - and your ignoring his actual point, that the rich aren't taxed enough given they can (naturally) afford it. Most people (sadly) will only pay what's due, the fact that one philanthropist would doesn't alter that. I really have no idea why someone saying that makes you so upset. Odd.

naap51stang said,
I'm about sick & tired of "the rich" that say they don't pay enough taxes. FINE, you think you don't pay enough taxes? Then write a check to the IRS anytime you fricking want to! There is NOTHING stopping you from paying whatever you want to the government. Just write a check to them for a few billion dollars if that will make your conscience feel better, and leave the rest of us that pay too much tax alone already! Bunch of income redistribution clowns!

I'm so sick of this argument! Government is NOT a charity. If you don't force anyone to pay for taxes everyone will become free riders and no one will pay taxes and the government will have no money to pay for the army and build infrastructures.

Maybe because the entire idea of a "progressive" income tax is absurd! The U.S. government is suppose to treat everyone EQUALLY. This progressive income tax pits one income group against another. The only FAIR tax is a flat or fair tax, but, since most boobs no nothing about economics, and have never even bothered to READ the fair/flat tax ideas, it doesn't stand a chance. Taking the tax power away from congress (themselves rich thanks to the rules they make for everyone else to follow but themselves, such as the insider trading laws), would turn this train wreck around. But, most of the "99%ers" would rather swoon over the next American Idol contestant, or the latest hollywood scandal, than actually something that can actually affect their lives.

dangel said,

Except gates already gives a whole heap of money away - perhaps more than most - and your ignoring his actual point, that the rich aren't taxed enough given they can (naturally) afford it. Most people (sadly) will only pay what's due, the fact that one philanthropist would doesn't alter that. I really have no idea why someone saying that makes you so upset. Odd.

dangel said,
Except gates already gives a whole heap of money away - perhaps more than most - and your ignoring his actual point, that the rich aren't taxed enough given they can (naturally) afford it. Most people (sadly) will only pay what's due, the fact that one philanthropist would doesn't alter that. I really have no idea why someone saying that makes you so upset. Odd.

The idea that someone else, anyone else should do what you want is a bit unrealistic to say the least, & it's even more arrogant if the person doing the asking admits not heeding their own advice. To directly answer your question, that's why it rubs lots of folks the wrong way. As to the notion that someone, anyone else can afford something, so they should pay it is equally unrealistic.

When it comes to US taxes, there's a gigantic industry whose sole purpose is helping clients avoid paying taxes, & they're at the beck & call of rich corporations & individuals... it's very unrealistic to think that simply raising the rate at which they're supposed to pay taxes will in fact mean more revenue. Either gates had some other purpose in mind, or he's really as bad off as some Apple & *nix fans would have us believe. And gates possibly trying yet again to manipulate the world does not make for happy thoughts.

naap51stang said,
Maybe because the entire idea of a "progressive" income tax is absurd! The U.S. government is suppose to treat everyone EQUALLY. This progressive income tax pits one income group against another. The only FAIR tax is a flat or fair tax, but, since most boobs no nothing about economics, and have never even bothered to READ the fair/flat tax ideas, it doesn't stand a chance. Taking the tax power away from congress (themselves rich thanks to the rules they make for everyone else to follow but themselves, such as the insider trading laws), would turn this train wreck around. But, most of the "99%ers" would rather swoon over the next American Idol contestant, or the latest hollywood scandal, than actually something that can actually affect their lives.


Milton Friedman supported progressive income tax system and the federal reserves. Both of which the modern extreme Republicans so vehemently oppose. I guess you're a better economist than Milton Friedman right?
And fair tax is not fair because 1 dollar for higher income earner is not the same as 1 dollar for the poor.

sopharine said,

Milton Friedman supported progressive income tax system and the federal reserves. Both of which the modern extreme Republicans so vehemently oppose. I guess you're a better economist than Milton Friedman right?
And fair tax is not fair because 1 dollar for higher income earner is not the same as 1 dollar for the poor.

Yup, it's not that complicated - and in the rest of the World it does work that way. I'm a high income earner in the UK and I pay a lot more tax than someone on half my salary - and as much as i'd like to keep all that money I actually agree with the principle. It's tempting to be selfish "ME ME ME" but as a UK resident I find the US tax system to seem to be far from "FAIR" (even if I use caps lol) to the less well off.

I think Bill feels the moral obligation to repay the country that helped him become deliriously wealthy, but without change in regulation is not compelled to do so.

dotf said,
I think Bill feels the moral obligation to repay the country that helped him become deliriously wealthy, but without change in regulation is not compelled to do so.

IMHO, & FWIW, yes & maybe...

AFAIK gates wasn't born to a poor & financially struggling family -- I don't know if anyone could imagine him ever doing a hard day's work at manual labor. We're simply not talking some "Rags to Riches" story here, where the poor kid works hard at menial jobs to 1st survive, then get through school, & after years of sacrifice finally makes good.

OTOH he's getting old enough to be aware that he's mortal, & whether they're trying to buy a ticket through the pearly gates or just ensure they're remembered, lots of rich people make a big point of trying to serve the public good later in life. Seeing as he's apparently not yet sent the US gov the check, I can't help but wonder if he's not hoping his speaking out will suffice, will be good enough.

Wealthy Americans SHOULD be forced to pay more taxes as they can easily afford it. to them they won't miss a billion here and there.

At least one of the Richest people in the world admits it. Everyone knows that the weight of taxation is always on the backs of the middle class.

So nobody cares about the fact that investment income is taxed at a lower rate? Donations are another source of tax break. There are a lot of sources of income that the middle class can't/doesn't take advantage of. Just because somebody makes the right choices and makes a lot of money, doesn't mean anybody else is entitled to a piece of it. That's essentially a penalty for making the correct decisions. Yeah, that seems like a great idea! Let's tax the hell out of the rich and the business owners and see what happens. They will pack up ship and move away to a place that doesn't tack on such a "penalty"; that's exactly what happens now and will get much worse. And then guess what? Less jobs, less tax income, and more burden on us to pay the unemployment checks. Why would anybody even imagine this would be a good idea?

Astra.Xtreme said,
So nobody cares about the fact that investment income is taxed at a lower rate? Donations are another source of tax break. There are a lot of sources of income that the middle class can't/doesn't take advantage of.

I watched The Daily Show last night too.

dotf said,

I watched The Daily Show last night too.

It's actually called common sense. Try learning some...
And fyi, I don't watch political news. It's all garbage from both sides.

Astra.Xtreme said,
... There are a lot of sources of income that the middle class can't/doesn't take advantage of. Just because somebody makes the right choices and makes a lot of money, doesn't mean anybody else is entitled to a piece of it. That's essentially a penalty for making the correct decisions...

Some people get born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouth. Many get their wealth illegally [including some of the richest families in US history]. Just having access to wealthy people so one can learn of & take advantage of opportunities can mean an awful lot. Loads of people have positions they're unqualified for that they got strictly because of their connections.

Pretending it ain't so won't alter the facts. Indeed that only fuels the class warfare rhetoric which can be, often is just as much in denial.

Boy it's a good thing Mark Carney, a Canadian fixing the global economy.

In Canada, we have a progressive tax system where the more you make, the more you pay.

Our income disparity is only a fraction of what it is in the US. That bing said, our new conservative leader is doing his best to bring our disparity on par with our neighbors to the south.

When I was starting out in the working world, I was on welfare, I collected social benefits.
Then I got a job, and started making income.
In Canada, if you make below a certain amount, you pay NO income tax. Sure it's collected off the top of your paycheck, but it's always a rebate come tax time.
For the first few years of my working life, I was in the rebate category.
Once I was able to get a job in the industry I was educated in, my income skyrocketed. I was able to get a house, and buy a car, and now I pay taxes each year.
Without the social programs in place to get me started down the path to economic stability, I would probably be homeless or worse at this point.

I agree that Bill and people with their level of economic freedom did not or do not pay enough tax, relative to the rest of the system. When Warren Buffett publicly admits that he pays less income tax than his housekeeper, there is a problem.

US government is not too big, it's just managed improperly. I love when conservatives or rethuglicans talk about the problems of big government, yet when they are in office, their spending is out of control where they shouldn't be meddling in the first place (inventing enemies, taking away the morning after pill, etc).

All of the right wing whackadoos who are posting crap on this thread, only hope to achieve the same successes as these folks so they can reap the rewards. The problem with that logic is that the people and companies that lobby to win elections are working to keep this system as dysfunctional as possible to keep you going to work and buying their products, because guess what.... That's what an ECONOMY is. Our modern world is just a new system of slavery we all buy into. We are now slaves to our own dreams of 'success', blind to the fact as long as you're employed by someone else, you are the slave.


To Mr. Gates

I understand you think you dont pay enough in taxes. Let me first start out by saying thank you very much for your generosity in what you dontate to chrities. With that said, if you feel the gov doesn't TAKE enough tax from you, there is an additional line at the bottom of your return to sned them an additional amount. This leave you the option, er the FREEDOM to CHOOSE an appropriate amount to send the treasury.

Dont site on your high horse and say everyone needs to pay more.

Why would anyone want to pay more taxes? The taxpayer in this country did not put this country in the condition it is in. The politicians in Washington, DC shoulders the complete responsibility for the shape of the country.
Give more so they can fight more needless wars, give loans to other countries and then forgive the loans, feed our own enemies, etc.
Throw money away for such things as 'the bridge to nowhere'.
It is easy for a politician to spend your money, after all they all can afford to give your money away.
I don't know if there is one politician in Washington that realizes that the money in the treasury of the United States is the money that people put there.
Why doesn't Bil Gates write a big fat check for 50 billion dollars if he thinks the taxpayer needs to pay more? Maybe then he will realized how hard things are.

what is even more sad is the fact that we are split on this subject.... that is one thing we as American's can't seem to do agree on anything

I don't necessarily like the tone "doesn't Bill Gates already do enough?" as if paying taxes is the equivalent of "being forced to donate money to the government. Viewing it this way is kind of twisted and not actually factual. Taxes pay and maintain things we ALL use everyday and to uphold the rights granted to us in the Constitution. The argument is that the rich are not paying their fare share. The problem is that if you tax the rich more, they are going to spend less, regardless if it makes a dent or not. I am sure you have heard CEOS getting fired for generating less of a profit one year compared to the profit made previous years, regardless of the millions or billions made. No one wants to "take a loss." The tax breaks granted to the rich were made to be temporary and now they are holding on to it as if they are entitled to it. Things are given and taken away from the poor all the time, because they have no political cards to play. They are used to taking a loss.

Explain to me how paying 15% dividend tax - like everyone else does - makes the middle class and poor poorer? People need to take economics lessons. The market is not a zero sum game. If a make money for inventing a product, it is does not come at the cost of those who did not invent the product.

The US election will be very interesting even for us in the EU... If the republicans win, USA as a Superpower will be history. Any person with at least one half-dead braincell understands that a country where the top 1 percent control 42 percent of all financial wealth will fail badly!
They've let it gone way to far...
I hope for the best, if the US economy collapses in the future it will be a disaster for us european countries aswell.

ow7iee said,
The US election will be very interesting even for us in the EU... If the republicans win, USA as a Superpower will be history. Any person with at least one half-dead braincell understands that a country where the top 1 percent control 42 percent of all financial wealth will fail badly!
They've let it gone way to far...
I hope for the best, if the US economy collapses in the future it will be a disaster for us european countries aswell.

Yeah because the republicans will just crash this country into the ground... Get a clue...

Astra.Xtreme said,
Yeah because the republicans will just crash this country into the ground... Get a clue...

Yes, they will. They already began it with Bush.

Aethec said,

Yes, they will. They already began it with Bush.

Yeah and Obama has been our guardian angel for the past 3 years, right?
Some people just don't understand the world outside of their own eyes and the TV...

Astra.Xtreme said,

Yeah and Obama has been our guardian angel for the past 3 years, right?
Some people just don't understand the world outside of their own eyes and the TV...


Bush increases the deficit and debt during the boom time which is economically idiotic and eventually crippled Obama ability to employ deficit spending during the recession.

sopharine said,
Bush increases the deficit and debt during the boom time which is economically idiotic and eventually crippled Obama ability to employ deficit spending during the recession.
But Bush was doing it to keep 'merica safe from the terrorists, so it was all worth while...

What rich people fail to understand is that they wouldn't be rich without the people who work for minimum wage. There cannot be wealth unless there is also poverty. It's only fair that the rich pay more tax.

The 60k - 250k family income segment needs a tax break. and the 1 million and above probably need a slight hike, and billionaires need a significant hike.

The rich SHOULD get taxed more, that's obvious.

The fact is that no matter how they came to make their millions, whether it's deserved or not (it mostly is), they still have plenty of money to comfortably live on.

Poor people in dead end jobs or people starting out in work earn much less, and just the bog standard 20% tax (in the UK - may be different in the US) makes a difference.

I work my ass off at work every week and I wouldn't be able to move out from my mum's house unless I forfeited my car. I earn quite a bit above minimum wage, but still on the lower end of wages.

Rich people are not at a risk of becoming homeless if they have to pay more tax.. poorer people run that risk every time there's a tax hike or a cut in benefits.

exactly, I do agree that the rich get richer (and they get rich) by doing what they do... some say its perseverence, others say its just their imagination.

Anyways, point is, even if they know how to get rich they should still have to pay a larger sum of money to the govt. Bill himself kind of uses his money already to help others so i dont really care about that, but there are many other rich people who have millions over millions of dollars just sitting around - and most likely never to be spent. That money could go to very good use somewhere else and THAT is why the govt should raise taxes. It shouldnt be this way.

I do agree however that the rich can stay rich, they deserve their status by what they have done. My only point is that they need to pay a little more to society.

auziez said,
exactly, I do agree that the rich get richer (and they get rich) by doing what they do... some say its perseverence, others say its just their imagination.

Anyways, point is, even if they know how to get rich they should still have to pay a larger sum of money to the govt. Bill himself kind of uses his money already to help others so i dont really care about that, but there are many other rich people who have millions over millions of dollars just sitting around - and most likely never to be spent. That money could go to very good use somewhere else and THAT is why the govt should raise taxes. It shouldnt be this way.

I do agree however that the rich can stay rich, they deserve their status by what they have done. My only point is that they need to pay a little more to society.

They just need to pay based on the tax bracket that they would be in instead of only paying 15% if all their income is from long term capital gains or dividends. It definitely not fair that I pay around 25% of my income in taxes and someone else that makes several million a year only pays 15% of theirs.

auziez said,
That money could go to very good use somewhere else and THAT is why the govt should raise taxes. It shouldnt be this way.
Ah yes. The good old government has proven to be quite competent with how it spends its money.

How long ago was SOPA stopped because of its stupidity? Then PIPA--the Senate version--stayed alive because of more corruption and stupidity.

Right, this government, the one that just pushed our debt limit up again--this time above our GDP--has a proven track record of good decisions and putting money to good use.

Good god... the ****tards that run this site need to get over the love affair with our failed president Obama. I thought this was a tech site. If I wanted to read some liberal goat squeeze, I'd goto msnbc...

This site has been going down the ****** fast these last couple months... Used to come here daily but when they continue to put crap up here like this, or news that is a couple years old, I won't be visiting as much...

Can you give me some other examples please? I wrote this article and I'm British, living in the Netherlands. So don't get where your comments are coming from.

bguy_1986 said,
Good god... the ****tards that run this site need to get over the love affair with our failed president Obama. I thought this was a tech site. If I wanted to read some liberal goat squeeze, I'd goto msnbc...

This site has been going down the ****** fast these last couple months... Used to come here daily but when they continue to put crap up here like this, or news that is a couple years old, I won't be visiting as much...


If you don't like facts or a non-US point of view, go watch Fox News.

I hope Obama wins another term just to keep *****tards like you angry for another 5 years. Your stupidity is quite entertaining.

Aethec said,

If you don't like facts or a non-US point of view, go watch Fox News.

This.

You can't so much as suggest anything that may be considered anti-conservative without being blasted these days. The atmosphere is so polarizing its disgusting. I'm pro-Obama but wouldn't dare place a bumper sticker showing my support. The majority of the people I work with are conservative and I would be judged for my political views and it would no doubt in my mind lead to discrimination.

Gungel said,
I hope Obama wins another term just to keep *****tards like you angry for another 5 years. Your stupidity is quite entertaining.

It's 4 years and you call others stupid!

bguy_1986 said,
Good god... the ****tards that run this site need to get over the love affair with our failed president Obama. I thought this was a tech site. If I wanted to read some liberal goat squeeze, I'd goto msnbc...

This site has been going down the ****** fast these last couple months... Used to come here daily but when they continue to put crap up here like this, or news that is a couple years old, I won't be visiting as much...

They see me trollin', they hatin'....

I'm getting a kick out of these billionaires like Gates and Buffet that got to the top 1% by lying and cheating and stepping all over their competitors to get what they want. Especially Gates that tried to destroy Steve Jobs, tried to put James Gosling out of business (who created the template for Java programming.) And even Marc Andreesen by offering IE for free.

And now...these same billionaires suddenly have an attack of conscious about not paying enough taxes??


Makes me wonder a little bit what the angle is behind this? If I was bitten by a dog that looked cute enough to pet...I surely wouldn't try to pet the same dog again...no matter how friendly it looked.

texasghost said,
I'm getting a kick out of these billionaires like Gates and Buffet that got to the top 1% by lying and cheating and stepping all over their competitors to get what they want. Especially Gates that tried to destroy Steve Jobs, tried to put James Gosling out of business (who created the template for Java programming.) And even Marc Andreesen by offering IE for free.

And now...these same billionaires suddenly have an attack of conscious about not paying enough taxes??


Makes me wonder a little bit what the angle is behind this? If I was bitten by a dog that looked cute enough to pet...I surely wouldn't try to pet the same dog again...no matter how friendly it looked.

Suuuuure, because you wouldn't do the same to get money. There are far worse people, those that kill for money AND THEY DON'T EVEN DONATE. Bill Gates is awesome for helping people.

Anooxy said,

Suuuuure, because you wouldn't do the same to get money. There are far worse people, those that kill for money AND THEY DON'T EVEN DONATE. Bill Gates is awesome for helping people.

I didnt question his motives for how he got rich dude...you should read my post correctly. I am questioning why the turn around of being someone that would step on the little guy...to all of the sudden...becoming Mother Teresa and admitting he doesn't pay enough in taxes.

texasghost said,

I didnt question his motives for how he got rich dude...you should read my post correctly. I am questioning why the turn around of being someone that would step on the little guy...to all of the sudden...becoming Mother Teresa and admitting he doesn't pay enough in taxes.

He has been donating for years, you just noticed because he's now helping full-time. You don't really know what happened behind those people, especially with Steve Jobs, and on top of that you don't know what you would do if you had that amount of money either. Bill Gates chose to give it all. Can't we be happy that he's doing that?

Anooxy said,

He has been donating for years, you just noticed because he's now helping full-time. You don't really know what happened behind those people, especially with Steve Jobs, and on top of that you don't know what you would do if you had that amount of money either. Bill Gates chose to give it all. Can't we be happy that he's doing that?

Don't really know what happened behind the scenes? They were interviewed in a PBS special back in 2000 you fool!! And on top of that...the interview that was done with James Gosling was quoted as saying...he would love to be the pitchfork as Bill Gates swims in the fires of hell.

And sure...we can be happy he is donating money...my issue is...he's donating blood money on the people he stepped on.

In my opinion, the amount of taxes you pay should be a fixed percentage of what your earn. For example, if someone earning $60,000/yr pays $15,000 in taxes, someone making $60,000,000/yr should be paying $15,000,000 in taxes. That would set a "fair" tax upon everyone. We pay taxes based on our earnings; the more money you earn, the more money you pay. To those saying "It's my money, I earned it," think about where you get your money from.

The only problem with a completely fixed rate is that people on low incomes that barely (or don't) have enough to survive as it is end up being made worse of because they're required to pay income taxes. What we should tax is (for lack of a better word) "expendable" income, meaning income that is above and beyond the minimum to survive. The income that is taxed should be taxed at a flat rate, no matter where that income came from (whether wages, investments, etc).

Expendable income could be calculated total income minus a flat rate for each household, and some for each person living in that household. For example, say each household gets $16,000 subtracted automatically, plus $4,000 for each person that lives in that household, and the tax rate is 15%. That means a family of 4 that has a combined income of $80,000 would have $32,000 deducted, leaving $48,000 taxable income. Then at the 15% tax rate they would pay $7,200 in taxes, leaving $72,800.

A family of 2 making $40,000 would have $24,000 deducted, times 15% tax rate means $2,400 in tax, leaving $37,600.

A family of 4 making $200,000 would have $32,000 deducted, times 15% tax is $25,200, leaving $174,800.

A family of 6 making $40,000 would have $40,000 deducted, and would pay no taxes.

These would be the examples of the "standard" deductions (like we have for the 1040EZ today). Citizens could also itemize and subtract most of the deductions that they do today (mortgage interest payments capped to a certain amount, medical bills, charities, etc) with a smaller starting deduction.

There would be no "tax credits."

This is the only "fair" way to do taxes.

satukoro said,
In my opinion, the amount of taxes you pay should be a fixed percentage of what your earn.

What about asshats like Jobs that got paid $1 in salary? "What you earn" is very subjective in the US.

ahhell said,
What about asshats like Jobs that got paid $1 in salary? "What you earn" is very subjective in the US.

Hence the reason I've always said that all income should be taxed at the same rate regardless of whether it is wages, salary, investment dividends etc.

You would've never heard this kind of response from Steve Jobs, hah. I admired Jobs, but Bill just "gets it" -- he understands failures in our society, and he has legitimate plans on how to fix them.

That's true, but I don't really see why people keep drawing the comparison.

For the past 10 years, Steve Jobs was a CEO. For the past 10 years, Bill Gates has been a Philanthropist. Steve Jobs was a dirty good for nothing so-and-so for not being a philanthropist for the past 10 years is basically what you are saying .

Shadrack said,
That's true, but I don't really see why people keep drawing the comparison.

For the past 10 years, Steve Jobs was a CEO. For the past 10 years, Bill Gates has been a Philanthropist. Steve Jobs was a dirty good for nothing so-and-so for not being a philanthropist for the past 10 years is basically what you are saying .


Not even remotely what I said, but kudos for that insane statement.

The term, "rich" is crass and unsophisticated, and any time you see it used in an article, it is somewhat consciously, if not expressly, used to elicit envy and stir up class warfare. I realize that Neowin is “unprofessional journalism,” but I don't think it's unreasonable to hold them to higher standards than Slashdot.

Skwerl said,
The term, "rich" is crass and unsophisticated, and any time you see it used in an article, it is somewhat consciously, if not expressly, used to elicit envy and stir up class warfare. I realize that Neowin is “unprofessional journalism,” but I don't think it's unreasonable to hold them to higher standards than Slashdot.

Come on. "Rich" should not be used? What next, "Black" when talking about black people?
Oh wait...you Americans have done it.

Aethec said,

Come on. "Rich" should not be used? What next, "Black" when talking about black people?
Oh wait...you Americans have done it.

Hahahaha no doubt. Rich is now considered derogatory. Who would have thunk it? Reminds me of that SouthPark episode "Here comes the neighborhood".

Skwerl said,
The term, "rich" is crass and unsophisticated, and any time you see it used in an article, it is somewhat consciously, if not expressly, used to elicit envy and stir up class warfare. I realize that Neowin is “unprofessional journalism,” but I don't think it's unreasonable to hold them to higher standards than Slashdot.

Bill disagrees with you and took no issue with it in the video whatsoever.

Skwerl said,
The term, "rich" is crass and unsophisticated, and any time you see it used in an article, it is somewhat consciously, if not expressly, used to elicit envy and stir up class warfare. I realize that Neowin is “unprofessional journalism,” but I don't think it's unreasonable to hold them to higher standards than Slashdot.

What a load of crap - there term in and of itself has no negative connotations but what it tells me when I hear 'rich' I think of people who are wealthy, who are pillars of society and have a certain set of obligations that being part of an elite must carry on their shoulders. You do realise that 200 years ago 'rich' people did hold themselves to a set of standards, that many if not majority saw it as their obligation as a pillar of society to support charities etc. but now a certain section of the 'rich' seem to want to back out of their obligations because they have a complete lack of morality.

Everyone have to pay their fair share.

Rich people should pay a little more but it does not mean that the middle class should pay less or not see their taxes increasing.

I like bill and all but serious shut up GATES! its not fair.. fair is everyone pays the same if i get rich I dont wana pay more just because I earned my money .... he should keep his money he earned it.. he only does not care because he is one of the richest men in the world.

Huh? I already pay more taxes than someone who works at a fast food joint. His point is that the divide in contributions between working middle/class to the filthy rich is far greater.

SPEhosting said,
I like bill and all but serious shut up GATES! its not fair.. fair is everyone pays the same if i get rich I dont wana pay more just because I earned my money .... he should keep his money he earned it.. he only does not care because he is one of the richest men in the world.

Exactly. "Fair" would be everyone paying the same tax rate. How about we try that? lol

M_Lyons10 said,

Exactly. "Fair" would be everyone paying the same tax rate. How about we try that? lol

everyone does pay the same tax rate over here the more money you get the more gets taken... a member of my family used to get over 40-60k and most of it got taken away in tax ... actually made it harder to pay the mortgage because things like that are also done on income.... so yea fair...

M_Lyons10 said,

Exactly. "Fair" would be everyone paying the same tax rate. How about we try that? lol


Equal tax rate is entirely unfair to the lower and middle class (which most of the country falls under). For example, a 10% tax rate for someone making 30k a year is a LOT more of a burden than for say someone making 100k a year.

SPEhosting said,

everyone does pay the same tax rate over here the more money you get the more gets taken... a member of my family used to get over 40-60k and most of it got taken away in tax ... actually made it harder to pay the mortgage because things like that are also done on income.... so yea fair...

Not true, not everyone pays the same tax rate, the rate you pay depends what tax bracket you fall into.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...ackets_in_the_United_States

SPEhosting said,

everyone does pay the same tax rate over here the more money you get the more gets taken... a member of my family used to get over 40-60k and most of it got taken away in tax ... actually made it harder to pay the mortgage because things like that are also done on income.... so yea fair...

That's not true. People that make millions of dollars are not paid normal wages sometimes and the tax bracket is not taken into account at all. Most people pay taxes based on their tax bracket. If you are like Gates and all your money is made by long term capital gains, your tax rate would be 15%. This has nothing to do with tax brackets.

Tender Foot said,

Not true, not everyone pays the same tax rate, the rate you pay depends what tax bracket you fall into.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...ackets_in_the_United_States

Thank you.

Xilo said,

Equal tax rate is entirely unfair to the lower and middle class (which most of the country falls under). For example, a 10% tax rate for someone making 30k a year is a LOT more of a burden than for say someone making 100k a year.

I'm not saying that I am in favor of that. I am just sick and tired of people whining that things "just aren't fair..." If you want to be successful, make yourself successful. Otherwise, get a job and work hard at it. I would never hold success against someone, and people that do simply look like self entitled people that feel they "deserve" it.

In all honesty, I feel they should get rid of income tax entirely and go to a sales tax system. That way everyone pays taxes based on their spending, not their income, they can all but get rid of the IRS, and anyone that travels here is now also paying our income tax. People that are here illegally. Everyone. Then what does anything matter? You make less, you're going to spend less, which means you would pay less in taxes. Bazinga.

SPEhosting said,
I like bill and all but serious shut up GATES! its not fair.. fair is everyone pays the same if i get rich I dont wana pay more just because I earned my money .... he should keep his money he earned it.. he only does not care because he is one of the richest men in the world.

So if you 'earned' your money playing the stock games, such as investing 1k to make 10mill then you don't need to pay more taxes? I really wish things were like that in the fairy world you live in. Most of these *******s got rich off the backs of people like me and you that work every day for a living. If you inherit it, you didn't 'earn' ****

rjones42455 said,

So if you 'earned' your money playing the stock games, such as investing 1k to make 10mill then you don't need to pay more taxes? I really wish things were like that in the fairy world you live in. Most of these *******s got rich off the backs of people like me and you that work every day for a living. If you inherit it, you didn't 'earn' ****

so if you inherit it from parents then they earned it for you....

got it on the stocks? then you got it from being smart and knowing how to handle your money

its great when my parents die im minted, because now they are old their they are nearly debt free and own everything ect they worked for their whole lives for me and my siblings and our children and our childrens children saying that I will also do the same.

if they got rich off our backs its because they invest, and its what I will be doing soon enough taking all my savings and playing the stocks.

SPEhosting said,

so if you inherit it from parents then they earned it for you....

got it on the stocks? then you got it from being smart and knowing how to handle your money


This guy and people like him are everything that is wrong with the world.

SPEhosting said,

so if you inherit it from parents then they earned it for you....

got it on the stocks? then you got it from being smart and knowing how to handle your money

its great when my parents die im minted, because now they are old their they are nearly debt free and own everything ect they worked for their whole lives for me and my siblings and our children and our childrens children saying that I will also do the same.

if they got rich off our backs its because they invest, and its what I will be doing soon enough taking all my savings and playing the stocks.

I hope for everyone's sake that when you do you end up like Berny Madeoff or loose everything you have.

ahhell said,

This guy and people like him are everything that is wrong with the world.

or maybe its people like you lacking the education to make it in life and whom cries to them self?? I could get a job working 40 hours a week as a pizza delivery guy (which im not) and be content. yes I think the tax in general is a **** take but everyone is taxed the same and its fair ... i dont think I should be taxed 5% for me and 20% for the rich guy ... that is not fair

SPEhosting said,
I like bill and all but serious shut up GATES! its not fair.. fair is everyone pays the same if i get rich I dont wana pay more just because I earned my money .... he should keep his money he earned it.. he only does not care because he is one of the richest men in the world.

Apparently you are out of the loop. The rich get more tax breaks than anyone else.

To me if you are making $50M/year you can and should be able to afford 30-50% in taxes If you are only making $25K/year then i don't think living off $12,500 a year is even possible (in the USA).It is most definitely possible to live from $25,000,000 however! Just don't get so much extra cheese on your burger and you'll be just fine!

SHoTTa35 said,
To me if you are making $50M/year you can and should be able to afford 30-50% in taxes If you are only making $25K/year then i don't think living off $12,500 a year is even possible (in the USA).It is most definitely possible to live from $25,000,000 however! Just don't get so much extra cheese on your burger and you'll be just fine!

I filed taxes for a friend a mine with 2 kids, and a wife yesterday; with house-rental payments, car payments, and other staples of living. He only made $13,797 last year. He is also not a rare case, I know many in the same boat. It is done everyday, by many families and individuals, albeit struggling.

It is sad really, cause he works very hard, for very little.

ok I should have probably said, "in some parts of the USA" - I know people making 30K a year and cant afford house + car and they have no wife/kids to support. With rent/mortgage being $1,500/month that's about 18K a year just for that, then add bills for food/water/electricity/etc and that's prolly another 5K a year. Once you add extra stuff like paying back student loans and all that, you definitely living barely within your means (add being able to save $1000/yr which is nothing also).

So for your friend making 13K his bills must not amount to more than $700 including, mortgage, utlities and car bill which is freaking cheap! I wish I could find that around here, i'd be so rich! LOL

Zappa859 said,

I filed taxes for a friend a mine with 2 kids, and a wife yesterday; with house-rental payments, car payments, and other staples of living. He only made $13,797 last year. He is also not a rare case, I know many in the same boat. It is done everyday, by many families and individuals, albeit struggling.

It is sad really, cause he works very hard, for very little.

I know a number of people that make around 9k a year and do just fine for themselves. Is it ideal? Of course not. But they are responsible adults and use public and free internet, don't have cell phones, drive 15 year old cars that are paid off, and actually live in their means.

My opinion is that everyone should be taxed at the same rate unless the rate would put them below the poverty line. When I say rate, I mean percentage, not amount. I don't know what that magic number is but I imagine it is somewhere between 15% and 25% or at least would be if government spending didn't keep going up every year.

SHoTTa35 said,
ok I should have probably said, "in some parts of the USA" - I know people making 30K a year and cant afford house + car and they have no wife/kids to support. With rent/mortgage being $1,500/month that's about 18K a year just for that, then add bills for food/water/electricity/etc and that's prolly another 5K a year. Once you add extra stuff like paying back student loans and all that, you definitely living barely within your means (add being able to save $1000/yr which is nothing also).

Maybe "they" should have gotten a decent degree, or skipped college altogether. Or maybe "they" should move to an area, or state, that they can afford to both live and work in.
SHoTTa35 said,
So for your friend making 13K his bills must not amount to more than $700 including, mortgage, utlities and car bill which is freaking cheap! I wish I could find that around here, i'd be so rich! LOL

People making that "much" money are on special programs, such as food stamps and they likely pay no income tax (in fact, they probably get welfare for their kids). Your math is incorrect as a result. I can honestly appreciate that that person is in a hard position, but I cannot help but wonder what is stopping them from getting a better paying job? That sounds like a school bus driver's salary.

I pay less than that per month, and I make a lot more than $13K per year. Of course, I also have two roommates to split the housing/utility costs, and I don't have cable (I do have internet though).

pickypg said,

Maybe "they" should have gotten a decent degree, or skipped college altogether. Or maybe "they" should move to an area, or state, that they can afford to both live and work in.

People making that "much" money are on special programs, such as food stamps and they likely pay no income tax (in fact, they probably get welfare for their kids). Your math is incorrect as a result. I can honestly appreciate that that person is in a hard position, but I cannot help but wonder what is stopping them from getting a better paying job? That sounds like a school bus driver's salary.

I pay less than that per month, and I make a lot more than $13K per year. Of course, I also have two roommates to split the housing/utility costs, and I don't have cable (I do have internet though).

Yeah ok, you are cute. So people going that graduated from Yale in CT and have tons of bills should move down to Alabama where they'll be lucky to find a job in their field just because the property is cheaper in that area? You know what job they'll get there along with tons of other college graduates that can't find a job in their field now? Yeah, that 30-40K job instead of that 110K job they planned on having. First and foremost, most people out of college aren't offered CEO jobs because they lack experience. So they'll get those entry level jobs that's not paying that much but they'll still have bills to pay just like the rest of us.

You also share bills with roomates - i'm guessing you don't make enough to pay it all by yourself or you just like company of 2 other people to help pay the bills because then you can save more money? There's people that are happy making 30-50K or whatever and live comfortably with their wife and 2 kids and their 10 yr old toyota car in the driveway. Not everyone got's to have a BMW or Rolls Royce or Bugatti to feel happy as well. That doesn't mean these people don't work just as hard or even harder than their boss as the boss delegates their work. That's why I laughed when someone said about CEOs working 7 days a week busting ass and all that. They more than likely have 3 assistants and make some crucial yes or no decisions. It's like laywers and their paralegals, everyone knows it's the paralegal that does all the work yet the lawyer is the one that gets the big money from a big court settlement. The assistant that found all the relevant information and prepared the documents and even made sure her boss had all the info in the proper order is the hard worker in that case. The boss gets to look good because it's his name on the file, not the paralegal.

pickypg said,

Maybe "they" should have gotten a decent degree, or skipped college altogether. Or maybe "they" should move to an area, or state, that they can afford to both live and work in.

People making that "much" money are on special programs, such as food stamps and they likely pay no income tax (in fact, they probably get welfare for their kids). Your math is incorrect as a result. I can honestly appreciate that that person is in a hard position, but I cannot help but wonder what is stopping them from getting a better paying job? That sounds like a school bus driver's salary.

I pay less than that per month, and I make a lot more than $13K per year. Of course, I also have two roommates to split the housing/utility costs, and I don't have cable (I do have internet though).

There is a lot I wanted to say to your assinine comment, but I think SHoTTa did a good job, so I'll leave it at that.

pickypg said,

Maybe "they" should have gotten a decent degree, or skipped college altogether. Or maybe "they" should move to an area, or state, that they can afford to both live and work in.

You really don't know what his situation was growing up or anything. Maybe he couldn't afford to go to school. Even though community college is cheaper than universities, it can still be out of some people's means. Sometimes people can't get financial aid because their parents refuse to give their own tax information or their parents make too much yet they don't want to pay. Do you know how hard it is for a poor person to relocate, find affordable housing, and a decent paying job? It only gets harder if you have children for whatever reason. They could be yours, they could be younger siblings or other family members.

And I grew up on welfare and foodstamps, and to this day I still live under Section 8 (subsidized rent) with my mother (which is a whole other because of her being a stroke victim with no private health care). But anyway, people who live under those programs are often stuck because whenever they bring in extra money, from whatever source, their assistance gets lowered, keeping them exactly where they are. How does that make any sense.

I understand some people are lazy and there are those who take advantage of the system. But most people want better lives for themselves and their children and they will do their part as long as there are benefits like being able to buy a house and car, go on vacations, send their kids college, just simply live comfortable and enjoyable lives.

Too many people are greedy and horde their wealth. No one needs 50 billion ****ing dollars. No one needs a billion dollars. But everyone needs running water, food to eat, and medical attention when hurt or ill.

wixostrix said,
You really don't know what his situation was growing up or anything. Maybe he couldn't afford to go to school. Even though community college is cheaper than universities, it can still be out of some people's means. Sometimes people can't get financial aid because their parents refuse to give their own tax information or their parents make too much yet they don't want to pay. Do you know how hard it is for a poor person to relocate, find affordable housing, and a decent paying job? It only gets harder if you have children for whatever reason. They could be yours, they could be younger siblings or other family members.
My response was to him complaining about someone with a college degree having trouble affording $1500/month rent, which is not at all the situation that you are describing, nor does your response in any way make sense given the post of mine that you are responding too.

I suggested that person should skip college to avoid the debt. On the hand, you have taken some better-than-thou stance suggesting that I do not understand hardships.

In reality, I am saying that someone unable to afford $1500/month should forgo some things so that they can live within their means. Be that moving to a cheaper area, or not adding unnecessary debts (like an Art degree).

SHoTTa35 said,
So people going that graduated from Yale in CT and have tons of bills should move down to Alabama where they'll be lucky to find a job in their field just because the property is cheaper in that area?
No. They should move to an area/state where they find a job that pays the bills. They do not have to go to the cheapest place that they can find.
SHoTTa35 said,
You know what job they'll get there along with tons of other college graduates that can't find a job in their field now? Yeah, that 30-40K job instead of that 110K job they planned on having.
What idiot expects a six figure job straight out of college? I do not care what your degree is in. Also, I do not care what college you went to either. If you went to an expensive school, then you should have been prepared for the debt. Not a single college degree guarantees a job. You have to get grades to go with it, and you have to have a degree worth having.

It's worth repeating: if you cannot afford the debt at the end, then you should not have gotten into it at the beginning; in some cases this means taking risks in some cases, and you should be prepared for the results of that in both the reward and problem scenario. Going to Yale and getting some random degree is going to spell trouble, unless you enjoy doing it and you can make a living out of it. For instance, engineering and science jobs do exist. Liberal arts jobs do not.

I know people that went into debt to get art degrees because they "wanted a college degree." They are idiots. Plain and simple. What artist needs a college degree?

I also know people that get Master's degrees in--literally--puppetry. There was an Occupy protester complaining about just that. I can point to plenty of other Master's degrees that are just as pointless (such as Art) toward jobs rather than personal skills.

SHoTTa35 said,
First and foremost, most people out of college aren't offered CEO jobs because they lack experience. So they'll get those entry level jobs that's not paying that much but they'll still have bills to pay just like the rest of us.
See above.
SHoTTa35 said,
You also share bills with roomates - i'm guessing you don't make enough to pay it all by yourself or you just like company of 2 other people to help pay the bills because then you can save more money?
In fact, I do make enough to pay for the entire myself; I actually pay it all upfront and get reimbursed by my roommates a week or two later. I am just willing to live with the "inconvenience" of roommates because it's win-win. I have enough space for all of our stuff (we rent a house, I might add), and I get to save a lot of money.

I also worked throughout my undergraduate, as well as my Master's degree in Computer Science so that I was not in debt. I worked hard to get my grades as well as stay employed. It was literally very tiring, and I know that I am not alone in doing it. It was brutal, but I am glad that I did it. If you want the debt, then I do not have anything against you, but you should not complain if you were not prepared.

SHoTTa35 said,
There's people that are happy making 30-50K or whatever and live comfortably with their wife and 2 kids and their 10 yr old toyota car in the driveway...
Tons of people work hard. Tons of people work harder than their boss. And tons of people become the boss that way.

If you want to move up in a company, then you had better work hard. If your company is stopping you from climbing, then it's probably time to go to a different company. It is really that simple. Not everyone is going to be a CEO. Most people will not be, and a lot of it truly is luck. However, just because someone has assistants does not mean that they too are not busting their butt to get work done. It just means that they, theoretically, have so much work that they need help. And honestly, that's why we all have jobs anyway: because one person cannot do it all.

If you want to make the money of a lawyer, then you should be the one arguing the case. If you're a paralegal, then you should know that you are not a lawyer. If you want to move up, then go to law school and pass the bar exam, or get a different job, which exactly what many do.

(I had to reply in parts because it was too long)

pickypg said,
My response was to him complaining about someone with a college degree having trouble affording $1500/month rent, which is not at all the situation that you are describing.

Ok let's try this. The graduate that got a Business Administration degree that makes 30K a year because they just left college? I mean, do you know many people just leaving college and buying $300,000 homes? Is this guy for real or what? LOL. I'd like to know where all the 24yr olds are living in 300K homes and paying back their $42,000 student loan they've racked up?

Try even 3rd year doctor that's basically still an intern (you intern for 7yrs i think) making $50K but you have $300,000 in loans in order to pay for that. Surely you are gonna go out and buy a 500,000 house as soon as you graduate right? Yup!

You mentioned if you are a paralegal and know all the work of a lawyer then why not just go to school and become a lawyer? Do you know how much it costs to become said lawyers? It costs about 40K a year for school to become a lawer so tell me now, which paralegal making 50K a year will be able to afford to go to school WHILE still working 60hrs a week for her boss and still pay rent and bills? That person would have to take out a loan which will then cost them $200,000K and then they'll be able to do such things. You act like you can just go down to the local community college pay $800 and take a test to become a lawyer. LOL

Edited by Roger H., Jan 25 2012, 8:34pm :

SHoTTa35 said,
Ok let's try this. The graduate that got a Business Administration degree that makes 30K a year because they just left college? I mean, do you know many people just leaving college and buying $300,000 homes? Is this guy for real or what? LOL. I'd like to know where all the 24yr olds are living in 300K homes and paying all their bills just fine.
Your post is all over the place, and you are adding new information in order to try and make a point that is still disturbingly bad.

If your friend bought a $300,000 house while making $30K with a $1500/month mortgage, then they are an idiot. That is completely their fault for living above their means.

If you think that I bought a house of that value, then I should restate that I rent my house and pay much less than $1500/month.

SHoTTa35 said,
To me if you are making $50M/year you can and should be able to afford 30-50% in taxes If you are only making $25K/year then i don't think living off $12,500 a year is even possible (in the USA).It is most definitely possible to live from $25,000,000 however! Just don't get so much extra cheese on your burger and you'll be just fine!

Why 30-50%? What deprive the rich of their opulence? How ever will the rich fill up their gas tanks..., of their jets. Are you meaning to tell me that they can live in a 3 bedroom house and eat generic food? Perish the thought. PLEASE WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE RICH PEOPLE.

pickypg said,
Your post is all over the place, and you are adding new information in order to try and make a point that is still disturbingly bad.

If your friend bought a $300,000 house while making $30K with a $1500/month mortgage, then they are an idiot. That is completely their fault for living above their means.

If you think that I bought a house of that value, then I should restate that I rent my house and pay much less than $1500/month.

No you are suggesting that. Your house costs X based on the average salary of the place you live. Real Estate 101. Houses in New Canaan, CT costs more than houses in Atlanta, GA because the average salary in New Canaan make an average of 180K/yr while average of Atlanta makes 36K. So homes in New Canaan costs 1.3 million while Atlanta costs 150,000.

So no my friend didn't buy a 300,000K house, but you were suggesting people that make 30K should be able to afford a $1500 rent! That's what it would cost to mortgage a 300K house.

Here's this is what you said:

My response was to him complaining about someone with a college degree having trouble affording $1500/month rent, which is not at all the situation that you are describing.

A 300K house costs $1500/month to mortgage on a 36month loan at 5.6%.

So no you were the one that's all over the place. You say people should move to a an area where they can afford stuff but there are already preexisting costs involved. So yes I could move to Tennesee/Florida and get a house for $150K and make $10/hr or 30K but my 300,000K loan will still need to be paid at $2,000 a month because I went to a nice college to try and get a good education to be able to get that 1Million/year job eventually.

As you said, in order to get those big jobs you have to be qualified, and you wont be qualified without going to school and getting some degree, and you wont get the "nice degree" without going to a good college. Last time I checked, good colleges weren't free! Not everyone qualifies for financial aid cuz their parents make too much which may not be that much but just right about the $40K line which then is considered "too much" to qualify.

Edited by Roger H., Jan 25 2012, 9:02pm :

SHoTTa35 said,
Your house costs X based on the average salary of the place you live. Real Estate 101...
Yep, it's called the Standard of Living.
SHoTTa35 said,
So no my friend didn't buy a 300,000K house, but you were suggesting people that make 30K should be able to afford a $1500 rent!
You have apparently lost the context of my post. I was responding to to wixostrix, who wrongly assumed that I was saying everyone should go to college.

My clarification to him was to point out that the situation was completely different from what he described. The situation that you described was someone straight out of college paying $1500/month mortgage or rent, while only making $30K/year.

That is not a position that I expect people to be able to afford. Quite the opposite: I expect someone in that position to be unable to afford it.

SHoTTa35 said,
So no you were the one that's all over the place. You say people should move to a an area where they can afford stuff but there are already preexisting costs involved. So yes I could move to Tennesee/Florida and get a house for $150K and make $10/hr or 30K but my 300,000K loan will still need to be paid at $2,000 a month because I went to a nice college to try
You should not be looking at buying a $300K house while making $30K/year. It's really that simple.

Rent. Or, at the very least, buy a much cheaper house. If, like me (houses in my area are $600K for very small houses because people tend to knock down the houses and build much bigger houses in their place, which go for millions), you cannot afford a house that you would be happy with because the Standard of Living is too high, then do not buy one at all, or move to a different area with a different Standard of Living (a real option for me, should I decide I don't like my renting situation). Why are you going to throw yourself into a mortgage that you can't afford, and then complain about it?

If you went to a good college, then great. Work hard and get a better paying position or job before considering buying a house. At $30K, straight out of college, while being encumbered with student loans, you have absolutely nothing to gain by throwing yourself into further debt. What happens if your car breaks down, or you lose that $30K/year job? It's not unheard of and it might not even be your fault, and you won't be able to afford anything because you aren't making enough to save a significant amount of money, which means you will have your house foreclosed.

Instead, you could be renting with, or without other people and leave yourself the burden of cutting your renters agreement short in the worst case scenario.

As you get settled into your job, start to build up savings and, importantly, make more money, then you can look at getting a house at that price range. Any sooner, and it will be devastating if anything in your life goes wrong.

You must live within your current means and not the means that you hope to have one day. It will save you a lot of hassle, and a lot of trouble.

$2000/month is $24K/year. That leaves $6K before taxes from $30K, which you may not pay much of with a mortgage deduction of that size, but then you have to eat and pay for gas with the rest of that money.

SHoTTa35 said,
... Not everyone qualifies for financial aid cuz their parents make too much which may not be that much but just right about the $40K line which then is considered "too much" to qualify.
I know exactly how that feels, just as I know how working full time while getting a degree feels. I've worked as a computer programmer both before I got my degrees and after. I completely understand the burden. I'm not better than someone because I left college almost debt free, but people that do go the debt route have to prepare themselves and live within their means--regardless of what those may be--so that they can actually afford to build savings.

I will disagree that a great college is necessary. And in some cases, such as the recent story with GeoHot, a college degree is not always necessary. It just helps, and that's the reason that I finished my degree. It helped me skip a few years of menial programming jobs.

pickypg said,

Maybe "they" should have gotten a decent degree, or skipped college altogether. Or maybe "they" should move to an area, or state, that they can afford to both live and work in.

People making that "much" money are on special programs, such as food stamps and they likely pay no income tax (in fact, they probably get welfare for their kids). Your math is incorrect as a result. I can honestly appreciate that that person is in a hard position, but I cannot help but wonder what is stopping them from getting a better paying job? That sounds like a school bus driver's salary.

I pay less than that per month, and I make a lot more than $13K per year. Of course, I also have two roommates to split the housing/utility costs, and I don't have cable (I do have internet though).

That's a great idea. Are you going to give them the tuition or pay for the move? I'll wait for your response.

Zappa859 said,
I filed taxes for a friend a mine with 2 kids, and a wife yesterday; with house-rental payments, car payments, and other staples of living. He only made $13,797 last year. He is also not a rare case, I know many in the same boat. It is done everyday, by many families and individuals, albeit struggling.

It is sad really, cause he works very hard, for very little.

Question: If he makes such little money then why did he have kids in the first place? it is one thing to struggle on a limited income but to turn around and make a lifestyle choice which will compound a bad situation further just boggles my mind. It is about living within your means and recognising what you can and can't afford - if you can't afford kids then don't have them because it isn't fair on the kids being bought up in such an environment.

pickypg said,

snipped

You are back tracking a bit now. When i original said people making 30-50K but having a $1500 rent that was talking about working/living in areas such as New Canaan which would therefore be considered "cheap" but that's all you can afford because that's where the potential is to make that 180K/year. Sure I could move to X town and make 22K and have a 400 mortgage and never get any better than that. Nobody however grows up thinking they want to be ok, everyone wants to do great. As I said, you can be happy with 40K and wife and kids in a small house and car but most people want better than that (nothing wrong with 40K!). It's not a matter of greed but basically if you want to live the live you dreamed about or your friends parents live you've gotta work hard on getting there. Working hard means firstly going to a good school and getting good grades. So even say you don't need 250K/yr - some people still value a good education and know there's costs that come with that.

This whole thing was basically about the "rich" not paying their fair share which i'm not saying they do or don't, I was just saying the can afford to pay more vs the "normal" folks that can't. When RIMs CEO got fired, he wasn't worried how he's gonna pay the mortgage on his 12 million dollar house for the next few months. If someone making 50K gets laid off tomorrow, they start worrying about it right away for the most part.

So yes, nobody likes paying taxes, nobody likes being giving the money the worked HARD for. It doesn't matter if you worked hard in school, got lucky and got a good job cuz you know the bosses son or you bust your ass all these years and are finally getting what you deserve. That's not the issue here. The simple fact is that we need to pay taxes, like it or not. I don't believe people making 10 million a year should pay more, just that they COULD and it wouldn't matter much. Steve jobs dropped his yearly salary to $1!! To him the money didn't matter after you are so rich that even your grand children's grandchilden couldn't spend it of fast enough. When you got so much money you can't give it away fast enough or don't care about how much money you make for the next 6 months then to those people I say COULD give more that way the rest of the country doesn't have to.

As people point out below in the next section - paying your fair taxes should be at a set percentage. If i buy something for $60 or $600 i pay the state sales tax on that. So if someone makes 100K and gets 25% taken from it, someone making 100M should have 25% taken from that as well, except they don't - it's like 5-10% instead.

Jaybonaut said,
That's a great idea. Are you going to give them the tuition or pay for the move? I'll wait for your response.
Nope. If it's a great decision for them, then they can continue living in a situation that they made for themselves and refuse to correct.

SHoTTa35 said,
You are back tracking a bit now. When i original said people making 30-50K but having a $1500 rent that was talking about working/living in areas such as New Canaan which would therefore be considered "cheap" but that's all you can afford because that's where the potential is to make that 180K/year. Sure I could move to X town and make 22K and have a 400 mortgage and never get any better than that. Nobody however grows up thinking they want to be ok, everyone wants to do great. As I said, you can be happy with 40K and wife and kids in a small house and car but most people want better than that (nothing wrong with 40K!). It's not a matter of greed but basically if you want to live the live you dreamed about or your friends parents live you've gotta work hard on getting there. Working hard means firstly going to a good school and getting good grades. So even say you don't need 250K/yr - some people still value a good education and know there's costs that come with that.
I have not backtracked at all. My entire point has been, and will continue to be, that if you make $30K/year, and you spend $1500/month on rent alone, then you are an idiot. You can absolutely get a better paying position in a cheaper area than a $30K/year job in what must be one of the highest costing areas in the US.

I am writing clearly, and this is not rocket science. Seriously, if this is the best that Yale can offer, then I am pretty disappointed.

SHoTTa35 said,
When RIMs CEO got fired, he wasn't worried how he's gonna pay the mortgage on his 12 million dollar house for the next few months. If someone making 50K gets laid off tomorrow, they start worrying about it right away for the most part.
Just to be clear, there were co-CEOs (two) of RIM until recently, and they still have positions on their Board. This is me being picky, but it was worth noting.

Also, I guarantee that people in that position do take a look at their books. The difference is that they likely do have savings to fall back on, but they likely will start to change their behaviors until they can get into a similar position somewhere else. At least the ones that made the money because they were intelligent will.

Other than that, this is an obvious point. Personally, I would be much more worried about where my next job would be rather than how I would pay for things right away, but this gets back to budgeting properly rather than going crazy spending $1500/month on $30K/year.

SHoTTa35 said,
As people point out below in the next section - paying your fair taxes should be at a set percentage. If i buy something for $60 or $600 i pay the state sales tax on that. So if someone makes 100K and gets 25% taken from it, someone making 100M should have 25% taken from that as well, except they don't - it's like 5-10% instead.
This is misleading, and it's largely misrepresented. It is a minority of people in the top bracket that pay in the 0-20% range. Most pay much more than that, and they play the game fairly (no tax shelters, etc).

However, just as I pointed out somewhere else on here (maybe in this thread, but maybe not), many people in this position pay less because they donate in other ways. Bill Gates likely has a very low tax rate. And that's because he gives so much to charity that it nullifies what he owes in taxes because charitable donations are tax deductible. I agree that people need to pay taxes, and I also agree that people need to pay what they owe according to the law (I do not agree with tax shelters, including for corporations where a lot of tax reform is absolutely necessary to stop it; Google paid 2% in taxes last year, and GE actually got paid money by the government [after news broke about that, they turned around and claimed that, "oops, we did owe money after all," but they never said how much, which makes me doubt it]). At that point, you have to ask yourself which is better: the millionaire giving millions to the government and to the charities, but paying less to the government as a result, or all to government and none to charities (or even vice versa in some cases I imagine if it's extreme enough). Personally, I like the first and the last.

pickypg said,
My response was to him complaining about someone with a college degree having trouble affording $1500/month rent, which is not at all the situation that you are describing, nor does your response in any way make sense given the post of mine that you are responding too.

I suggested that person should skip college to avoid the debt. On the hand, you have taken some better-than-thou stance suggesting that I do not understand hardships.

In reality, I am saying that someone unable to afford $1500/month should forgo some things so that they can live within their means. Be that moving to a cheaper area, or not adding unnecessary debts (like an Art degree).

Sorry I missed your point. I wasn't implying you don't understand hardships, I don't know you to make that implication. I was just presenting situations that people don't think of sometimes because they haven't had to actually go through them.

ILikeTobacco said,

I know a number of people that make around 9k a year and do just fine for themselves. Is it ideal? Of course not. But they are responsible adults and use public and free internet, don't have cell phones, drive 15 year old cars that are paid off, and actually live in their means.

My opinion is that everyone should be taxed at the same rate unless the rate would put them below the poverty line. When I say rate, I mean percentage, not amount. I don't know what that magic number is but I imagine it is somewhere between 15% and 25% or at least would be if government spending didn't keep going up every year.

Right, and then when absolutely anything goes wrong (their 15 year old car breaks) you're completely broke and extremely stressed out all the time. Why don't you ask your friend how much they enjoy barely scraping by?

ILikeTobacco said,

I know a number of people that make around 9k a year and do just fine for themselves. Is it ideal? Of course not. But they are responsible adults and use public and free internet, don't have cell phones, drive 15 year old cars that are paid off, and actually live in their means.

My opinion is that everyone should be taxed at the same rate unless the rate would put them below the poverty line. When I say rate, I mean percentage, not amount. I don't know what that magic number is but I imagine it is somewhere between 15% and 25% or at least would be if government spending didn't keep going up every year.


Gotta love the same old Heritage Foundation talking points. You need refrigerator to keep the food fresh and edible. You need cell phone to access the internet and find a job. Needless to say even if you sell all the electronic appliances a poor family have, it will only provide so much money for paying rents for a merely few months.
Look at the facts:
http://www.americanprogress.or.../2011/08/heritage_poor.html
http://www.americanprogress.or...8/img/poverty_amenities.jpg

pickypg said,
Nope. If it's a great decision for them, then they can continue living in a situation that they made for themselves and refuse to correct.

No seriously, if your post was the answer, I was curious if you figured out a way for them to pay for the move or to pay for tuition. That was your post, and I would like to know how those two things would be possible.

Tender Foot said,
the rich need to pay their fair share instead of making the middle class & poor people get even poorer!
Nobody is stoping you from becoming Rich. They are rich for a reason; they use their brain!

Nexus69 said,
Nobody is stoping you from becoming Rich. They are rich for a reason; they use their brain!

Your post has nothing to do with the rich not paying their fair share!

Tender Foot said,
the rich need to pay their fair share instead of making the middle class & poor people get even poorer!

Oh, that old chestnut again!

Nexus69 said,
Nobody is stoping you from becoming Rich. They are rich for a reason; they use their brain!

Agreed. I am so sick and tired of self entitled whiners that feel the rich don't deserve what they have...

And it's not like taxing the rich would plug the deficit hole Obama's creating anyhow... How about the government be responsible with the money they do bring in?

Nexus69 said,
Nobody is stoping you from becoming Rich. They are rich for a reason; they use their brain!

Some rich people haven't got a brain cell, they exploit the brains of others.

M_Lyons10 said,

Agreed. I am so sick and tired of self entitled whiners that feel the rich don't deserve what they have...

And it's not like taxing the rich would plug the deficit hole Obama's creating anyhow... How about the government be responsible with the money they do bring in?

Tender Foot said,
the rich need to pay their fair share instead of making the middle class & poor people get even poorer!

You don't build a wealthy nation by dividing wealth.

Tender Foot said,

It's not about being intitled or being a whinner, the fact is the rich get off far too easy not paying their fair share. Even the Congrees goes after middle class and lower class people since they don't want to pay higher taxes themselfs since many of them are rich also! Sure the rich deserve what they have since they earned it however they all need to pay their fair share just like everyone eslse is forced to do so.

Tender Foot said,

It's the truth like it or not!

Generally, it's the middle class and the poor that make the middle class and the poor get poorer. How many poor people do you know that still have expensive cable packages, big TVs and cell phones? How many middle class are living beyond their means due to their own greed and pride? If more of the middle class and poor families spent as much time instilling the value of education and work ethic in their children as they do telling the nation's haves that they don't contribute enough, things would be a lot rosier all around.

Skwerl said,
Generally, it's the middle class and the poor that make the middle class and the poor get poorer. How many poor people do you know that still have expensive cable packages, big TVs and cell phones? How many middle class are living beyond their means due to their own greed and pride? If more of the middle class and poor families spent as much time instilling the value of education and work ethic in their children as they do telling the nation's haves that they don't contribute enough, things would be a lot rosier all around.

Here's a report, with actual numbers cited, that refutes this argument. "Overconsumption" is an argument not based in reality. The numbers actually show that we're spending less on things like eating out, clothing, etc. than we did 40 years ago.

Actually, the bulk of the increased burden on the middle class is due to the fact that wages have stagnated while costs for things like health care and education have risen, while additional expenses such as having a second car and childcare become necessary due to the requirement of a second wage earner in many cases.

http://finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/051007testew.pdf

It's rather depressing.

Edited by Mordkanin, Jan 25 2012, 5:50pm :

Skwerl said,

Generally, it's the middle class and the poor that make the middle class and the poor get poorer. How many poor people do you know that still have expensive cable packages, big TVs and cell phones? How many middle class are living beyond their means due to their own greed and pride? If more of the middle class and poor families spent as much time instilling the value of education and work ethic in their children as they do telling the nation's haves that they don't contribute enough, things would be a lot rosier all around.

So you want to blame it on middle class & lower class people's pride and greed? How about the rich people's greed that don't want to pay their fair share? Like I said above even congrees goes after the middle and lower class to pay more so your argument is null & voided!

Tender Foot said,
the rich need to pay their fair share instead of making the middle class & poor people get even poorer!

They do, we don't get refunds like you do.

M_Lyons10 said,

Agreed. I am so sick and tired of self entitled whiners that feel the rich don't deserve what they have...

And it's not like taxing the rich would plug the deficit hole Obama's creating anyhow... How about the government be responsible with the money they do bring in?

Tell me what the Verizon CEO did to earn $17 million for a yearly salary that some other person making 50-75K couldn't have done? Most of the CEOs get their because of where they work, not cuz of what they do. Bill Gates himself was a college drop out, formed a company and made his millions because said company was profitable, plenty of people out there today and did exactly that but they didn't get rich as a result of it. They are doing good, but not 50Billion dollar networth good however.

Nexus69 said,
Nobody is stoping you from becoming Rich. They are rich for a reason; they use their brain!

Riiiight.
Everyone has equal chances to go to universities that cost tens of thousands per year.
Everyone can get rich doing something he likes; no jobs are paid more than others.
No one can be stopped by illness or pre-existing conditions and die because health insurance companies don't want them any more.

/s

brink668 said,

They do, we don't get refunds like you do.

They do not pay their fair share it's a well known fact. you're not rich so don't try to come off as a rich person on the internet.

chconline said,

You don't build a wealthy nation by dividing wealth.

oh please divison of wealth has always being going for over thousand of years! Nice try but you fail hard on this one!!!!

Tender Foot said,

So you want to blame it on middle class & lower class people's pride and greed? How about the rich people's greed that don't want to pay their fair share? Like I said above even congrees goes after the middle and lower class to pay more so your argument is null & voided!


the rich people do pay their fair share...?
Obama wants to make a big deal about buffet paying less in taxes than his secretary. Which isn't very accurate, because he is if he has a salary. The way he makes his money is investments, which has a lower tax rate. Buffett doesn't talk about raising taxes on investments, because it's a big scam. Republicans even challenged buffett to send money in to pay off the debt. Like any liberal, it's all talk, no action!

http://reddogreport.com/2011/0...and-the-raise-my-taxes-lie/

Edited by Steven P., Jan 26 2012, 9:37am :

Tender Foot said,
the rich need to pay their fair share instead of making the middle class & poor people get even poorer!
You cannot argue with people like this. They feel entitled, and they feel like it is their role to tell someone else that they have been too successful in life because they are too incompetent to do it for themselves.

If Bill Gates feels like he should be taxed more, then he is welcome to pay more in taxes to the government and not to request a tax refund. The same goes for everyone that feels that way, such as Warren Buffet and the President himself.

I hope to be rich one day, and I will never say that I am under-taxed. It's my money to start with, and if the government is getting any cut, then they are getting more than they *deserve*. There are costs associated with running a government (e.g., defense), and I understand the need to help someone down on their luck; these things do not pay for themselves. However, the government is not going to fix our deficit by increasing taxes. Instead, they will just spend even more money.

To suggest that anyone making, say, $40 million a year owes a few more million than they already pay, then you are just a worthless, jealous, self-entitled thief. Can they live without it? Absolutely. Can you live without a few thousand more from your income? Most likely. But it's none of our place to tell someone else that they have worked hard, but now it's time to give even more back to people that haven't. Work harder and try to beat their achievements! Most of us won't, but some of us will. Frankly, I hope it's me, but that's because I have a competitive drive, and I actually have a job that matters rather than one pushing paper across a desk with no real purpose, except to check off some worthless bureaucrats list.

Plenty of those people have gotten lucky--including Bill Gates--where they inherited millions and built their income from that, or literally just got lucky with things falling in place. However, many more actually work for their income. I bet Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, works his butt off. Does he owe some a higher percentage of his income simply because he makes more now? The answer is no.

This is America, and that used to mean something. People with enough give to charities, which offsets the amount that they owe in taxes I might add (thus lowering the percentage paid in taxes by paying the offset percentage toward charities), and that's how people are helped. The government wants to come in and replace the charities while taking a cut of its own, plus adding another disgusting layer of inefficiency to the mix (government bureaucracy). But more importantly, people used to be allowed to succeed, as well as fail, on their own. This rampant inferiority complex driven by political correctness, and frankly, socialism is destroying the country.

Life has never been fair. It's time that you actually try to work for something rather than hoping to steal from the rest. In the mean time, try holding all of your representatives accountable for their out of control spending, on both sides of the aisle.

SHoTTa35 said,

Tell me what the Verizon CEO did to earn $17 million for a yearly salary that some other person making 50-75K couldn't have done? Most of the CEOs get their because of where they work, not cuz of what they do. Bill Gates himself was a college drop out, formed a company and made his millions because said company was profitable, plenty of people out there today and did exactly that but they didn't get rich as a result of it. They are doing good, but not 50Billion dollar networth good however.

And they work where they work for the most part, by working up to that. By successfully driving previous businesses into huge profit. They're only paid 17 million because the company makes more money with them in the driving seat. If the company didn't make huge profits, that CEO would be fired, or at least have a massive pay cut. How often do you see a 25 year old multi million dollar a year CEO? There's a few but they're thin on the ground, because running a company who will pay you that kind of money takes many many years or decades even to earn the position.

Go-getters. They're the guys who make the most money for the most part. People who risk a lot to make a lot. And sometimes the risks pay off. Don't be so narrow minded and jealous. I don't make 17 million a year, but I applaud someone who has put themselves into that position because 99% of the time it takes hard work and costs you most of your early to middle aged life being that you are doing 16 - 20 hour days at the office every day, every weekend.

pickypg said,
You cannot argue with people like this. They feel entitled, and they feel like it is their role to tell someone else that they have been too successful in life because they are too incompetent to do it for themselves.

.

Oh please GFTO

Nexus69 said,
Nobody is stoping you from becoming Rich. They are rich for a reason; they use their brain!

Yeah. They used their brains, figured out the best way to manipulate the system and rake in the benefits of a lower-than-middle-class tax rate. WTF?

SHoTTa35 said,

Tell me what the Verizon CEO did to earn $17 million for a yearly salary that some other person making 50-75K couldn't have done? Most of the CEOs get their because of where they work, not cuz of what they do. Bill Gates himself was a college drop out, formed a company and made his millions because said company was profitable, plenty of people out there today and did exactly that but they didn't get rich as a result of it. They are doing good, but not 50Billion dollar networth good however.

What. In. The. World?

I'll try to figure out where you're going with this. So, you're saying that Bill Gates did nothing to be successful, he just "happened" to start a company that just "happened" to be very profitable, and that just "happened" to lead to his being successful?

Hm... I dunno... But there appears to be a connection there somewhere between him forming a company (That was successful) and he himself being successful. Not sure though, the whole thing does seem rather mysterious...

bguy_1986 said,

the rich people do pay their fair share...?
your an idiot, just like these other sheep. Obama wants to make a big deal about buffet paying less in taxes than his secretary. Which isn't very accurate, because he is if he has a salary. The way he makes his money is investments, which has a lower tax rate. Buffett doesn't talk about raising taxes on investments, because it's a big scam. Republicans even challenged buffett to send money in to pay off the debt. Like any liberal, it's all talk, no action!

http://reddogreport.com/2011/0...and-the-raise-my-taxes-lie/

The 15% capital gains tax that Buffet pays is a tax break. Short term capital gains would be taxes at the normal rate. What is not fair is that people like Buffet and Romney only pay tax at a 15% rate while a normal person with W-2 wages may pay around 25%.

Nexus69 said,
Nobody is stoping you from becoming Rich. They are rich for a reason; they use their brain!

Making the richer poorer, doesn't make the poorer richer...

chconline said,

You don't build a wealthy nation by dividing wealth.

lol Americans, they think they suffer from poverty, go to South.A of Africa, Asia, they are the real poor people.
just beacause its tought you cant just go complaining, most people are ignorants and we the young get the weight our parrent mistakes or problems, just have to get on track and keep going....

M_Lyons10 said,

What. In. The. World?

Hm... I dunno... But there appears to be a connection there somewhere between him forming a company (That was successful) and he himself being successful. Not sure though, the whole thing does seem rather mysterious...

No my point was there are plenty other people that did do the samething but are no where to be found now. Microsoft became sucessfull because they became popular. There's plenty of others that will say X platform was better (say like VHS vs Beta Max). Both parties worked hard and one basically got lucky (in some ways, not trying to say they didn't work on being in the right place at the right time as well).

So no, i'm not saying the rich don't deserve what they have, but what if they were making 200 Billion a year, because the company makes 100 trillion a year. Is there ever a time when you can actually say nobody ever really needs or deserves that much money? It's not always because of what you know or what you did, sometimes it's as simple as luck.

The CEO at Xerox Ursla Burns (very nice lady, lives around here) - she started at Xerox in the 80s as an intern and worked her way up. 30yrs in the company and she definitely had some role in making the company successful over those 30yrs obviously and she DEFINITELY worked her ass off so i'm not taking anything away from her. But before she was promoted to CEO she was doing other jobs, certainly making $800,000 or more. She became CEO, and her Salary is now $22 MILLION a year. Now you can say, she deserves that and I'd agree with you but she definitely didn't help the company make so much more money in the difference of 1 month to make that much increase in salary. Now once again, i'm happy for her but for everyone saying people work hard and deserve what they get (and she does) but what about the other people that's been there just as long and even in some cases do a lot more than she did but still make way less than her. There are plenty of people in the world making even a bigger difference and get paid less.

Spirit Dave said,

And they work where they work for the most part, by working up to that. By successfully driving previous businesses into huge profit. They're only paid 17 million because the company makes more money with them in the driving seat. If the company didn't make huge profits, that CEO would be fired, or at least have a massive pay cut. .

Like the $21 Millions Carly Fiorina received when she was kicked out after destroying HP?

SHoTTa35 said,
Tell me what the Verizon CEO did to earn $17 million for a yearly salary that some other person making 50-75K couldn't have done?
For starters, I would go with experience running an exceptionally large and complex corporation that spans multiple industries. This takes time, effort, and skills that you clearly do not have simply based on having to ask the question. Does the Verizon CEO deserve $17 million? Probably not. I do not say that because of any of the pathetic-willed reasons that you do however. I say so because his company managed to do everything and lose over $100 million dollars this past quarter.

However, does a CEO in his position deserve a significant compensation? Absolutely. If they are only making $50-75K, then what drives them to do better? What drives them to ensure that the company does not fail under their watch? If it's just like any other job, then literally who cares that much? If he loses his current salary, then I guarantee that he will care. He won't be living off the streets any time soon, but I am certain that he lives a more expensive lifestyle that would require him to either cut back dramatically in order to live off of the money he already has in the bank, or find another job with similar pay. For examples of that, just look at practically every athlete that retires earlier than expected from their professional sport.

SHoTTa35 said,
Most of the CEOs get their because of where they work, not cuz of what they do. Bill Gates himself was a college drop out, formed a company and made his millions because said company was profitable, plenty of people out there today and did exactly that but they didn't get rich as a result of it. They are doing good, but not 50Billion dollar networth good however.
Boo freaking hoo.

Wait a moment. So, because others have failed where some did not, the successful ones should be forced to live within your means?

Bill Gates dropped out of college because he found something that he knew a lot about by teaching himself. He didn't need a college degree because he was the founder of his company (guess what, you could have done the same if you have the brains for it). A college degree only helps to open doors for you; it does not, in any way, guarantee success or even remotely show off intelligence. The mere fact that you listed his dropout status is scary.

Instead of pointlessly staying in college, Bill Gates bought the origins of his operating system (I believe for $50K) and built it up for generic IBM hardware, and then turned that into a massive business. No one else was doing this at the time. He was smart, and he was in the right place at the right time.

It's that ability to succeed, and to succeed so dramatically, that has driven Microsoft, Google, and Apple to the points that they exist today. If they were going to get in business to make $50-75K, then why go out on a limb of something that could quite easily fail? Vista would have been the end of Microsoft. They would all just get another job, and we would be stuck with Windows XP and Windows Vista.

There has to be risk to go along with reward, and there has to be reward to go along with risk. Otherwise, who is going to be dumb enough to risk anything?

Nexus69 said,
Nobody is stoping you from becoming Rich. They are rich for a reason; they use their brain!

I use my brain and I'm not rich

M_Lyons10 said,

Agreed. I am so sick and tired of self entitled whiners that feel the rich don't deserve what they have...

And it's not like taxing the rich would plug the deficit hole Obama's creating anyhow... How about the government be responsible with the money they do bring in?


Its a shame that you are brainwashed into believing that one man (obama) did all of this to this country. I don't like him either, but the country was **** when he inherited it from a monkey brained fool.

Brill said,
The 15% capital gains tax that Buffet pays is a tax break. Short term capital gains would be taxes at the normal rate. What is not fair is that people like Buffet and Romney only pay tax at a 15% rate while a normal person with W-2 wages may pay around 25%.
Romney pays about 15% because he donates roughly the same percent to charities. The capital gains tax is in place so that retirees are not harshly taxed twice. Why should you be taxed on money that you invested, when you were already taxed on that money to begin with?
rjones42455 said,
Its a shame that you are brainwashed into believing that one man (obama) did all of this to this country. I don't like him either, but the country was **** when he inherited it from a monkey brained fool.
Bush was not a prime example of budgetary restraint. In fact, I hated his deficit spending before I hated Obama's. However, if you compare their spending records as well as their business records, then it's quite obvious who is making the country worse off: Obama, who has asked for yet another debt limit increase this year that exceeds our national GDP. Awesome.

It's quite convenient for liberals to blame Bush. Yet, it seems that when it comes to blaming "one man," it's only okay when looking in the rear-view mirror. He is at the end of his first term, and he had a super majority for the first half, and the Democrats held Congress the term before he showed up, when the economy went south I might add.

The economy went into the tank because of the housing bubble, which is something that Bush actually pressed Congress on numerous times during his presidency. That was a Republican and Democrat Congress that let it sink, and it was a Democratic plan that led it into the valley that we are in (demanding that mortgages be given to uncreditworthy individuals because it was just too unfair otherwise; thank you Barney Franks). That's why so many people are in the red: because they should have never had the house to begin with. Many others are in the unfortunate position that they lost their job as a result of the economy tanking, and they inherited that position, but frankly that is something that should always be on your mind for a house purchase.

There's a reason that I make good money and have a good savings, yet still rent in my area. I cannot afford a mortgage for a house that I would want to live in. If others had similar restraint, then we very likely could have avoided the whole debacle.

SHoTTa35 said,
Now you can say, she deserves that and I'd agree with you but she definitely didn't help the company make so much more money in the difference of 1 month to make that much increase in salary. Now once again, i'm happy for her but for everyone saying people work hard and deserve what they get (and she does) but what about the other people that's been there just as long and even in some cases do a lot more than she did but still make way less than her. There are plenty of people in the world making even a bigger difference and get paid less.
For starters, it does not sound like you are happy for any of these people. You sound jealous because you clearly are jealous.

Secondly, she did make a difference in one month. She became the face of the company, and she took on the responsibility of the entire company, which is absolutely more than she was doing in the previous month. If RIM were to have tanked, their co-CEOs would be to blame, and everyone would lose their salaries, even the exorbitantly high ones. If HP tanks, then it will be because of the current and former CEOs. Similarly, Apple was only successful because of their CEO, and I feel like Steve Ballmer holds back Microsoft from being even more successful.

CEOs do not always make or break a company. In some cases, a company can practically run itself, but in most cases a CEO can do a lot of harm, as well as a lot of good. Look at Eric Schmidt at Google--who, with his college degrees, was an absolute idiot always saying things out of place or simply being inaccurate. The company was doing well in spite of him, but all of the negative issues facing Google today (their weaker-than-expected earnings) is still due to changing course from the Schmidt iceberg.

If she could have gotten $35 million for herself, then I would be even happier for her as long as she does right by the company. If she were to pull a Schmidt, or steer the same way the past few HP CEOs have done, then I would say fire her--not demote or cut her pay. And that's what that pay and responsibility entails and, in many cases, that means that they are most likely unhireable beyond that.

Xerax said,

Making the richer poorer, doesn't make the poorer richer...

The rich aren't going to get poor, they will just be less rich. Their money just sit held up in accounts and investments. In the hands of the poor, the money would get used and likely returned to those rich anyway. The poor don't have to become rich, they just need sustainable lifestyles.

Far from jealous, as I said she is a nice lady and actually helps out her community. Everyone knows her and she is still an very approachable woman. So no, i have nothing to be jealous of. I don't care if someone makes $500 million a day if they've earned it or they are currently working hard for it but there are plenty of people that make a lot of money simply because they are in a position of power. Sometimes they got there not because they earned it as well, but simply because they know someone. There are plenty of CEOs of small companies that make their fair share and pay tons of taxes but then there's big wigs that came into a position of power simply because they got a job that pays tons and therefore expect tons of results.

Once again, i have no reason to be jealous of these people as I make what I make because I earned it and i'm happy with it. If I get a nice raise this year as a result of my performance i'll be happy with that. If I however somehow gets bumped up to the next level my salary will be trippled and of-course i'll be happy, can't say i'll be doing "much more work" as a result as well. I'll just be the one that gets blamed if the guys below me screw up the work they do. And that is the role of a Cheif Executive Officer. Everyone knows that a CEO doesn't actually do "work" he's just the face of the company. When the company does great as a result of something his workers did, he gets all the glory or the hate. Look at RIMs CEO, they had to step down not because of something they did to screw up, the company itself isn't doing well so the board has to make an example of someone to please stock holders. If you don't know this by now you need to learn a thing or 2 about how to run a company, i was a CEO myself.

I say i'm not jealous of Ursula for the least bit because she worked for 30yrs at her company and moved her way up. It's other people that just gets hired for a CEO position right over the heads of those other people that are far more deserving and knowledgeable about the company than any new CEO can ever be. The first year most CEOs don't do crap for the company, they still got tons to learn and they usually learn from the people that's been there running the company for years. They sometimes come from other FAILING companies such Yahoo's CEO to HP CEO when eBay wasn't doing so good that's why she was fired. In a normal company, if you get fired for being a crappy poilice officer it's not so easy for you to go to another town and become a police officer but that doesn't apply to the CEO world.

Edited by Roger H., Jan 25 2012, 8:24pm :

M_Lyons10 said,
Agreed. I am so sick and tired of self entitled whiners that feel the rich don't deserve what they have...

And it's not like taxing the rich would plug the deficit hole Obama's creating anyhow... How about the government be responsible with the money they do bring in?

I liked you until this.

Tender Foot said,

It's the truth like it or not!

Please - if the rich feel they are not paying enough, they could ALWAYS write a check for more to the Bureau of the Public Debt (it's existed for that purpose since before World War II) - Gates is basically getting out in front for political reasons (basically, if Barack Obama gets re-elected, he'll basically blackmail them into coughing up more).

It's more preserving the tax cuts that the middle-class and below are getting today (especially the home-mortgage deduction - despite it leading *directly* to both the housing bubble and its aftermath; seriously, why else would the mortgage-debt for the middle class have reached historic highs if not for said deduction *encouraging* as tall a mortgage as can be gotten away with?).

SHoTTa35 said,

No my point was there are plenty other people that did do the samething but are no where to be found now. Microsoft became sucessfull because they became popular. There's plenty of others that will say X platform was better (say like VHS vs Beta Max). Both parties worked hard and one basically got lucky (in some ways, not trying to say they didn't work on being in the right place at the right time as well).

So no, i'm not saying the rich don't deserve what they have, but what if they were making 200 Billion a year, because the company makes 100 trillion a year. Is there ever a time when you can actually say nobody ever really needs or deserves that much money? It's not always because of what you know or what you did, sometimes it's as simple as luck.

The CEO at Xerox Ursla Burns (very nice lady, lives around here) - she started at Xerox in the 80s as an intern and worked her way up. 30yrs in the company and she definitely had some role in making the company successful over those 30yrs obviously and she DEFINITELY worked her ass off so i'm not taking anything away from her. But before she was promoted to CEO she was doing other jobs, certainly making $800,000 or more. She became CEO, and her Salary is now $22 MILLION a year. Now you can say, she deserves that and I'd agree with you but she definitely didn't help the company make so much more money in the difference of 1 month to make that much increase in salary. Now once again, i'm happy for her but for everyone saying people work hard and deserve what they get (and she does) but what about the other people that's been there just as long and even in some cases do a lot more than she did but still make way less than her. There are plenty of people in the world making even a bigger difference and get paid less.

And that's fine, but then they can donate to charity if they desire. Why in the world would you support giving more money to an inept government that can't manage what they have now? These people generally do donate to charity anyway. They're not Scrooge McDuck swimming in a room of silver dollars...

I do not support the government taking any more because they do not need to be any bigger. In fact, they should be considerably smaller. Some things are important, but the waste is atrocious. How about they fix that?

erikpienk said,

lol Americans, they think they suffer from poverty, go to South.A of Africa, Asia, they are the real poor people.
just beacause its tought you cant just go complaining, most people are ignorants and we the young get the weight our parrent mistakes or problems, just have to get on track and keep going....

Firstly, I love how everyone just likes to blame Americans when any idea of realism is put forth. Let me blow your bubble... I'm not American. And funny to say, I am born in Hong Kong.

Secondly, I have no idea what your point is. Don't blame your parents. Work hard and study hard.

Tender Foot said,

oh please divison of wealth has always being going for over thousand of years! Nice try but you fail hard on this one!!!!

What if the division of wealth has been going on for a long time? (Seriously, fix your grammar and spelling -- it's not that hard.) Taxes are necessary because it is the duty of a citizen to contribute to the country for public service, but overtaxation has never made a nation wealthy. People would just leave and carry their money elsewhere.

Secondly, tell me where communism actually worked. Oh wait, it never did. If capitalism is where the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer as people like to quote, it's a lot better off than the rich AND poor becomes even poorer.

This is where you fail hard.

M_Lyons10 said,

Agreed. I am so sick and tired of self entitled whiners that feel the rich don't deserve what they have...

And it's not like taxing the rich would plug the deficit hole Obama's creating anyhow... How about the government be responsible with the money they do bring in?

LOLOLOL the hole that Obama created? LOLOL oh my... delusional...

Nexus69 said,
Nobody is stoping you from becoming Rich. They are rich for a reason; they use their brain!

You do realise that you're some how claiming everyone is a blank slate and only gets to their current situation because of hardware work or there lack of. Here is a small hint - not everyone is born equal in terms of intelligence, talent, parents who cared etc. That isn't to excuse personal responsibility but at the same time it isn't as simple as saying, "if you're poor then it is because you're dumb".

Tender Foot said,
the rich need to pay their fair share instead of making the middle class & poor people get even poorer!

So how much?
The Top 1% (and thats a small percent of working people) already pay 38% of the nations Federal Income Tax. That seems a bit unfair to me... Maybe you need to pay some more tax..
They didn't earn that money to give it away.. Nobody does. If people want to be charitable that's great but no one should force you to be..

Who is John Gault?

Tender Foot said,
the rich need to pay their fair share instead of making the middle class & poor people get even poorer!

From each according to his ability, to each based on his need!

Who is John Galt?

pickypg said,

<b> In the mean time, try holding all of your representatives accountable for their out of control spending, on both sides of the aisle. </b>

I think this one line sums it up nicely!

The problem that MOST people don't realise is that the government spending is the problem, not the taxes people pay. Money is a drug to government. Increase the tax rate, and they increase their spending proportionately.

And the poor and middle class that call on increased taxes on the rich are actually digging their own graves. The rich make up such a small proportion that an increase in taxes will make little difference and besides, they will always find ways to reduce their tax burden.

The next step would be to increase the tax on the middle class again.

What government should be doing is getting rid of useless agencies, cutting back spending significantly and reducing taxes.

The Gunslinger said,

I think this one line sums it up nicely!

The problem that MOST people don't realise is that the government spending is the problem, not the taxes people pay. Money is a drug to government. Increase the tax rate, and they increase their spending proportionately.

And the poor and middle class that call on increased taxes on the rich are actually digging their own graves. The rich make up such a small proportion that an increase in taxes will make little difference and besides, they will always find ways to reduce their tax burden.

The next step would be to increase the tax on the middle class again.

What government should be doing is getting rid of useless agencies, cutting back spending significantly and reducing taxes.


Sorry you're wrong. The taxes the federal government take in dropped significantly after 2008. We have a revenue problem not a spending problem.

PGHammer said,

Please - if the rich feel they are not paying enough, they could ALWAYS write a check for more to the Bureau of the Public Debt (it's existed for that purpose since before World War II) - Gates is basically getting out in front for political reasons (basically, if Barack Obama gets re-elected, he'll basically blackmail them into coughing up more).

It's more preserving the tax cuts that the middle-class and below are getting today (especially the home-mortgage deduction - despite it leading *directly* to both the housing bubble and its aftermath; seriously, why else would the mortgage-debt for the middle class have reached historic highs if not for said deduction *encouraging* as tall a mortgage as can be gotten away with?).


Federal government is NOT a charity.

chconline said,

Firstly, I love how everyone just likes to blame Americans when any idea of realism is put forth. Let me blow your bubble... I'm not American. And funny to say, I am born in Hong Kong.

Secondly, I have no idea what your point is. Don't blame your parents. Work hard and study hard.

What if the division of wealth has been going on for a long time? (Seriously, fix your grammar and spelling -- it's not that hard.) Taxes are necessary because it is the duty of a citizen to contribute to the country for public service, but overtaxation has never made a nation wealthy. People would just leave and carry their money elsewhere.

Secondly, tell me where communism actually worked. Oh wait, it never did. If capitalism is where the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer as people like to quote, it's a lot better off than the rich AND poor becomes even poorer.

This is where you fail hard.


Overtaxation is an abstract idea which we can have a debate on it. Case in point during the 50s and 60s US income tax rate at the highest bracket is 90% and we all know how well the economy is doing back then.

Skwerl said,

Generally, it's the middle class and the poor that make the middle class and the poor get poorer. How many poor people do you know that still have expensive cable packages, big TVs and cell phones? How many middle class are living beyond their means due to their own greed and pride? If more of the middle class and poor families spent as much time instilling the value of education and work ethic in their children as they do telling the nation's haves that they don't contribute enough, things would be a lot rosier all around.

Tell that to minimum wage workers, even without any time off and 40 hours a week year round that comes out to a whopping $15k.

still1 said,
Bill is the modern Mother Teresa

If Jobs was still alive I'd wonder why the CEO of the most profitable company in the world isn't like this. Since he's dead I guess he now has an excuse.

no-sweat said,

If Jobs was still alive I'd wonder why the CEO of the most profitable company in the world isn't like this. Since he's dead I guess he now has an excuse.

dead or not its no excuse for being an AH. I wonder what jobs is doing in hell with all his money now.

still1 said,
dead or not its no excuse for being an AH. I wonder what jobs is doing in hell with all his money now.

And you give how much of your money away?...

omgben said,

And you give how much of your money away?...


I dont want to brag but i gave away my first three moth of my salary to charity on my first job after college. i still give away my old cloths and a small donations when ever i can.. I am not super rich btw. and i do what i can.

still1 said,

I dont want to brag but i gave away my first three moth of my salary to charity on my first job after college. i still give away my old cloths and a small donations when ever i can.. I am not super rich btw. and i do what i can.

solid stuff man!