politicususa.com— Fox News countered President Obama’s call for the rich to pay their fair share with a demand that taxes be raised on the poor.
Jan 25, 2012View in Crawl 4
I hate people who bring up that a lot of people don't pay any income tax. It's because they barely earn enough to SURVIVE you dick holes. Do I really need to point this out?
2 million taxed at 15% is 1.7 million
20,000 taxed at 15% is 17,000
That is a flat tax system. Someone who is below the poverty line and after rent, utilities, food, insurance would have nothing left, and we want them to "pay their fair share". That 3,000 dollars may not mean s**t to the millionaire, but it means eviction or starvation to the impoverished individual.
A = INCOME
B = TAX RATE
C = AMOUNT GIVEN TO IRS IN TAXES (INCOME x TAX RATE)
D = INCOME LEFT AFTER TAXES
What @mjm6783 has written looks like he's saying:
A x B = C
In reality what he wrote was:
(A x B) - C = D (he just did the math and didn't clearly identify that the final number was the amount left to the payer after taxes)
What @miklkit was saying with the $1,700 was that at quick glance he thought that he had misplaced a decimal point and that C should have been $1,700 not $17,000 (I did the same thing at first look. C actually equals $3,000 though)
A x B = C
20,000 x 0.15 = 3,000
@whackly has simplified the whole thing by essentially subtracting the taxed amount by multiplying income earned by the remaining percentage less the taxed percentage ($20,000 income less $3,000 in taxes is $17,000)
Took me a minute to figure out the intent too. It's a great point regardless, just missed a subtle explanation of the numbers.
i think a = sign would of made it a little more understandable.
I agree with you though, and the math is plainly obvious...but you know these current conservative rich people, its not that they want more money, they want slaves. (i have no proof of this assertion, its just what i logically break down and strictly my opinion.)
It didn't give me any great difficulty, but it did take a second to realize you meant what was left since the phrase x amount at y percent is ____ would imply the amount paid in taxes, not the amount after. That said, I automatically start trying to figure out what someone meant when it doesn't make sense at first and it didn't take long to figure out.
@hibby, thanks for proving that you are stupid by displaying your complete lack of grammar and mathematics. Allow me to illuminate you:
When I state 20,000, that's your income. When I say "TAXED AT" I am referring to the percentage of your income that will be subtracted or "TAXED". I then used the ambiguous term "IS" to describe the remaining income, after tax.
I concede that it might have been smarter to use to the term "LEAVING" instead of "IS", but quite frankly, if you couldn't figure that out on your own, then you are mentally slow.
More importantly, any discussion of my poor choice in phrasing, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT THAT WAS MADE. Either come up with a proposal, argument, or somewhat intelligent thought, or STFU. Others have already posted strong rebuttals that I somewhat agree with, your random comment is nothing but white noise.
thank you. i guess i his statement as colloquially meaning 20,000 gross taxed at 15% is 17,000 net. i didn't really read it closely enough to trip on the grammar. half hearted skimming ftw!
Flat taxes discriminate against the poor. It is the reason many states do not have sales tax on food. For some reason, it seems we have a political group of people that can't seem to grasp the concept and hem and haw about trying to sell the same bottle of snake oil over and over.
I do still like the concept of a flat tax. But, It would have to be implemented with 'considerations' for lower incomes (not flat). I like that a flat tax would eliminate the complex taxation process, loopholes, and other games. This might be a tax rate of 20% including capital gains with no taxes for people making under the poverty line and gradual increases say to 50K or so in income.
But what about the couple that makes $40,000 and has no kids, versus the couple that makes $40,000 and has five kids? One family is doing fine, the other family is poor.
That's fairly close to the current idea except for the various exceptions and such. The problem is many of those exceptions have valid reasons. For example, giving tax credits for getting schooling or investing in energy efficient vehicles or home improvements. These get people to actually spend extra and the government helps out as an incentive. The trick is to try and keep these without leaving a system full of loopholes.
Ya but why should some people be able to pay 0% tax, have a rate-payer subsidized energy bill while collecting taxpayer-funded financial aid to pay for school and tax-payer funded food stamps?? The people collecting the most from the tax-pool contribute the least into it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Yes, that is absolutely true. Look at the huge money making corporations, that pay little or no taxes, and what they use every day, that required taxpayer funds to provide.
@skunk, do you not understand the point here? Those people live in poverty dude. They don't have enough money to pay bills or feed themselves.
If I take 10 dollars from someone who is poor, it hurts them more than if I take 10,000 dollars from a millionaire.
All this tax fairness crap is a complete misrepresentation of reality. Rich people have nearly limitless opportunities in this country, most of which are not available to the impoverished.
And you're complaining about poor people getting 200 a month in food stamps?
I agree with you completely, but at the same time the tax code needs simplified.
Basically we need a flat income tax, with few exceptions. Below the povertly line pays nothing. Extreme wealth gets the same flat tax, plus an additional social programs tax tied directly to their wealth compared to the total GDP.
Also, if corporations decide to do business in our country, they can not use our resources and our people without ALL of their profits being taxed to help those here at home. I for one am tired of paying more income tax than GE, GM or Apple, who made 400,000$ in profit this year for every employee that they hire. How much money did a cotton farmer get out of a slave every year compared to the cost of buying him? Definitely not the profit margins Apple is pushing.
These mega-corporations are modern day slavery! Just on a much broader economic scale. They suck all the money out of the economy and focus it in the hands of a few.
Once 3/4 of the pie is eaten by 1%, everyone else begins to starve.
This is why extreme wealth needs to be discouraged by the tax system.
Corporate greed is a HUGE problem, and won't change, primarily because congress in bought and sold by lobbyists, but also because in pure capitalism they are actually supposed to be greedy.
But when 30 major "American" corporations pay no taxes, or actually receive tax rebates from the government, that's on Washington.
There are two conflicting views here and its easier to understand both if you strip it away.
Most people will agree that everyone should have some skin in the game. If someone pays nothing in taxes and has an effective negative tax rate due to welfare, why would they not vote to take more from someone else? Literally, they are not paying for any of it.
However, we also need to make sure that people pay something based on fairness. You're right, someone who makes a million should pay a higher rate than someone who is in poverty.
So what should we do? On idea is to have a very simple graduated tax rate - 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, etc. Pick some set of brackets that is fair. No deductions except for one big personal exemption that is equal to what the individual poverty level is (IIRC, its $12k in 2011). We'd need to include children, so maybe $10 per adult, $5k per child.
Then, once we have that set, we pet those rates to some year's total spending. From there, its a 1:1 percentage relationship - if spending increases 10%, those brackets (and only those brackets, not the exemption) increases by 10%. Spending is cut by 5%, those brackets are cut 5%. But everything is measured by that baseline spending level. Now everyone has interest in how spending is carried out and our revenues will adjust automatically.
I agree with most of your assessment, but I think that there still has to be a level of income under which you shouldn't be taxed. For two reasons.
1.) It's not that much money. Squeezing the bottom 10% of our country for 5% of their income wouldn't even start to pay for what they collect in benefits.
2.) It's pointless.If you take someone who has almost no expendable income, and charge them more, they will now be even more dependent on government subsidies to survive. Basically you are taking the money away so that you can pay it back to them, after some has been skimmed by government bureaucracy.
The primary people who fall into this category are the elderly and disabled. They don't pay taxes because they can't afford to. Period. It's unethical and disingenuous to accuse them of not providing their fair share.
This does have a level of income that isn't taxed, imputed - $10k for individuals, $20k for a couple plus $5k per child. So the median family of 4 making $40k would only be taxed on $10k of their earnings for federal income taxes. Even if the bottom rate was 20%, that's an effective income tax rate of 5%.
And he doesn't even mention those corporate interests, who are making huge sums, and still pay $0. I guess if you are a big huge money "person" it is OK, not to pay a dime?
You did notice the man complaining about the tax free, and still getting a subsidy didn't mention corporations that do the same. EXXON, BofA, GE etc.
It is interesting that a poor family making no money, is his biggest complaint. He did not respond, to my comment, did he!
The way to implement a flat tax is to have a cost of living floor attached to it. Something like $20k plus $6k for each dependent (just making up numbers.) Nobody pays taxes on the first $X (the floor) they make and then the full tax rate on the rest of their income.
I am sorry, why is that fair? If the wealthy own 90 % of all the wealth, why do they pay at the same exact rate, I do? So, I can never catch up, I guess.
Good for you, sir. I agree college will help you.
Now, let's add the debt from your college loans to your burden (most have them) to you, catch up plan.
Next, when you graduate, does your family have contacts that can get you in doors, closed to others? In many good paying fields, success is far easier if the FAMILY IS CONNECTED. Another not so tiny, hurdle for you.
And there are more, you will face.
FYI: I am old, I had $0 debt for college. When I went to school a minimum wage job, paid for it in full. That is not the case today.
You are behind them, very far behind, and losing ground, by the minute. It is not that you can't catch up, it is that the odds are as good with a lottery ticket.
Education is the answer to many problems.
It is the solution to the prosperity of America.
More people being educated, means more opportunities for growth: more income, more new ideas, more success.
Unfortunately it is usually the first thing cut or compromised by politicians.
A) Uneducated voters are easier to control, getting re-elected will be easier, and their job as a politician less challenged. All politicians have this incentive, and it happens frequently. Eventually the weight of all those politicians doing this. either by choice (maliciously, and intention or not) or by silent, unconscious, or collective approval or abstinence, it happens. The evidence is there all you have to do is look and I bet you will be shocked on how much it comprises the system. No wonder it is so out of whack in our country. (Politicians in other countries are aware of this, are actually caring about what the return is on the investment in education and are surging ahead with Nation investment in their education)
B) Cutting Education saves money now, the consequences show up later.
Politicians have a strong incentive to help only the appearance of improving education in the short term, so that it can benefit their re-election. The system is set up so this is stronger than the desire to help us and focus on a quality long-term education. Our education is the result of the attitude and the incentives set up. We focus on the appearance not the reality, for a real reason. We measure short - term quantity and focus on getting kids to rush to memorize and just marginally improve on passing tests, than taking a long term view of improving quality and teaching people to think critically, reason, love knowledge, and apply it.
C) Politicians want to help themselves more than you or your kids. Unfortunately, this is natural, and can only be by countered by setting up the system to give stronger incentives otherwise. Most politicians simply have a much stronger incentive to help their kids (and the ones of their friends, family, and cronies) than to help you or yours. No matter what anyone says to the contrary this is true. To a degree some politicians do care about you and have an incentive to appear to help you, but where do you think their heads are, despite their values? If they had to choose for a budget would they give a break to private schools your kids attend , or invest in public ones their's do? Personally I think the effect is obvious. Without the right incentives, checks, balances, bad behaviors happen. Politicans, Companies, Cronies, Executives, the Wealthy, and the Lobbyists will take care of themselves more and first.
So education suffers. Notice the rising costs in education? Notice how hard it is for some, and easy for others You are right to pursue education to improve yourself and make things more fair. Unfortunately the poorer you are, the more the deck is stacked against you. I wish you the best, I have a bachelor's degree, 20 years of positive experience, and a great resume, and am being forced to go back to school to find a way to actually survive, support myself, and have any real chance to retire. It is hard to afford to do it. It is harder to work full time why you do. Only those who can find a way to limit or overcome those distractions can really have an opportunity to do so. Good luck.
Finding something to make yourself go faster is great, I am a big fan of accelerated learning techniques and am a lifetime student. I wish it was that easy. My mother was Dean of Enrollment in the University I graduated from and it still was improbably hard for me. Now I have to go back to school just to find a better job.
I do hope it works for you, but many people simply don't have the option to start somewhere else. Not everyone can afford it or find a good enough job to work through school. It is kind of a chicken and egg thing, few people can afford to go to school without working. Few people can find a good enough job to pay for a good education, or have enough energy left over to pursue it. The obstacles are many.
I struggled to find a job so that I could afford enough to go to school. I had to work full time so that I could afford to go to school full-time until I graduated. It was incredibly hard for a reasonably smart guy like me keep my grades up in that setting. School is more expensive now, and in this economy it is hard to keep a job or even find one that offers enough for a reasonable living wage, or a chance to retire; much less afford a family or a house. Most people don't have much of a chance.
Only by having society change it's attitude, focus, and incentives will we invest more and more in education. We all have to care about it. Our success as a nation may be dependent on how much we invest effectively in a quality education for as many people as possible.
It is simply math, the more people who are given the chance to succeed means that more people succeed. The more we educate, the more ideas and money are made, and the more people can participate in the economy. When only a few are free to succeed, or have access to an affordable education, the economy slows down, less is produced and consumed, and we all suffer.
It is obvious which way we are pointed. We must reverse course and constantly care about the quality of education and access for everyone (not just the successful), they fate of everyone is tired up in it for it is our future.
I live in TN, where we have many very wealthy citizens ( music industry), we have no State income tax, but do tax all food. Buy an apple pay the State. I therefor shop in another State. I live on the border it is an instant 7% saving on groceries. But it is the reason border towns suffer, they lose needed income. I do recognize that. Our great beneficial new Governor is wanting to lower the tax on groceries, $.05 on every dollar. Mind you, he is a billionaire, he will benefit too. Nice.
I hate flat tax, it does benefit the wealthy, and add insult to the poor.
They "hate poor" here. I am guessing, it is because their are so many working poor here? Sales tax is pretty much the entire State income. So, they tax food too. There is always a group working to end the practice, but with no other income for the STATE, it hasn't even hit the legislative floor for a vote.
They are however considering an Amendment to the State Constitution that will say NO INCOME TAX ever in TN. I do admire the wealthy, they buy legislation.
The Food Bank here, is always in trouble providing. I only donate directly to them, and I volunteer there. Every grocery store has a FOOD BANK gift program to help.
I was so upset with the practice, we buy our groceries of State. But, I live on the border. It is my little protest.
There shouldn't be taxes on basic staples of food or other basics of surviving.
As a society gets more affluent, basic fundamentals of a quality of life should become more affordable. As society learns how to do things better, become more prosperous, and improves over time it should invest in improving these things.
This is pretty good proof that it is possible and can happen anywhere under any condition.
Staples and survival need necessities of life like basic food, and necessary health care (ex-Cancer) should be increasingly supported by society as it can afford it. (most bankruptcies are because of health care)
No one in America should have to worry about getting enough to eat. (or getting adequate affordable, necessary healthcare they need to survive)
Just like other necessary services that the government provides through taxes. These things should be focused on as quality of life issues that frequently others can not afford for themselves. Anyone could have cascading health issues that can put them in bankruptcy and make adequate food and healthcare unaffordable. Most anyone could be affected by theft or fraud, or lose their job and find life very hard (I have been unemployed 3 times in the last 3 years) I personally know people that have been driven to homelessness. I personally have had a time growing up where I worried about having enough to eat, and as an adult I have had to fight for long periods working minimum wage to have enough to eat.
I think it is easy to just to remove taxes on healthy basic food staples (everything else is a luxury). Maybe all those subsides to stop farmers growing corn or encourage companies to build in a certain area, would be better spent reducing the cost of the healthy basics (the preventive health benefits alone across society improve everyone's quality of life.) I would argue in this vein that as society can afford to, it should invest as a group in improving costs of these basics as much as possible. The benefits of focusing on the quality of life for everyone
far exceeds that of a focusing on just helping the rich and successful who don't need that help or making money for that matter. A society were the majority of the people are getting healthier will succeed that much more than the one where only a few can afford it. The solution doesn't mean we should pay for homeless or lazy people to eat. It just means we should work to make it more affordable as a team.
I also think that obvious that some healthcare is necessary and a shared societal burden..,when it leads to survival (Cancer, bleeding due to trauma, obvious), and should be staggered based on immediate need and staggered based on need. The weight is on society whether you care or not, and to differing degrees basic care is the responsibility of everything. Everyone may not get sick or need those services, but everyone can get sick and need them, through somehow losing the money to pay for it independently or be denied by insurance.
There is no way poor people can afford adequate healthcare. There is also no way we can afford to take care of all healthcare than everybody wants. A line needs to be drawn. I don't think it is fair for anyone to have to share in the costs of unneeded cosmetic surgery. I do think that it is possible that I could get in a car wreck and need more trauma surgery than I could afford through insurance or my bank account. It is possible that you, or a loved one, gets a serious Cancer and you won't be able to afford it.
Why should we help people?
It is part of the social contract, in which everyone participates in, that we adequately help those who cannot help themselves. We all are it risk for it, through medical bankruptcy or unforeseen circumstances.
It is not about forcing anyone to pay for it. It is a shared concern, weight on our society, and responsibility for all citizens. Just like the roads we drive on and the military that protects us, necessities are needed and that is why they are called necessities.
How far should we help people?
The only real question is to what degree should help be given? I think the the question can be illuminated by the reason many conservatives and republicans get legitimately upset. The thought is " I don't want to personally contribute to the 'entitlement society', 'The welfare state' or 'homeless leeches', i.e. support them." This can easily be countered by the question "At what point do you want to deny people health care that helps them survive (are you heartless), or food to eat (really, let people starve)." I agree with this sentiment to a point.
I don't want to work hard and pay into taxes so that people can be parasites and live off the system. Obviously the line must be drawn...., as accurately as we can.
Are we really so selfish and heartless that we would let people die?
On the healthcare problem I think I might have a workable idea for a solution that solves the problem of degree and keeps it affordable and possible. (Note: I have been a licensed insurance agent)
Group healthcare into three distinct groups.
1. Critical Care Coverage - Including trauma, cancer, regular checkups. affordable preventative care.
2. Non-critical, lifestyle care -Things like doctor visits, specialist visits, flu's sore throats, non critical fevers, and allergies for examples. This could cover all types of regular or normal care that many people but not everyone uses or needs.
3. Luxury, non-necessary procedures. non-cancerous mole removal, liposuction, facelifts, extra doctor visits.
Group 1 -
Critical Care Coverage -Everyone should have it.
It should be managed and covered in a single pool, because everyone, for the most part, has a risk for
needing critical care. Probably the best reason for only having 1 pool is to share costs so that everyone's care will be cheaper. It would also be cheaper to monitor and manage. Not only would everybody's costs be cheaper because they were spread out further through more people (less monthly premiums), but the impact of individual events, (like Cancer), would be shared enough so the events would impact the cost of the plan less.
Everyone being on that same plan means lower costs for all.
When you have thousands of insurance companies offering different coverage for different risks and states, it means that you spend more because your pool is less, but also that the quality of your care and coverage is variable. A major way to reduce the extreme costs of healthcare is to unite as many people as possible in a single pool.
Having 1 pool also allows for everyone to have at least an equal standard of care, that everyone fairly has a risk to need or use. Allowing equal care means we will equally care about improving it. It will be cheaper as nation to set standards and improve technology across this plan. Also having a unified format for medical records and single way to electronically communicate them, means less potential for error, and should radically reduce the cost and frequency of medical malpractice or hospital errors.
Group 2 -
Non-critical, lifestyle care -Only those who need it should get it.
It should be managed and broken down in groups based on need. It should be considered supplemental insurance to Group 1, not everybody would need it.
This is a better arena for private health care. People who need more regular doctor visits can be grouped on a plan, such as children, allergy suffers, or people who get sick more often. Specialist care could be covered under a plan for those who need it. Risks, groups, and costs would be managed by general need and usage. The chronically ill would frequently be covered here and supplemented by need through ability to pay.
Group 3 -
Luxury, non-necessary procedures - Only those who want it or can afford it should get it.
Group 1 should be administered by a single non-biased entity, probably public.
It should be free of the influence of corruptive profit motive, politics, and government waste with the goal of providing an increasing standard of care for everyone, not the lowest cost. Cost cutting measures should guarantee that quality is maintained and improving, and that profit motive or low bid contracting cannot compromise that quality. We all need the best critical healthcare possible, first and foremost.
The need for Group 1 is based on a shared societal need so it probably should be in the arena of government, but private business could compete to administer it, so that there is a good check and balance, but profit motives should be kept out to limit profiteering and greed. It may be better off as a government administered, non-profit third party entity. Government could then effectively regulate it for quality, instead of run it with the potential for politics, waste, or funding for the lowest common denominator.
Both private business and government tend to compromise quality
I think that paying for Group 1 healthcare, should probably be balanced; Part should be paid individually, Part should be covered by employers, and Part should be collectively shared through taxes. This covers individual responsibility and the shared ability of the business and government sectors to cover it. The major cost would then be distributed in a way that individuals, businesses, and society would be more likely to share and absorb.
Group 2 coverage should mostly be shared by the individual and employer. It is fair to expect that many people have some need to use it. The government should only cover it in degrees, like medicaid/care, based on ability to pay and cost to society. If we can't afford it, it should come from here 1st.
Group 3 coverage should be out of pocket to the individual or on luxury plans offered by private insurance company. This is not a societal need in anyway.
I believe like any other critical industry, standards need to be set to insure reasonable outcomes. For the same reasons that insurance companies are regulated in what they can charge to be fair today. Doctor's should never be allowed to set patient fees higher than a reasonable amount or their ability to pay. Likewise, Doctor's should not have a cap or limit to their success. Issues like the cost and investment of new technology must be weighed against the ability of the system to bear it.
There are many things that can reduce the cost of healthcare to us all, if we keep working on addressing it, together.
Discrimination is different from disparate impact. If anything, flat taxes discriminate against the rich, since they pay much, much more than the poor. It's just that the rich can afford taxes, whereas the poor cannot.
So everyone should be responsible to pay for the same dollar amount every year (say $10,000), right? That would be "fair"
Or is it "fair" to get lots of benefits from society while contributing nothing. Is that "fair"?
Is it "fair" that 'group A' pays nothing but they can vote that 'group B' buys them all kinds of stuff that they don't want to pay for? Is that "fair" in your world?
The problem here is that the word "fair" is emotionally charged and has almost no actual meaning because it can be defined 1000 different ways.
What we need is a system where everyone feels the weight of the taxes and no one is simply voting to spend spend spend because someone else is paying for it.
It turns out that people spend other peoples' money very differently than they spend their own.
I want to see something like: "We can build this statue, but everyone's taxes will go from 15% to 20%".
Would people then feel as passionately about building the statue?
"I hate people who bring up that a lot of people don't pay any income tax. It's because they barely earn enough to SURVIVE you dick holes. Do I really need to point this out?"
Yet the poorer you are, the more likely you are to smoke cigarettes.
It's always "some people" that are used to justify a lack of empathy. If you're judging the whole based on the worst negative stereotypes within their ranks then why aren't you in favor of putting all rich people in prison? Some of them run Ponzi schemes right?
I should also mention that if she started doing drugs and drinking, got pregnant and dropped out of high school when she was 16, she'd likely be poor for the rest of her life.
What a crock of s**t. You just made a broad generalization about comparative statistics and socioeconomic trends, and then tried to prove it was true with a specific example of a clearly exceptional case.
Doesn't work like that.
"Most people who are poor find themselves there because of their own bad life choices."
Unprovable. More importantly you aren't considering the impact that systemic poverty has on people's ability to develop the skills necessary to rise above their circumstances. Not to mention that one setback, injury, or mistake and their financial situation can spiral out of control.
On the flip side, the path to success for someone born into a middle or upper class family is nicely paved, and has many safety nets to protect them from "their own bad choices".
Get off your high horse, and stop making assumptions about people whose lives you know nothing about.
f**k you slang cat. Talking about my life experience like you know s**t about me is completely out of line. It proves that your opinions are nothing but assumptions.
Nice try, but I grew up poor. I worked my way up. I expect you to do the same. If you are unwilling to do that, please at least do us all a favor and bitching about it. Either take some responsibility for yourself or STFU.
It is an interesting phenomenon. I agree, many who can't afford to, smoke. I think, cigarette smoking may be related to stress/depression level. And then the additional "high cost for items" that help one quit the habit, with no insurance help. Their has been no study though, would you be willing to fund one? It would be nice to know, then we could address the problem, with an actual solution.
It should count, sir. I am betting slang won't think so, or bother with a study. Her attitude is, I was born privileged, therefore I am worthy of all the help that my birth gave me.
The type of person who is irresponsible enough to start smoking despite the fact they can't afford cigarettes, is the type of person who will likely be poor.
But you did not address my question at all dear. I agree, many who are poor smoke. I would like to know the reason.
Is smoking somehow related to the added stress level of being poor/depressed?
You see for me, I would like to address "the issue" head on with facts, not just leave it as is.
I agree with you, but I hate when people say that rich people aren't paying their fair share. The rich are not paying their fair share -- they're paying way, way more than their fair share.
But the rich can afford it, the government needs that money, and if the money is taken from the poor, the government will just end up spending more money giving out more food stamps, welfare, etc., so from a purely economics standpoint, it's not worth taxing the poor. Which means the money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the rich.
Already pointed out, read the thread before commenting.
BTW to everyone who was confused. Technically speaking the grammar I used is correct, (if a little vague). and your correction is wrong.
When I said that 2 million is "taxed at 15%" it is implied that you would subtract 15% of 2 million (300,000) from 2 million. That is what TAX means in this context.
I didn't say 15% OF 2 million is 1.7 million.
I said 2 million TAXED AT 15% is 1.7 million.
I should have said 2 million taxed at A RATE of 15% LEAVES 1.7 million
But then again, anyone who didn't understand is either purposefully misinterpreting me (a dick) or has no grasp of basic mathematics (an idiot). Which one are you?
Seems fair to me. Everyone has to put some skin in the game. As of right now half of people who should be paying income tax DON'T!!! How the hell is that fair?
"As of right now half of people who should be paying income tax DON'T!!"
Not true. The statistic you and Fox and Friends is citing is based on data collected in 2009. Obama's tax cuts and unemployment exemptions combined with the recession inflated this number. Also this is INCOME TAX, so a lot of those people still paid SS and medicare, property, and sales tax.
More importantly. your comment that they "should be paying income tax" is flat out wrong. They were abiding by the tax code, the same tax code that allowed Mitt Romney to earn millions while only paying 13.9%.
And btw we're all talking bout income tax. It's always the one tax that anyone refers to. We're not debating property tax here. So don't sugarcoat it. It's awful that half of households pay no income tax. There, I'm being specific now so you don't have a cow.
markgl are you forgetting those large multinational, money making corporations that pay $0 taxes and get refunds? You do not mention them when angry? They even earned $$$ millions or billions of dollars too, and still pay $0 or get a refund. Again: Skin in the game, sir!
No, I'm not forgetting that! I want them to pay like everyone else. Even thou I always hear corporations really never pay their tax, it's just additional cost put on the consumer to cover the tax, I don't know if that's true or not. If it is, it means we're paying more for their stuff and if they didn't have tax then we would pay less. I'm for the latter if that is true!
The Republican "trickle-down" theory: the principle that the poor, who must subsist, as they should, on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.
Trickle down this: Mitt Romney is building a $12-million beach house in California. There's a man who can sure read the mood of the country -- look at all the good you can do when you earn 40 million in two years and pay only a tax rate of 13.9%, far lower than average Americans who actually work for a living and aren't earning millions from offshore funds and foreign institutions.
Agreed. Notice how the Upper Class always comes first in the Republicans "trickle-down" theory. This reveals the stereo-typicality of the Upper class Republicans and the human science of class warfare; The Lower tries to survive and somehow manage to join the Middle, the Middle will do whatever they can to be the Upper, and the Upper will do even more to stay on top. The Republican party is entirely corrupt and self-serving.
Yet, half the country still supports the Republican party while only a small percentage are actually rich. This is another reason why I believe we need more parties. The Republican party more closely represents the views of many (libertarians for example). But, the Republican party does not represent these views very well. And yes, of course, you have some (fools in my opinion) that bought the theory of trickle down and that they, one day, will be rich as well.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
We don't need more parties, we just need to get rid of the separate parties all together. It's to the point where neither side is fighting for whats best for the citizens of this country, but what's best for their individual party.
Yes, I should have said 'no parties' which clearly is my preference. Though, others make a good point that people by human nature will just 'line up' any way.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
No, its a theory of fairness and responsibility that says one man shouldn't pay into a system that gives money to another man who contributed nothing. In addition to the people who ended up paying no income tax, some people actually get more money back than their paid in in Federal income taxes and payroll taxes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
and then....
they spend every penny on past bills, maintenance, and health services. in short it gets pumped right back into the economy. not because they want to but because they have to. $25,000 a year pays most bills and thats it. if something breaks, gets stolen, gets sick, ect. the have to cope until it can be taken care of, for the poor this time comes around tax season. are you mad because you dont get a rebate? if so then make enough to drop down below the poverty level and congrats, you now get a check.
Actually, the money they already have is feeding them. That's the point of letting them keep it, cause they ONLY have enough to do that really.
YOUR tax dollars are going to fund wars we don't need with people who can't hurt us in an realistic manner for the profit of PMCs run by the rich in our country.
Chup, I don't see it as theft. I see it as part of calculations to determine how monies are best spent taking in to account economic and social considerations of a country. Thus, if we try 'trickle down' as a theory and take less from the rich to stimulate the economy. Why not let the 'lower ends' keep most of their money knowing that will also stimulate the economy? They'll have to spend that money.
OK - but seriously, we will never come to concession on this point if we don't do something to cut lazy, worthless people out of the whole safety net equation.
You can't just dismiss the Conservative argument on this.
I don't mind giving people a hand who are on a short term streak of bad luck...but 2 years of unemployment? Seriously?
Is it unreasonable of me to expect people to go to school, move someplace else, or pick up another skillset rather than waiting for that job in the rustmill to reopen with all the benefits and $45 an hour benefits the Union negotiated for them (that ran the plant into unprofitability in the first place)?
If you don't want to be part of society then leave. No one is stopping you. The fact of the matter is that we all benefit from a functional government and that is why we pay for it. If you really believe that you don't benefit they why are you still here?
Chup, I do believe conservatives 'play up' the amount of lazy people (percentage wise) taking advantage of the system. There are people struggling who have worked darn hard in their lives and it's insulting that the Conservative talking point is that they are all just lazy.
With that said, I'm particularly insulted by people who do take advantage of these systems through laziness, fraud, etc. And, I do favor 'welfare to work' programs. I want the government to do a better job of monitoring these systems.
I can take "the lazy" out of the equation, simply because statically their number is totally insignificant.
Easily true because the working poor population is huge. Wages have been going down for years, while costs to exist are higher every year. Trickle down has not worked, unless the goal was more poor. Maybe that was the goal.
"Am I an ass to think maybe they can do some kind of community clean up or betterment in exchange for their check?"
No, I don't think you are. You are right to be weary of hand outs with 'no expectations. Over all else, we should promote working for what you obtain and contributing to society. Yes, if enough people just take without giving back, social structure breaks down.
Thus, i support social safety nets but expectations come with that. I'm referring to welfare programs here though. Not unemployment benefits.
Another issue they will never look at are all the additional costs for being poor. Do you know what a Pay Day loan place charges in interest? 30% was the cheapest here, and that is a title loan, if you own your car. Most have no extra funds for a simple car repair.
Then the food store in the neighborhood charges more, no supermarket.
Most have no credit because when poor, cash is easier to use and there are no bank fees, so no credit is given.
Go to a Buy Here Pay Here car lot. The cars are cheap and old, but the payment includes huge extra fees, and the interest on that loan is extremely high.
The working poor pay more at just about every turn. There are many ways to keep the poor poor already, do we really need to add income taxes?
FYI:
Your assertion above is true for many multinational corporations too. I believe GE got a refund, after paying nothing in taxes, and still making millions. I think I read of several other examples too, and all made huge sums of cash. But they had exemptions, write offs, expenses, and tax credits until they too got a refund of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, but that is not "who you fret over" is it?
If a poor worker, making very little money, can through "his legal deductions" end up in the exact same category of getting a refund, he still did exactly what was required by law. Why is that an issue?
Is he irresponsible? No, like Romney, he paid according to current law. His refund would also be current law. He wasn't irresponsible at all, his deductions, children, mortgage, medical added up, simply meant he had no real income left to be taxed, and he was so far down, he got a refund.
barackalypse really, son
Don't you wish you could be in his shoes? You certainly can attempt to get there, we will applaud, when your done. Adopt a few orphans. Work for much less. You will lose some weight, and several possessions, but go for it!
Sure they should... taxes on corporations should be zero (unless it's a type of Pigovian tax).
Why? Because corporations aren't people! If corporations are going to remit tax dollars to the government, its going to come in the forms of higher prices for the consumers, lower wages for the workers, or lower returns for your 401K (the share owner). It ultimately must come out of someone's pocket.
If the government wants to collect more revenue from those they deem are making 'too much,' they need to place it on the income tax brackets so people can see what they are paying. Most people just look at the amount they send to the IRS as what they are actually paying in taxes - but think about all the extra taxes you pay in the form of higher prices. Do you really think the tobacco companies pay the cigarette tax? Who pays the tobacco companies?
Taxing business doesn't really mean anything. People think it's a separate part of the economy that can be taxed and will have no effect on them... but that's wrong.
"its a theory of fairness and responsibility that says one man shouldn't pay into a system that gives money to another man who contributed nothing"
Yes - I agree - especially since corporations are now people:
Those earning minimum wage should pay into the federal kitty (they already are paying their limited dollars to payroll taxes, state taxes, property taxes, etc, etc etc).- BECAUSE THEY SHOULD BE GETTING A LIVING WAGE.
"The earned-income tax credit is the main reason those with low incomes are largely exempted from federal income taxes. Originated by Gerald Ford, it was expanded by both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as a better way to help the working poor than raising the minimum wage," http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/
So -because the minimum wage is not a living wage, those earning minimum wage pay no FEDERAL taxes - and we, the taxpayers, have to kick in "entitlements" to help them not starve.
Therefore, the Walmart corporations of the world get richer and richer on the backs of dirt-cheap labor, while we the taxpayers get less taxes from this cheap labor, AND have to give "entitlements" so this cheap labor doesn't starve to death.
Ultimately - it is corporate welfare - we are paying into a system that gives money to the rich corporations.
The rich get richer - on the backs of the poor and dwindling middle class.
So then why did MY "meager" tax dollars go to bailing out the 1%ers at AIG? I dare say I've worked harder and longer in my life than any of those people have. Yet when it comes time to bail them out we're expected to fall in line, like sheep, and get fleeced with a smile on our faces.
No sir, if there is a class of people who don't do anything it's the 1%. They stand upon the shoulders of the middle and lower class who run those companies, buy their products/services, and get f**ked anytime a Repuke sees an oil company or a bank in need of a bailout.
And yet you guys continue to vote for Democrats who feel your pain even though, taken as a whole, they are far wealthier than the evil Republican Fat Cats you denounce as being out of touch.
I can agree with that. You do see how I got dugg to China for pointing out the absolute facts, though, right?
What's your confidence level these people will actually open their eyes to the fact that all the insults and innuendos they scream at the Republicans applies equally to their side?
More parties or no parties. This two party system does not reflect the real diversity of views in this country. Though, unfortunately, some people actually 'change' their views to match their party's positions.
I don't see the Democrats fighting with every last breath for tax cuts for the filthy rich. Seems they are willing to pay their fair and equal share of taxes. The GOP, not so much.
Oh but that's right, we get to play Accounting Gymnastics when we start adding up Democrat programs, don't we?
Plus we get to pretend we've never taken a single Civics class and don't understand that the budget is not passed by the President. The Budget belongs to the Congress.
I guess we'll pretend we don't know who's been running that entire show until very recently as well.
I don't see them sending off checks for gobs of their own money - just necause its the right thing to do - either.
I'm not sayin the Republicans are right. But I'm not saying the Dems hold any moral authority on this either.
We should do an experiment. All of us regular people out here - Repugnicans and Dummycrats alike - should write all our elected Officials and proclaim we want all income over $500K taxed at the 90th percentile, to include benefit packages and any perks (like using the private company jet to fly the fat cat and his family off to exotic vacations that cost $70K). And we should specify there should be no exemptions or deductions allowed.
Then we'd see who is really in the little guy's corner.
Although I agree I think the Dems would win by a landslide.
I personally hate the 2 party system and agree with many of your comments about both being responsible for our economic mess, but almost all companies are Republican, because by their very nature they want to make as much as possible, pay as little to their employees as possible, and pay as little taxes as possible.
"The trickle-down theory attributed to the Republican Party has never been articulated by President Reagan and has never been articulated by President Bush and has never been advocated by either one of them. One might argue whether trickle down makes any sense or not. To attribute to people who have advocated the opposite in policies is not only inaccurate but poisons the debate on public issues."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
It's no wonder that Obama is out on a limb with his "fair society for all"when the USA attitude seems to be ' it's everyone for themselves!!... greed is good! Where are the CHRISTIANS (Evangelical, Born Again or whatever) in this outlook?
Over here in Europe "we are socialist" (and therefore bad ) because we care about society in a way that is obviously alien to a lot of greedy, nasty and quite honestly unchristian YANKS!!
Of course you don't want to be Europeans :
(i) You're too selfish and blatantly unchristian.
(ii) Yes our economies are in a mess - but is that all that matters?
(iii) Conservative Christians are stupid anyway ... the earth is 4,000 years old, evolution is flawed , let's push creationism.... etc ad nauseam .
(iv) Your lack of culture is appalling.
(v) Your 'portions' are far too large
(vi) Don't forget .. most of your ancestors are from Europe.
(vii) Sorry , some are from Africa .. imported as ... what's the word SLAVES ( yes the British started it but I'm not a fan of them either)
(viii) Sorry again ,some were indigenous ... but what happened to them again?
(ix)You complain about paying over 3 dollars per GALLON for gasoline - we are currently paying about 1.55 euros per LITRE ( do the conversion yourself!)
(x)We don't have a perfect Health system but the less well off do have access to FREE health care.
1) - I'm not wealthy. I am Christian.
2) - Your economies matter. Your socialism is killing you. You keep blaming us for it.
3) - You don't have a right to speak about conservative Christians when you don't know that some (literalists) say 6,000...but I think the Earth is very old. Many Christians do.
4) Our lack of culture is appalling? Quit listening to our music and stop watching our films... reading our books... you elitist ****.
5) I agree that food portions can be too large ... but if you are in Europe ... I think the latest studies showed your asses growing, too.
6) No s**t. Doesn't mean I'm going to hate on my country.
7) where are YOU from ... a LOT of nations engaged in slavery. BTW - our president is BLACK.
8) Indigenous people are here. Some even post on Digg.
9) I don't care how much you pay for gas. You are small countries and you live closer to work. America contains VAST tracts of land.
10) In the USA the poorest are provided with free health care as well... through Medicaid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I know what you mean but what you said is false and misleading. You know it and I know it. Our taxes pay for the uninsured which means it is NOT free :)
Well, it is not the same thing. They do not pay insurance premiums over there; they pay for universal health care with their taxes. On the other hand, I pay an insurance premium AND I pay taxes that pay for the uninsured. Personally, I think their model is better because they pay once, with no private insurance companies making a profit or denying benefits. We are the ones getting the shaft by having to pay for our own and paying for the uninsured. Their costs are lower while we have the highest costs in the world. People argue that we have the best health care in the world which is true with one major caveat: we have the best only if you can afford it or your insurance will pay for it.
You pay twice for the uninsured. Not only do your taxes pay for stuff like Medicade, but your insurance premiums are higher in part due to the large number of people who can't get insurance that are forced to default on their insane medical bills. Many times, these bills would have been much lower if they had been able to go see a doctor early instead of going to the emergency room after things had progressed to an unmanageable point.
@lucky - And yet America has saved Europe's ass at least three times in the last century, and you were happy enough to have us around then. We even had to save your bacon in taking on a third-rate nation like Libya recently.
I'll be happy for the day when you can manage to fight your own wars again.
conservative christians are a joke. you guys preach about god but do you follow? charity only goes so far and after that you tell the poor to f**k off. there is a time to stop but its AFTER they start recovering. its like the saying "teach a person to fish and he can eat for life" but all you do is give out a fish and expect them to just get the hang of it.
I agree, especially when their bible has very explicit passages like these about the rich and poor:
Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
Mark 12:41-44 He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. 43 Then he called his disciples and said to them, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. 44 For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."
Luke 16:19-25 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.
In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.
Luke 12:16-21 Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God."
And there are so many more, but I think the point has been sufficiently made.
Really? Other than church tithes, and named monuments give us numbers.
I give my time sir. Lot's of it. I don't even count the hours, sir. You see, to me, MONEY GIFTS do not always come with either care or heart. It is a check for cash you did not need.
I like going, doing, interacting with those who need my services. You ought to try it. I get monuments that will last a lifetime, hugs, and smiles.
It is not tax deductible either. Pure gift.
Conservative Christians are donating more to 501s than anyone else. That includes tithing to an organized religion for the purpose of building huge monstrosities, buying the town cars and limos for their religious leaders and paying for mansions, art, amenities, private jets, vacations for the religious leaders and large encampments. It includes paying for private schools based on religion. It includes payment for "charities" that are little more than indoctrination camps and training.
What you fail to compare is information on contributions made to real charity that many of us do daily. Done by those of us, who are far from conservative religious bigots and zealots and that is not tracked becasue it is truly direct instead of through a 501, top heavy with admin costs and usually for the benefit of the tax write off - even for the little certificate telling the world about our magnanimous acts of godliness.
The cash to the guy on the street, the meal purchased for the neighborhood kids whose parents are unemployed, the tank of gas for the woman out of work trying to get to an interview, the hot food to take to a homeless camp, the rent payment for the family left short because of medical expenses, the cash dropped in the bucket at Salvation Army drop, the anonymous hand out of coupons for free meals, the clothing, blankets, food, medical supplies dropped at the nearby homeless camp. Some of us do this weekly with no tax exemption no certificate, no need for thanks, no top heavy admin costs and no announcement to preen egos.
There are many of us and we are doing much more directly for those in need than Focus on the Family, Oral Roberts University, and even United Way matching dollar for dollar. We don;t need huge bronze praying hands or neon signs, or slick marketing or Crystal Cathedrals or Renaissance art in the rectory.
We also don't get those donations and the value of that work counted in the stats
Thank you. Many have a tendency to go too far the other way when railing against Christians. In our communities (on a local level) Christians are doing great things that are desperately needed. Personally, I'm not thrilled with 'conservative Christians pushing Social Conservative values above all else. I'm not a big fan of those cumming out in droves for Santorum. But, on a local level, there are many positives. It's those mega churches and National Groups that give Christians a bad name (Falwell, Ralph Reed, et al.)
The best one was when Gretchen said that poor women, when Planned Parenthood shuts down can go to Walgreen's for pap smears and mammograms.
FYI: Walgreens does have a copy machine to smash a boob, and certainly has a candy aisle with Butterfingers for sale, for pap smears.
**** Photo's of Gretchen using the services, will follow.
I do find this funny, when the working poor can easily pay more than Romney.
At $34,500 you start the 25% bracket.
But we know they are wealthy, they have a refrigerator.
First, you're quoting the individual tax bracket. Considering the median family income in the US is around $44k, you're already making 80% of that. You're hardly poor. In 2010, the poverty threshold for an individual was just north of $11k. You're at 300% the poverty line.
Second for an individual to get to Romney's 15% effective rate, based solely on ordinary income (ie, not interest, dividends, etc) and taking just the standard deduction and personal exemption and nothing else, you would need to earn 62.5k or so. You're at 1.5x the median household income (two earners) by yourself. So you're well off.
Now, what would it take for a couple with no children to hit that threshold? $124.7k. A couple with 2 children? $142.3k.
Remember, this is just ordinary income and only standard deductions/personal exemptions.
Incidentally, I do have a simple suggestion on how to allow the poor to "pay more taxes" without doing them a great deal of harm: allow them to "pay" the tax in the form of work. Perhaps it would be in the form of work for the government itself, or perhaps in the form of volunteer work for official charities, but either way, allow people to get non-refundable tax credit (say, $8-12 per hour) for this work. (though I am suggesting it be non-refundable, I imagine being able to be rolled over from year to year if the taxpayer has an abundance.)
So, you work 32 hours per week at $9 per hour and the flat tax rate is 30%? That means you owe $86/wk or 8.6 hours of volunteer work (or some combination of money and volunteer work).
Not only does this allow you to nominally shift some of the burden onto the "poor", it also encourages people to do volunteer work and to work a little less at their job, thus encouraging employers to spread the work out to more people, lowering unemployment.
The non-working poor don't end up owing income tax?
But it would give two-adult families in which one of the adults is unable to find work a way to pay their income tax. I'm assuming that in some way the government would be required to provide unlimited "work" for anyone who wants it, even if at some point the "work" is just, here, sit at this computer and apply for jobs for the next 8 hours.
To me the time volunteering could add job skills, but then that means organization and money for training. Work is what people want. Skill is needed for most work.
Very few are lazy.
I agre, ideally the time spent volunteering will be spent doing things that develop the person's human capital. But in times when productive endeavors are unavailable for one reason or another (ie a spike in much demand), I'd still expect the government to permit people to come in and trade their time for tax credit.
I'm all for raising the capital gains tax on people making less than $50k a year to 30%. However that should then be the minimum tax for all capital gains.
People are demanding that rich pay "their fair share". So how is it that paying $0 is somehow "fair"???
What we've created is a massive pool of irresponsible voters.
For example: "Who's in favor of raising Bob's taxes to pay for stuff that we want but don't want to pay for. Look like everyone one but Bob agrees".
......is that somehow "fair"?
People vote very differently if it affects their pocketbook.
For example: Who's in favor of raising everyone's tax rate from 15% to 20% so that we can build a new statue??? Suddenly people aren't simply thinking "hey.....a new statue would be cool".
It turns out that we spend other peoples' money much more freely than we spend our own.
There's no reason to stop at $150k and 50% is high for people in that bracket. There's a ridiculously huge difference between making $100k and $1M let alone $10M+. Spread out those brackets above $100k though and you're on the right track. There should be extra things kicking in for the highest people $1M+ (Obama's suggestion of no deductions of any kind other than charity above a certain income is a good one).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Absolutely agreed. This is simply a basic structure, since it seems like many Americans want a Tax System that is as simple as possible to understand. My father makes $100,000 a year. We live in Canada, and he pays a tax rate of 40%, which is 10% higher than what I proposed for the United States. 200 Americans are making an average of $230 million a year. Tax them 50%, and that's an average of $23 billion in revenue for the government every year JUST from those 200 people. While I agree that a lot more needs to be done, for a quick-fix, stop-gap solution, I think my brackets would do the trick, if just to get the United States out of the gaping hole it currently finds itself in.
Fox people said " kick in at least a buck". Do you think Romney paid a buck more than he had too? Answer NO! He took every deduction he could and set-up off shore accounts for the rest. Also, he had all of his income put into investments by the company like stock options so he did not have to pay regular taxes. And I am sure his company paid for a large amount of perks that most of us would have had to use after tax dollars to pay for too.
The rich should be paying more than the average guy. Because of the USA's system that allows them to become and stay so rich in the first place. Most other countries they would be taxed much more, with no loop holes! They owe it to the country that helped them be, or become rich.
Can we just drop the bulls**t and look at simple economics for a change? I'm sick of reading page after page after page of what amounts to an endorsement of (and a demand for) tyranny of the majority.
The reason capital gains are taxed an a lower rate than regular income is because capital gains represent investments. Investments are good for the economy, and so they are encouraged, using preferential tax treatment as an incentive. If you taxed it more, people wouldn't invest as much, because investment is risky; they'd do other things with their money, which would be bad for the economy. Also, the capital gains taxation benefit is available to everyone. The reality is that the poor choose not to take advantage of it. I can appreciate that there are some people who literally cannot afford to risk a cent, but the average "poor" person still has a television, buys beer on the weekends, eats snack food, drives a car, or whatever -- the ways that people use their money is up to them. Saying that the rich are unfairly benefited by capital gains taxation because they have more money to invest is the same as saying that the literate are unfairly benefited by the library because they read more. Sure, it sucks to be part of the population that can't or won't take advantage of something, but the solution isn't to take it away from everyone.
The reality is that the rich pay way, way more than their fair share. Romney paid millions of dollars in taxes, I paid about $1,500. That's not fair -- we both get the exact same government services for our taxes, but he paid way, way more than I did. There's absolutely no reason why someone should be punished like that, simply because they have more money.
Virtually nothing else in the economy, or in the world, in general, is based on percentages. The grocery store doesn't determine your bill by your income. You don't split the tab with your friends based on how much each of you makes, rather than what you ordered. Gas doesn't cost more per gallon simply because your car has better or worse fuel economy.
There are only three reasons why Americans accept taxation based on income:
(1) Most people aren't rich, and so their tax brackets are taxed at lower rates.
(2) People think that taxation is a punishment under which everyone should suffer equally.
(3) The government has to bring in money somehow.
The first reason is discriminatory, plain and simple. It's the idea that people other than me should be treated differently. Since there are few rich people and lots of poor people, the majority wants to punish the minority.
The second reason is ridiculous, based on the childish notion that life is fair, and everyone should have an equivalent experience. Saying that the rich should be taxed more because they can afford it is like saying that the rich should pay more for the same product/service, simply because they can afford it. But everyone is getting the same thing from the government in exchange for taxes. Some (the poor) are actually getting more. Also, the rich (with some exceptions, like Paris Hilton, I'll acknowledge) do jobs that society places a higher value on and has fewer people qualified to do them. Attorneys and doctors have specialized education, fill an important need of society, and work long hours -- and society is content to reward them for that. But then society sees that being rich doesn't suck as much as being poor, so they demand that people who make more money be punished for being wealthy. But the purpose of taxation has nothing to do with the unpleasantness of the experience; taxation is only about financing the government and government services. There are plenty of other laws that suck a lot more for some people than for others, but people aren't clamoring for their reform, because the majority isn't inconvenienced by them. Further, you wanted to spread the burden evenly, you wouldn't base tax rates on income -- you'd base them on how much money someone had in the bank. I might make a million bucks each year, but if I spend it all immediately, taxes will hurt me a lot more than someone with no income, but with $500,000 in the bank.
Only the third reason has any validity. The government needs money. That money has to come from somewhere. Since the poor don't have much money to take, and because taking money from the poor would just mean that more people would need food stamps, welfare dollars, etc., any money collected from the poor would just be offset by increased need for spending on public assistance. The rich, on the other hand, have lots of money to take. Since you can't get blood from a turnip, but you can get juice from an orange, the government goes after what it can get. The poor are content with this, because they're not the ones paying, and the rich accept it, because they *can* afford it, and they can't really get a better deal anywhere else.
The reason that the tax burden isn't entirely shifted to the rich (say, anyone with an income over $500,000 / year) is because it isn't fair, and the rich would simply move somewhere else, leaving the non-rich to pay for everything (and the US to collapse, since the rich carry most of the tax burden). The reality is that the US needs the rich, and so it walks a fine line between taking as much money from them as it can and making sure they don't get pissed off by their tax treatment and move somewhere else, taking their money with them.
So, advocate for additional taxation on the rich all you want -- it makes financial sense, and it seems like a good solution to the country's financial situation -- but don't pretend that it's about fairness.
Pobre tu! These idiots are all for increasing business taxes. That is the best way to tax the poor with increased prices. The reality is we will have to tax everyone more to pay off this crushing debt or we will all be poor(and the rich will live in New Zealand).
There are two conflicting views here and its easier to understand both if you strip it away.
Most people will agree that everyone should have some skin in the game. If someone pays nothing in taxes and has an effective negative tax rate due to welfare, why would they not vote to take more from someone else? Literally, they are not paying for any of it.
However, we also need to make sure that people pay something based on fairness. You're right, someone who makes a million should pay a higher rate than someone who is in poverty.
So what should we do? On idea is to have a very simple graduated tax rate - 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, etc. Pick some set of brackets that is fair. No deductions except for one big personal exemption that is equal to what the individual poverty level is (IIRC, its $12k in 2011). We'd need to include children, so maybe $10 per adult, $5k per child.
Then, once we have that set, we pet those rates to some year's total spending. From there, its a 1:1 percentage relationship - if spending increases 10%, those brackets (and only those brackets, not the exemption) increases by 10%. Spending is cut by 5%, those brackets are cut 5%. But everything is measured by that baseline spending level. Now everyone has interest in how spending is carried out and our revenues will adjust automatically.
Give the poor a break Bambi, you used the one yourself. Amazing what a couple of years being the big swinging dick round the White House can do to a guy.
There's already taxes on the poor and middle class. When the Fed promotes cheap money through low interest rates, we get a larger money supply which leads to inflation - everything is more expensive. Since wages haven't significantly gone up in two decades, that essentially means that the Fed is pushing our debt and financial mess onto the poor and middle class. And worst thing is that the Fed is a private organization - we don't even elect them.
The point they were trying to make is that there is nothing fair about it. It is not argued that the poor can afford to pay taxes. Nor is it argued that the wealthy can't. The argument is over the use of the term 'fair' to describe and intentionally unbalanced tax. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The term 'fair' as applied to tax is certainly a subjective expression, and shouldn't be used. After all, some may argue that no tax system is 'fair'. Why should I have to give any of my hard earned tax to the government - its not fair!
But a flat tax certainly isn't fair either. 25% to someone earning $20,000 a year has a massive impact, whereas 25% to someone earning $2M a year probably wouldn't affect their lifestyle at all.
Once you start earning such huge amounts, I think it is 'fair' that one should 'give back' a bit more.
I have the ultimate solution. All who work, must be paid enough to both live, and pay taxes. I think they will hate that solution even worse, don't you?
Giving is sure out of style for some, isn't it? Bain was one of the group of companies that lobbied to get the 15% tax rate. It certainly paid to lobby.
Yes, it is. Will it happen, no. I am always amazed at how often "lazy" enters the discussion. Only a very few are lazy, the rest of the poor do work, they simply do not earn much money.
The income of top 10% has gone up by over 100% in the last 10 years, the income of the bottom 90% on average has gone up less than 10%. Shouldn't all that extra income be creating more jobs by your logic?
This seems fairly simple. As long as the stock market doesn't crash ... the wealthy are going to do better because THAT'S where their money is... investments.
In the meantime, the economic certainty has been wobbly even in the stock market.
I didn't make the baseless claim that the rich have created jobs recently, you did. So, where's your proof? I want to see the statistics which prove the Bush tax cuts and the rich have created a substantive number of jobs. If you can't produce credible statistics to back up your BS (which we both know you can't), you will simply confirm what the rest of us already know...that you're a pathological liar selling broken ideological beliefs.
It must be so hard to accuse others of "talkin' s**t" when you've got a mouthful of it.
Corporations and small businesses provide jobs. Most small business owners aren't wealthy. Corporations aren't people. Furthermore, it's consumption that actually sustains jobs, and the wealthy don't consume proportionally to their wealth when compared to a middle class family/individual.
I am an entrepreneur. I have created jobs. I am not a millionaire. Therefore, your assertion that "The wealthy are the ones that provide JOBS to the middle class" is demonstrably false.
I too have created jobs, does that mean I am wealthy and do not know it? I pay more taxes than Romney, for my income. My business does too. You can't open a door without paying 25%.
I do find it funny when they talk uber-rich, giant huge and jobs. People like us, it has been proven over and over again create jobs, real ones in our communities. We get no help and no tax breaks.
I do really wonder about that every time a huge company comes in, and for say 200 jobs, the get a boatload of tax breaks. (Amazon here in TN this last month.)
That same break.... given to small companies as low interest loans for expansion, would create that same 200 jobs and the community would have the loaned money back!
But we don't have a lobby. Good fortune, sir.
I am old and getting smaller. I will stay in business, but barely, too much work for an elderly person.
Exactly, it's about unfair breaks for certain individuals that don't necessarily deserve it and all of a sudden they get worshiped by certain conservatives as having worked that much harder than everyone else and you can to "if only"...it has always been about who you know and how much money you started with and, it always will be....sure there are individuals who have proven to be the exception not the rule, but I wouldn't bet the future on a few exceptions.
You've touched on exactly the points I've been trying to make, though you state the case far better given your experience. Our focus is off. Quit giving massive incentives to 'too big to fail' businesses and give more support to the small to mid-sized companies. For one, these companies tend to be fantastic incubators of innovation (think Tesla Motors vs. GM). Second, they are going to be far more sensitive to the needs of the communities in which they are located.
That's not a very meaningful argument. Yes, wealthy people own businesses or work as Executives at businesses that provide jobs. Some 'not quite wealthy' people also provide jobs. This of course is correct. But, it's not exactly a benevolent endeavor. I'd argue that indeed the wealthy doing amazingly well in the last 30 years (a time when the country has actually been sliding back) has hurt the majority. Outsourcing, downsizing, short-term stock market focus, and more has helped the wealthy and hurt the majority. In the future, I hope not to see our country with a mass amount of 'have nots' and a select few 'haves' with little to no middle class. Will you then still say 'but the rich provide jobs'?
The Wealthy do not provide jobs based on their personal income and taxes. They may own companies or run companies that hire people, but the individuals do not.
Do you think if a CEO of a major corporation had to pay 1% more on his tax return, he is gong to order his company's HR department to stop hiring?
who's debating anything? i was talking about the sycophant stevatrolski and you chimed in out of the blue, but saying nothing, and then start attacking me, while still saying nothing and adding nothing.
Not only that, but most get money back. Hell, if they'd just stop giving people back more money than they pay in I'd be somewhat ok with that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
It's actually difficult for an individual to get back more than he pays in if payroll tax is considered. Now, whether or not it should be considered is a separate, valid question.
Allowing families with children to get back more than they paid in is a matter of subsidizing reproduction so we can stave off the risk of an aging/shrinking population.
We're going to miss the unemployment problem when there are literally not enough young people to perform the labor necessary to provide for themselves AND their parents/grandparents/greatgrandparents.
Although I agree in principle, we have a larger issue in play, you ignore. DEMAND Without good paying jobs to give the population cash to spend, our economy fails. The only item all economists do agree on is: the US economy is consumer driven.
The wealthy 'do not and cannot' spend enough to keep the economy moving. Less than 10% of the population, simply cannot do it. And the group holding almost all wealth is that small or smaller today.
The largest problem for the USA is the shrinking middle class. Not population. Not even debt. And our tax system is helping in the destruction.
It is the fact that for many years now, wages have gone down, while wealth has accumulated greatly for a few. The entire system is imploding on itself, and it has been driven by greed, and benefits for those with wealth. If it continues, nothing will matter. The wealthy may be "insulated" for now. But eventually even globalization will not sustain their wealth.
Money is a veil. Just giving people money to spend doesn't help anything. We need to give people capital, human or otherwise, so they can produce things of value, so they can trade for the things they want/need.
We need a balance between supply and demand, both macroeconomically and microeconomically. We as a nation need to be able to supply the goods and services we demand in the amounts we demand, and we as individuals need to supply goods and services of equal value to those goods and services we demand.
I admit I am part of the problem here - I demand much less goods and services (in terms of value) than I supply. Or I'm overpaid for the goods and services I supply. Or both. If I increased my own demand, I could employ more people and that would improve the economy... a little.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
then put out more jobs that pay more than min wage. our middle class is gone because factories dont pay decent wages anymore. get them to up it to $40,000/year to start and then the tax money will come rolling in.
those things dont really matter anymore. college just screws your credit and doesnt mean you will get any sort of good job. now its just who you know and how much you are worth.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
No. The middle class is gone because American workers have priced themselves out of the market. Companies who pay their employees $40,000/year to start cannot compete with companies using foreign workers. They will either go out of business or have to move off-shore.
with the cost of living going steadily up, how long do you expect $8-9/hr to continue to pay the bills. the middle class is gone because the jobs went down to min wage or just slightly over, pensions are gone, and import/export is cheaper than building it here. people used to be able to have one manufacturing job and that was enough to pay the bills, save some back, and have some left over for fun. now people have to have more than one job just to make it. is that all we are supposed to do, work 16 hrs a day and die off young? meanwhile the people making millions a minute are bitching because they dont want to pay all of their taxes. you want them to work for less then make that measly amount of pay mean something again and the only way to do that is to take large amounts out of the system. but right now we are too busy making more to pay the 1% for all their hard work.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
And the wages went down to minimum wage because American workers now have to compete with foreign workers. How long do you expect a company to stay in business if their competitors are paying their foreign workers 25% of what American workers are demanding? They pay their workers less so the price of their products is less. The cheaper their products, the more they sell. Conversely, the more expensive the products, the less they sell.
In your fantasy world, everyone would be making at least $50,000 per year. The problem is that in the real world, those companies would go out of business and the workers would be on the unemployment lines.
why would they go out business? the republicans said it themselves that the richest make all the jobs. anyway, yes we are competing with a foreign workers but comparing our average cost of living we need more. with all of these ludicrous paychecks to the super rich, it is decimating the dollar. i was happy making 9/hr when it meant i could live an easy life off of it but now with the cost of living going up drastically, because of greedy people screwing with other peoples lives, that hourly job NEEDS to pay more. it doesn't mean the work will be any harder or that i will need to work longer hours, it just means it needs to pay more. in the last ten years the take home pay for the average worker fell by more than 3 thousand dollars yet the top 1% has seen more than 1000% increase. rent has gone up so that living in the ghetto cost at least $400/month and the next better option is around $700-900. and that's not even going into the rising cost of utilities. just the cost of living alone has drug many people below the poverty level. the right preach about bringing America back, but what exactly do they mean? the only thing i can see is more hardships for the poor/unlucky and more breaks for those who helped get us into this mess. the government is supposed to work for the people. they are supposed to guard us from harm and make sure we are able to bring up BETTER Americans. but with the harm coming from the same people who pour billions into Washington to get laws passed that help them harm us, i just don't see why we should let someone be in charge that has already PROVEN that they can be bought out by these people. i know this is long but i just hope you consider putting yourself to the side for once and look at the people around you. they are hurting, and not just because of their own stupid mistakes but because the system they put so much faith and money into just fell apart.
another answer for your question, they should make export/import cost more, take away ALL the incentives for taking our jobs overseas, and make those that still insist on putting jobs over there while living here pay an even higher tax. what i am imposing is we force them to stop taking jobs away or tell them to get out. they like the USA too much to do it so we call their bluff. they wont leave and if they do someone else will fill in their shoes. that is the beauty of America's free market, if someone else sees a way to make money they will do it.
rjopling: "they should make export/import cost more, take away ALL the incentives for taking our jobs overseas."
Okay, you not only want to make labor more expensive for a company, you also want to make the raw materials imported into the country to manufacture the products more expensive. Then once the product is completed, you want to make the product even more expensive to export to the rest of the world.
Sorry, but that is even more incentive for a company to move its manufacturing off-shore. You get cheaper labor overseas, cheaper raw materials and you avoid the American export fees. (You know, there might be American companies that want to sell their products overseas).
So, what is the result? Unemployment increases. Since the demand for American labor goes down, and the supply goes up (due to employment), the price of American labor (wages) goes down.
"they should make export/import cost more, take away ALL the incentives for taking our jobs overseas."
So, you want the American consumer to subsidize the high manufacturing wages? So, we are talking inflation. Just how far are these higher wages going if the prices of everything increase.
And by making exports cost more, no one is overseas is going to be buying American products. So, we are going to be importing more than we export.
Sorry, but American workers now have to compete with foreign workers. When supply goes up, prices (including the price of labor) goes down. Things have changed, Americans have to deal with it.
so your reply for the people suffering through the down economy is for them to "deal with it"? over 70% of what we make is bought by us. we are our own best customer. what i was saying about raising the cost of import/export was meant for finished products, raw materials set their own price. are you ashamed to buy locally. that should be our first choice and as the consumer we can set the market to reflect this choice. so yes the price of coffee and mangoes will go up but your meat, dairy, vegetable, and breads will stay the same or even go down. with this happening companies will make a choice to either stay with their best customer or get out of the us. you might think this is a bad thing but thats where the so called "free market" kicks in and people start new smaller businesses to fill in the gaps.
The Republican point of view: If you fall on hard times then it is likely a result of your own bad planing and you need to earn your way up from the bottom.
The Democrat point of view: It you fall on hard times then it isn't your fault, it is the fault of corporations and rich people.
Unfortunately, when government gets big enough that the leaders(actual decision makers) don't/can't know all of their constituents, this is what you get: generalizations leading to miscategorizations (if that's even a word). We give too much help to people who don't really need it, and too little help to people who really do.
But the other extreme, in which people on the ground level can act with discretion, is a recipe for abuse.
I suppose there must be a best way, but we must recognize that the best possible way is not going to be perfect. We're always going to be able to complain about the system.
The article is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what is in the video. No, Fox didn't DEMAND that poor people pay more taxes. They illustrated that the rich pay a disproportionate share and then questioned whether or not everyone should have some skin in the game... because so many pay NO TAXES... Even just a buck ... so that they understand taxation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Not only do not understand taxation but have contrary interest - if you do not pay taxes and enjoy benefits, you want more benefits (costing you nothing) and are reluctant to contribute (pay anything for what you now receive freely).
The only fair system is fixed and single bracket taxes for all income levels and sources with no exemptions or rebates. Only in that system do secretary and the Buffet/Romney crowd pay the same percentage, always. Only in that system do secretary and Buffet/Romney crowd have the same proportion of burden for the benefits given. Only in that system everyone who has a vote contributes too.
To paraphrase you: 'the only fair system is one in which a secretary and the Buffet/Romney crowd pay the same percentage.'
But why stop there? They receive, more or less, the same services. Why not have the secretary pay the same dollar amount rather than the same percentage? Sure, she may not be able to afford to pay her fair per-capita share. The government can do what the banks do - give her an automatic loan. Then, if/when she has the money, she can pay back the government for the services she's received. When she dies, the government can seize from her estate whatever balance is left, and any balance that remains unpaid can be charged to her children.
PS Per-capita federal spending is about $9650 per year. That's $9650 for you, $9650 for your spouse (if you have one), $9650 for each of your children.
So add up all the money you pay to the federal government, subtract any money that you get back from the federal government, and ask yourself - am I paying my fair share? (Remember: You can claim your employer's contribution to SS and Medicare since that is money you'd otherwise be getting...)
(Incidentally, per-working-American-citizen federal spending is $28211 per year.)
By my estimation, an individual needs something in the neighborhood of $60k/yr of income to be paying his "fair share", and even more if he has non-working spouse and dependents. That's way over the per-capita aggregate wage of $18k/yr.
I watched it, thanks, which is probably more than the hordes of burying Digg liberals will do. The title is a lie.
1) It's not "Fox News" demanding ... it's a panel ON Fox discussing the issue.
2) They suggest that those who pay none should pay SOME one says, "Even a buck!"...because the wealthy pay tax plus TAX... and they suggest that the poorest pay SOMETHING. And even the poorest sometimes get tax BACK that they haven't paid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I agree with several points you make. Yes, we have yet another misleading title. The exaggerated titles do get old. And yes, it's not specifically FOX demanding.
As for the Poor paying taxes, I really have no problem with people making minimum wage not paying Federal Taxes. They still pay taxes of course. And all monies are going towards 'life support' (the basics). For them, I don't buy the 'skin in the game' argument. Do keep in mind that the percentages being discussed (as referenced in the article) for people paying no or little taxes are a 'short term' anomaly. Those are not long-term rates.
On the comment below on tax incentives only going to the huge already wealthy.
This actually is a place where I can see a change happening, because the "incentive cash" is there, all States have a fund. It does mean lobbying though. Getting those locally owned overworked smaller concerns to speak with a voice. Most have never thought of the idea, that taxpayer cash could help them grow. It would be a great movement. Start speaking, sir. We can't fund start ups, with public funds most do fail. But we could easily offer low interest capital to a growing local company. It has such huge benefits!
Venture Capital is expensive (BAIN), bank loans are almost impossible.
"They illustrated that the rich pay a disproportionate share and then questioned whether or not everyone should have some skin in the game... because so many pay NO TAXES"
Stop with this stupid argument already.
The people who own most of the wealth in this country pay most of the taxes. . . Really, wow who would have thunk that the people who have the largest share of the wealth would pay the largest share of the taxes and that poor people and those barely scraping by would pay less to no taxes at all. Surprise, they're poor!
I have a wealthy neighbor, who gave her maid, a significant cash bonus, one year. It was for years of good service. The maid was poor. The maid spent the bonus on a small boat and battery operated motor/charger. The neighbor was beside herself over the purchase, she had suggested an investment.
But the maid and her children, had never had the cash for an extra. She and her children loved going to the park to fish. It was the one small pleasurable activity they could afford. I know why she bought the boat, instead of investing the money.
Copulation is pleasure to most humans. It costs nothing to engage in. Rich or poor, it is possible to use copulation for pleasure. Babies are the result of copulation. Churches (many not all) tell people it is "sinful to use" any form of birth control. You have a number of issues to face, sir.
But it is an interesting part of the problem isn't it? Even the poor seek some pleasure in their lives.
great examle - it is very easy for some to judge from the top of their ivory towers.
I guess if you are poor, you are doomed to a life of constant gloom.
Wish more people would "walk-a-mile" or practice some empathy. It is easy to form a perception of poor people as told by the puppet masters vs. actually learning yourself.
But who are we to tell other people how to live? The reasoning that they receive government benefits is a weak one. Everybody benefits from government spending and/or tax breaks. Wealthy people benefit more than poor people. Should we be able to tell wealthy people what to spend their money on? How about companies that receive subsidies or tax breaks? Your tax money goes directly to BP. Should you be allowed to sit in on their board meetings and tell them what to do or check their office fridge to make sure they aren't buying beer?
Being poor does not make people less human or second class citizens. It doesn't give us the right to monitor their purchases or run their lives. Knowing that someone is currently struggling doesn't give us the insight to know how they were able to acquire a big screen TV at some point in time.
More importantly, the government has no business telling any of us how to run our private lives. The government is already too large as it is anyway. Why would anyone support government growth in such a manner? Even if you thought this specific issue made it worthwhile, it would just be expanded into other things and/or abused. Nothing good can come from such things.
"What irks me is the amount of tax I have to pay to supplement the lifestyle of these people.
If you can't afford to feed and put diapers on the 5 kids you already have, wtf are you doing making more babies?
If my tax dollars are putting food on your table, why is there even one beer in your refrigerator?
If my hard work and efforts are supplementing your rent, how can you possibly afford to pay for that Pay Per View MMA fight on Saturday?"
So you're more irked by those who in your view 'misuse' the help your taxes provide than you are happy for those who use that same help to better their lives and give their children a chance that they might never have had?
How is that any less short sighted than those who would condemn every rich person as being a greedy bastard?
Oops, you forgot Shelia Jackson Lee already let the cat out of the bag during an interview with Neil Cavuto 4 weeks ago where she admitted the 1% thing was just a ruse to raise taxes on everyone.
That there is huge income disparity is true. Just as it is true that this is class warfare. You 1%ers are doing this on purpose because you are sociopaths.
Look at your leaders.
A serial killer. (Corporations are people, my friend."
A serial liar. (Don't do as I do, do as I say."
A fundie. (Rape is a blessing.)
The problem is flat tax doesn't equal flat burden. A new metric would have to be established that could fairly assign the value of a tax dollar based on the person that earns it (not realistic value, but value to the owner). Perhaps a function of net worth. (For example, if you are worth 1M and Joe is worth 100K then we could say a tax dollar is worth 10x as much to Joe so Joe paying 10K in tax is like you paying 100K in tax)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I refuse to 'give back' to the government until they start giving me something that I or my family didn't have to pay for in taxes in the first place. Make no mistake they aren't asking anyone to 'give back', they're demanding and taking the money. If the wealthy want to give back, they give to charity. Bill Gates is the biggest philanthropist in the world, but not because the government is forcing him.
My income is about the national average. This means I pay a larger percentage of what I can't afford in taxes than most. As I see it the only fair thing is to have some sort of consumption tax instead of an income tax. This is the way it was done before and it's the way it should be done now. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Live on a small island then, because you couldn't pay for what you have around you today, by yourself. That road in front of your home, would break you, if you had pay for each time you or your family, dare to use it.
So, go on, leave, Somolia would love you.
"Bill Gates is the biggest philanthropist in the world, but not because the government is forcing him. "
Our society adores Bill Gates because he gives away his wealth, and they shun Steve Jobs because he does not. Is there really a difference between taking the money with the power of the pen, the power of the gun, or the power of the shun? If you feel like you have to do something, or be punished for not doing it, it's all the same to me.
If you think your tax rate is too high, you should work to make sure the idle rich pay their share. Mitt Romney most likely paid a lower tax rate than you did on 40 times the income you earned.
mjm6783Jan 25, 2012
I hate people who bring up that a lot of people don't pay any income tax. It's because they barely earn enough to SURVIVE you dick holes. Do I really need to point this out?
2 million taxed at 15% is 1.7 million
20,000 taxed at 15% is 17,000
That is a flat tax system. Someone who is below the poverty line and after rent, utilities, food, insurance would have nothing left, and we want them to "pay their fair share". That 3,000 dollars may not mean s**t to the millionaire, but it means eviction or starvation to the impoverished individual.
miklkitJan 26, 2012
I agree with you, but that number should be 1,700 not 17,000.
whacklyJan 26, 2012
20,000 x 0.85 = 17,000
i must be missing what you mean. please explain.
sooperskipJan 26, 2012
A = INCOME
B = TAX RATE
C = AMOUNT GIVEN TO IRS IN TAXES (INCOME x TAX RATE)
D = INCOME LEFT AFTER TAXES
What @mjm6783 has written looks like he's saying:
A x B = C
In reality what he wrote was:
(A x B) - C = D (he just did the math and didn't clearly identify that the final number was the amount left to the payer after taxes)
What @miklkit was saying with the $1,700 was that at quick glance he thought that he had misplaced a decimal point and that C should have been $1,700 not $17,000 (I did the same thing at first look. C actually equals $3,000 though)
A x B = C
20,000 x 0.15 = 3,000
@whackly has simplified the whole thing by essentially subtracting the taxed amount by multiplying income earned by the remaining percentage less the taxed percentage ($20,000 income less $3,000 in taxes is $17,000)
Took me a minute to figure out the intent too. It's a great point regardless, just missed a subtle explanation of the numbers.
Did I help or did I make things more convoluted?
mjm6783Jan 26, 2012
Thanks, I thought it was obvious that I was subtracting the 15% tax to get the figure, but I can see how it could be confusing.
letherialJan 26, 2012
i think a = sign would of made it a little more understandable.
I agree with you though, and the math is plainly obvious...but you know these current conservative rich people, its not that they want more money, they want slaves. (i have no proof of this assertion, its just what i logically break down and strictly my opinion.)
ajh16Jan 26, 2012
It didn't give me any great difficulty, but it did take a second to realize you meant what was left since the phrase x amount at y percent is ____ would imply the amount paid in taxes, not the amount after. That said, I automatically start trying to figure out what someone meant when it doesn't make sense at first and it didn't take long to figure out.
hibby76Jan 26, 2012
No....you claimed that the poor person would only have $3000 left over after paying taxes.
Nice try to cover up your massive laps in math skills.
mjm6783Jan 27, 2012
@hibby, thanks for proving that you are stupid by displaying your complete lack of grammar and mathematics. Allow me to illuminate you:
When I state 20,000, that's your income. When I say "TAXED AT" I am referring to the percentage of your income that will be subtracted or "TAXED". I then used the ambiguous term "IS" to describe the remaining income, after tax.
I concede that it might have been smarter to use to the term "LEAVING" instead of "IS", but quite frankly, if you couldn't figure that out on your own, then you are mentally slow.
More importantly, any discussion of my poor choice in phrasing, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT THAT WAS MADE. Either come up with a proposal, argument, or somewhat intelligent thought, or STFU. Others have already posted strong rebuttals that I somewhat agree with, your random comment is nothing but white noise.
mjm6783Jan 27, 2012
*proving your stupidity by displaying your complete lack of understanding regarding grammar and mathematics.*
STUPID TIME LIMIT ON EDITS. NOW I HAVE NO GRASP ON GRAMMAR.
tehravenJan 27, 2012
Um . . . what mjm meant was pretty easy to understand . . . but then again that's probably just my elitist lefty commie education talkin! hyuck hyuck
whacklyJan 26, 2012
thank you. i guess i his statement as colloquially meaning 20,000 gross taxed at 15% is 17,000 net. i didn't really read it closely enough to trip on the grammar. half hearted skimming ftw!
barasawaJan 26, 2012
He's showing what's left after taxes, not what the amount of taxes is.
kcast985Jan 26, 2012
dummy.
blanchebeechamJan 26, 2012
Flat taxes discriminate against the poor. It is the reason many states do not have sales tax on food. For some reason, it seems we have a political group of people that can't seem to grasp the concept and hem and haw about trying to sell the same bottle of snake oil over and over.
Flat taxes are not equal share taxes!
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
I do still like the concept of a flat tax. But, It would have to be implemented with 'considerations' for lower incomes (not flat). I like that a flat tax would eliminate the complex taxation process, loopholes, and other games. This might be a tax rate of 20% including capital gains with no taxes for people making under the poverty line and gradual increases say to 50K or so in income.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
You can have a very simple graduated tax. No deductions at all, just brackets. Makes things simple without punishing those who do not make much.
rglarson13Jan 26, 2012
But what about the couple that makes $40,000 and has no kids, versus the couple that makes $40,000 and has five kids? One family is doing fine, the other family is poor.
whacklyJan 26, 2012
i agree. doing away with deductions complicates the lives of lower income families too much.
JustSayNoPartyJan 27, 2012
Good point. Stop it. You're making the 'flat tax' idea more complicated now.
ajh16Jan 26, 2012
That's fairly close to the current idea except for the various exceptions and such. The problem is many of those exceptions have valid reasons. For example, giving tax credits for getting schooling or investing in energy efficient vehicles or home improvements. These get people to actually spend extra and the government helps out as an incentive. The trick is to try and keep these without leaving a system full of loopholes.
ieatskunkJan 26, 2012
Ya but why should some people be able to pay 0% tax, have a rate-payer subsidized energy bill while collecting taxpayer-funded financial aid to pay for school and tax-payer funded food stamps?? The people collecting the most from the tax-pool contribute the least into it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Yes, that is absolutely true. Look at the huge money making corporations, that pay little or no taxes, and what they use every day, that required taxpayer funds to provide.
mjm6783Jan 26, 2012
@skunk, do you not understand the point here? Those people live in poverty dude. They don't have enough money to pay bills or feed themselves.
If I take 10 dollars from someone who is poor, it hurts them more than if I take 10,000 dollars from a millionaire.
All this tax fairness crap is a complete misrepresentation of reality. Rich people have nearly limitless opportunities in this country, most of which are not available to the impoverished.
And you're complaining about poor people getting 200 a month in food stamps?
mnewcomb59Jan 26, 2012
I agree with you completely, but at the same time the tax code needs simplified.
Basically we need a flat income tax, with few exceptions. Below the povertly line pays nothing. Extreme wealth gets the same flat tax, plus an additional social programs tax tied directly to their wealth compared to the total GDP.
Also, if corporations decide to do business in our country, they can not use our resources and our people without ALL of their profits being taxed to help those here at home. I for one am tired of paying more income tax than GE, GM or Apple, who made 400,000$ in profit this year for every employee that they hire. How much money did a cotton farmer get out of a slave every year compared to the cost of buying him? Definitely not the profit margins Apple is pushing.
These mega-corporations are modern day slavery! Just on a much broader economic scale. They suck all the money out of the economy and focus it in the hands of a few.
Once 3/4 of the pie is eaten by 1%, everyone else begins to starve.
This is why extreme wealth needs to be discouraged by the tax system.
mjm6783Jan 26, 2012
Corporate greed is a HUGE problem, and won't change, primarily because congress in bought and sold by lobbyists, but also because in pure capitalism they are actually supposed to be greedy.
But when 30 major "American" corporations pay no taxes, or actually receive tax rebates from the government, that's on Washington.
auditortuxJan 26, 2012
There are two conflicting views here and its easier to understand both if you strip it away.
Most people will agree that everyone should have some skin in the game. If someone pays nothing in taxes and has an effective negative tax rate due to welfare, why would they not vote to take more from someone else? Literally, they are not paying for any of it.
However, we also need to make sure that people pay something based on fairness. You're right, someone who makes a million should pay a higher rate than someone who is in poverty.
So what should we do? On idea is to have a very simple graduated tax rate - 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, etc. Pick some set of brackets that is fair. No deductions except for one big personal exemption that is equal to what the individual poverty level is (IIRC, its $12k in 2011). We'd need to include children, so maybe $10 per adult, $5k per child.
Then, once we have that set, we pet those rates to some year's total spending. From there, its a 1:1 percentage relationship - if spending increases 10%, those brackets (and only those brackets, not the exemption) increases by 10%. Spending is cut by 5%, those brackets are cut 5%. But everything is measured by that baseline spending level. Now everyone has interest in how spending is carried out and our revenues will adjust automatically.
quisquisJan 26, 2012
This should be a thread starting comment... not one buried in the middle of a thread.
auditortuxJan 26, 2012
Done. Thanks for the comment :)
mjm6783Jan 26, 2012
I agree with most of your assessment, but I think that there still has to be a level of income under which you shouldn't be taxed. For two reasons.
1.) It's not that much money. Squeezing the bottom 10% of our country for 5% of their income wouldn't even start to pay for what they collect in benefits.
2.) It's pointless.If you take someone who has almost no expendable income, and charge them more, they will now be even more dependent on government subsidies to survive. Basically you are taking the money away so that you can pay it back to them, after some has been skimmed by government bureaucracy.
The primary people who fall into this category are the elderly and disabled. They don't pay taxes because they can't afford to. Period. It's unethical and disingenuous to accuse them of not providing their fair share.
auditortuxJan 26, 2012
This does have a level of income that isn't taxed, imputed - $10k for individuals, $20k for a couple plus $5k per child. So the median family of 4 making $40k would only be taxed on $10k of their earnings for federal income taxes. Even if the bottom rate was 20%, that's an effective income tax rate of 5%.
That way, it scales as people need it.
u2canfailJan 27, 2012
And he doesn't even mention those corporate interests, who are making huge sums, and still pay $0. I guess if you are a big huge money "person" it is OK, not to pay a dime?
u2canfailJan 27, 2012
You did notice the man complaining about the tax free, and still getting a subsidy didn't mention corporations that do the same. EXXON, BofA, GE etc.
It is interesting that a poor family making no money, is his biggest complaint. He did not respond, to my comment, did he!
rightfutureJan 28, 2012
mjm6783 I also agree completely.
The tax burden should be fairly distributed and adaptive to the weight a people can bear.
I would have it adjusted for cost of living, and average available cash flow to be fair.
rglarson13Jan 26, 2012
100% agree with everything you said.
However, that's just the way it is, unless you've figured out how to squeeze blood from a turnip.
hydianJan 26, 2012
The way to implement a flat tax is to have a cost of living floor attached to it. Something like $20k plus $6k for each dependent (just making up numbers.) Nobody pays taxes on the first $X (the floor) they make and then the full tax rate on the rest of their income.
That protects the poorer people while being fair to the wealthier people by giving them the same tax break.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
I am sorry, why is that fair? If the wealthy own 90 % of all the wealth, why do they pay at the same exact rate, I do? So, I can never catch up, I guess.
quisquisJan 26, 2012
The way to catch up isn't to slow down the other guy... it's to find something to make yourself go faster.
Personally, I'm starting with an education. Someone who is more inspired than I am could probably start somewhere else.
u2canfailJan 27, 2012
Good for you, sir. I agree college will help you.
Now, let's add the debt from your college loans to your burden (most have them) to you, catch up plan.
Next, when you graduate, does your family have contacts that can get you in doors, closed to others? In many good paying fields, success is far easier if the FAMILY IS CONNECTED. Another not so tiny, hurdle for you.
And there are more, you will face.
FYI: I am old, I had $0 debt for college. When I went to school a minimum wage job, paid for it in full. That is not the case today.
You are behind them, very far behind, and losing ground, by the minute. It is not that you can't catch up, it is that the odds are as good with a lottery ticket.
rightfutureJan 28, 2012
Education is the answer to many problems.
It is the solution to the prosperity of America.
More people being educated, means more opportunities for growth: more income, more new ideas, more success.
Unfortunately it is usually the first thing cut or compromised by politicians.
A) Uneducated voters are easier to control, getting re-elected will be easier, and their job as a politician less challenged. All politicians have this incentive, and it happens frequently. Eventually the weight of all those politicians doing this. either by choice (maliciously, and intention or not) or by silent, unconscious, or collective approval or abstinence, it happens. The evidence is there all you have to do is look and I bet you will be shocked on how much it comprises the system. No wonder it is so out of whack in our country. (Politicians in other countries are aware of this, are actually caring about what the return is on the investment in education and are surging ahead with Nation investment in their education)
B) Cutting Education saves money now, the consequences show up later.
Politicians have a strong incentive to help only the appearance of improving education in the short term, so that it can benefit their re-election. The system is set up so this is stronger than the desire to help us and focus on a quality long-term education. Our education is the result of the attitude and the incentives set up. We focus on the appearance not the reality, for a real reason. We measure short - term quantity and focus on getting kids to rush to memorize and just marginally improve on passing tests, than taking a long term view of improving quality and teaching people to think critically, reason, love knowledge, and apply it.
C) Politicians want to help themselves more than you or your kids. Unfortunately, this is natural, and can only be by countered by setting up the system to give stronger incentives otherwise. Most politicians simply have a much stronger incentive to help their kids (and the ones of their friends, family, and cronies) than to help you or yours. No matter what anyone says to the contrary this is true. To a degree some politicians do care about you and have an incentive to appear to help you, but where do you think their heads are, despite their values? If they had to choose for a budget would they give a break to private schools your kids attend , or invest in public ones their's do? Personally I think the effect is obvious. Without the right incentives, checks, balances, bad behaviors happen. Politicans, Companies, Cronies, Executives, the Wealthy, and the Lobbyists will take care of themselves more and first.
So education suffers. Notice the rising costs in education? Notice how hard it is for some, and easy for others You are right to pursue education to improve yourself and make things more fair. Unfortunately the poorer you are, the more the deck is stacked against you. I wish you the best, I have a bachelor's degree, 20 years of positive experience, and a great resume, and am being forced to go back to school to find a way to actually survive, support myself, and have any real chance to retire. It is hard to afford to do it. It is harder to work full time why you do. Only those who can find a way to limit or overcome those distractions can really have an opportunity to do so. Good luck.
rightfutureJan 28, 2012
Finding something to make yourself go faster is great, I am a big fan of accelerated learning techniques and am a lifetime student. I wish it was that easy. My mother was Dean of Enrollment in the University I graduated from and it still was improbably hard for me. Now I have to go back to school just to find a better job.
I do hope it works for you, but many people simply don't have the option to start somewhere else. Not everyone can afford it or find a good enough job to work through school. It is kind of a chicken and egg thing, few people can afford to go to school without working. Few people can find a good enough job to pay for a good education, or have enough energy left over to pursue it. The obstacles are many.
I struggled to find a job so that I could afford enough to go to school. I had to work full time so that I could afford to go to school full-time until I graduated. It was incredibly hard for a reasonably smart guy like me keep my grades up in that setting. School is more expensive now, and in this economy it is hard to keep a job or even find one that offers enough for a reasonable living wage, or a chance to retire; much less afford a family or a house. Most people don't have much of a chance.
Only by having society change it's attitude, focus, and incentives will we invest more and more in education. We all have to care about it. Our success as a nation may be dependent on how much we invest effectively in a quality education for as many people as possible.
It is simply math, the more people who are given the chance to succeed means that more people succeed. The more we educate, the more ideas and money are made, and the more people can participate in the economy. When only a few are free to succeed, or have access to an affordable education, the economy slows down, less is produced and consumed, and we all suffer.
It is obvious which way we are pointed. We must reverse course and constantly care about the quality of education and access for everyone (not just the successful), they fate of everyone is tired up in it for it is our future.
I wish more people could afford a good education.
ect5150Jan 26, 2012
It sounds to me like you really want a consumption tax, not an income tax. A consumption tax is effectively a wealth tax.
u2canfailJan 27, 2012
A rich family doesn't necessarily consume more.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
I live in TN, where we have many very wealthy citizens ( music industry), we have no State income tax, but do tax all food. Buy an apple pay the State. I therefor shop in another State. I live on the border it is an instant 7% saving on groceries. But it is the reason border towns suffer, they lose needed income. I do recognize that. Our great beneficial new Governor is wanting to lower the tax on groceries, $.05 on every dollar. Mind you, he is a billionaire, he will benefit too. Nice.
I hate flat tax, it does benefit the wealthy, and add insult to the poor.
quisquisJan 26, 2012
There shouldn't be taxes on food. I'm genuinely shocked at this.
It kind of sickens me...
I guess republicans must care about people too. Who knew /shrug
u2canfailJan 27, 2012
They "hate poor" here. I am guessing, it is because their are so many working poor here? Sales tax is pretty much the entire State income. So, they tax food too. There is always a group working to end the practice, but with no other income for the STATE, it hasn't even hit the legislative floor for a vote.
They are however considering an Amendment to the State Constitution that will say NO INCOME TAX ever in TN. I do admire the wealthy, they buy legislation.
The Food Bank here, is always in trouble providing. I only donate directly to them, and I volunteer there. Every grocery store has a FOOD BANK gift program to help.
I was so upset with the practice, we buy our groceries of State. But, I live on the border. It is my little protest.
rightfutureJan 28, 2012
There shouldn't be taxes on basic staples of food or other basics of surviving.
As a society gets more affluent, basic fundamentals of a quality of life should become more affordable. As society learns how to do things better, become more prosperous, and improves over time it should invest in improving these things.
This is pretty good proof that it is possible and can happen anywhere under any condition.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html
Staples and survival need necessities of life like basic food, and necessary health care (ex-Cancer) should be increasingly supported by society as it can afford it. (most bankruptcies are because of health care)
No one in America should have to worry about getting enough to eat. (or getting adequate affordable, necessary healthcare they need to survive)
Just like other necessary services that the government provides through taxes. These things should be focused on as quality of life issues that frequently others can not afford for themselves. Anyone could have cascading health issues that can put them in bankruptcy and make adequate food and healthcare unaffordable. Most anyone could be affected by theft or fraud, or lose their job and find life very hard (I have been unemployed 3 times in the last 3 years) I personally know people that have been driven to homelessness. I personally have had a time growing up where I worried about having enough to eat, and as an adult I have had to fight for long periods working minimum wage to have enough to eat.
I think it is easy to just to remove taxes on healthy basic food staples (everything else is a luxury). Maybe all those subsides to stop farmers growing corn or encourage companies to build in a certain area, would be better spent reducing the cost of the healthy basics (the preventive health benefits alone across society improve everyone's quality of life.) I would argue in this vein that as society can afford to, it should invest as a group in improving costs of these basics as much as possible. The benefits of focusing on the quality of life for everyone
far exceeds that of a focusing on just helping the rich and successful who don't need that help or making money for that matter. A society were the majority of the people are getting healthier will succeed that much more than the one where only a few can afford it. The solution doesn't mean we should pay for homeless or lazy people to eat. It just means we should work to make it more affordable as a team.
rightfutureJan 28, 2012
I also think that obvious that some healthcare is necessary and a shared societal burden..,when it leads to survival (Cancer, bleeding due to trauma, obvious), and should be staggered based on immediate need and staggered based on need. The weight is on society whether you care or not, and to differing degrees basic care is the responsibility of everything. Everyone may not get sick or need those services, but everyone can get sick and need them, through somehow losing the money to pay for it independently or be denied by insurance.
There is no way poor people can afford adequate healthcare. There is also no way we can afford to take care of all healthcare than everybody wants. A line needs to be drawn. I don't think it is fair for anyone to have to share in the costs of unneeded cosmetic surgery. I do think that it is possible that I could get in a car wreck and need more trauma surgery than I could afford through insurance or my bank account. It is possible that you, or a loved one, gets a serious Cancer and you won't be able to afford it.
Why should we help people?
It is part of the social contract, in which everyone participates in, that we adequately help those who cannot help themselves. We all are it risk for it, through medical bankruptcy or unforeseen circumstances.
It is not about forcing anyone to pay for it. It is a shared concern, weight on our society, and responsibility for all citizens. Just like the roads we drive on and the military that protects us, necessities are needed and that is why they are called necessities.
How far should we help people?
The only real question is to what degree should help be given? I think the the question can be illuminated by the reason many conservatives and republicans get legitimately upset. The thought is " I don't want to personally contribute to the 'entitlement society', 'The welfare state' or 'homeless leeches', i.e. support them." This can easily be countered by the question "At what point do you want to deny people health care that helps them survive (are you heartless), or food to eat (really, let people starve)." I agree with this sentiment to a point.
I don't want to work hard and pay into taxes so that people can be parasites and live off the system. Obviously the line must be drawn...., as accurately as we can.
Are we really so selfish and heartless that we would let people die?
rightfutureJan 28, 2012
On the healthcare problem I think I might have a workable idea for a solution that solves the problem of degree and keeps it affordable and possible. (Note: I have been a licensed insurance agent)
Group healthcare into three distinct groups.
1. Critical Care Coverage - Including trauma, cancer, regular checkups. affordable preventative care.
2. Non-critical, lifestyle care -Things like doctor visits, specialist visits, flu's sore throats, non critical fevers, and allergies for examples. This could cover all types of regular or normal care that many people but not everyone uses or needs.
3. Luxury, non-necessary procedures. non-cancerous mole removal, liposuction, facelifts, extra doctor visits.
Group 1 -
Critical Care Coverage -Everyone should have it.
It should be managed and covered in a single pool, because everyone, for the most part, has a risk for
needing critical care. Probably the best reason for only having 1 pool is to share costs so that everyone's care will be cheaper. It would also be cheaper to monitor and manage. Not only would everybody's costs be cheaper because they were spread out further through more people (less monthly premiums), but the impact of individual events, (like Cancer), would be shared enough so the events would impact the cost of the plan less.
Everyone being on that same plan means lower costs for all.
When you have thousands of insurance companies offering different coverage for different risks and states, it means that you spend more because your pool is less, but also that the quality of your care and coverage is variable. A major way to reduce the extreme costs of healthcare is to unite as many people as possible in a single pool.
Having 1 pool also allows for everyone to have at least an equal standard of care, that everyone fairly has a risk to need or use. Allowing equal care means we will equally care about improving it. It will be cheaper as nation to set standards and improve technology across this plan. Also having a unified format for medical records and single way to electronically communicate them, means less potential for error, and should radically reduce the cost and frequency of medical malpractice or hospital errors.
Group 2 -
Non-critical, lifestyle care -Only those who need it should get it.
It should be managed and broken down in groups based on need. It should be considered supplemental insurance to Group 1, not everybody would need it.
This is a better arena for private health care. People who need more regular doctor visits can be grouped on a plan, such as children, allergy suffers, or people who get sick more often. Specialist care could be covered under a plan for those who need it. Risks, groups, and costs would be managed by general need and usage. The chronically ill would frequently be covered here and supplemented by need through ability to pay.
Group 3 -
Luxury, non-necessary procedures - Only those who want it or can afford it should get it.
Society should never share in this burden.
rightfutureJan 28, 2012
How to pay for it?
Okay this one is hard. This is my idea.
Group 1 should be administered by a single non-biased entity, probably public.
It should be free of the influence of corruptive profit motive, politics, and government waste with the goal of providing an increasing standard of care for everyone, not the lowest cost. Cost cutting measures should guarantee that quality is maintained and improving, and that profit motive or low bid contracting cannot compromise that quality. We all need the best critical healthcare possible, first and foremost.
The need for Group 1 is based on a shared societal need so it probably should be in the arena of government, but private business could compete to administer it, so that there is a good check and balance, but profit motives should be kept out to limit profiteering and greed. It may be better off as a government administered, non-profit third party entity. Government could then effectively regulate it for quality, instead of run it with the potential for politics, waste, or funding for the lowest common denominator.
Both private business and government tend to compromise quality
I think that paying for Group 1 healthcare, should probably be balanced; Part should be paid individually, Part should be covered by employers, and Part should be collectively shared through taxes. This covers individual responsibility and the shared ability of the business and government sectors to cover it. The major cost would then be distributed in a way that individuals, businesses, and society would be more likely to share and absorb.
Group 2 coverage should mostly be shared by the individual and employer. It is fair to expect that many people have some need to use it. The government should only cover it in degrees, like medicaid/care, based on ability to pay and cost to society. If we can't afford it, it should come from here 1st.
Group 3 coverage should be out of pocket to the individual or on luxury plans offered by private insurance company. This is not a societal need in anyway.
I believe like any other critical industry, standards need to be set to insure reasonable outcomes. For the same reasons that insurance companies are regulated in what they can charge to be fair today. Doctor's should never be allowed to set patient fees higher than a reasonable amount or their ability to pay. Likewise, Doctor's should not have a cap or limit to their success. Issues like the cost and investment of new technology must be weighed against the ability of the system to bear it.
There are many things that can reduce the cost of healthcare to us all, if we keep working on addressing it, together.
What do you think?
rglarson13Jan 26, 2012
Discrimination is different from disparate impact. If anything, flat taxes discriminate against the rich, since they pay much, much more than the poor. It's just that the rich can afford taxes, whereas the poor cannot.
markglJan 26, 2012
Yes they are. As a percentage that are completely fair. How does anyone not get this?
hibby76Jan 26, 2012
So everyone should be responsible to pay for the same dollar amount every year (say $10,000), right? That would be "fair"
Or is it "fair" to get lots of benefits from society while contributing nothing. Is that "fair"?
Is it "fair" that 'group A' pays nothing but they can vote that 'group B' buys them all kinds of stuff that they don't want to pay for? Is that "fair" in your world?
The problem here is that the word "fair" is emotionally charged and has almost no actual meaning because it can be defined 1000 different ways.
What we need is a system where everyone feels the weight of the taxes and no one is simply voting to spend spend spend because someone else is paying for it.
It turns out that people spend other peoples' money very differently than they spend their own.
I want to see something like: "We can build this statue, but everyone's taxes will go from 15% to 20%".
Would people then feel as passionately about building the statue?
slang4catJan 26, 2012
"I hate people who bring up that a lot of people don't pay any income tax. It's because they barely earn enough to SURVIVE you dick holes. Do I really need to point this out?"
Yet the poorer you are, the more likely you are to smoke cigarettes.
Besides, some people just don't want to work. Do I really need to point that out?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mjm6783Jan 26, 2012
It's always "some people" that are used to justify a lack of empathy. If you're judging the whole based on the worst negative stereotypes within their ranks then why aren't you in favor of putting all rich people in prison? Some of them run Ponzi schemes right?
slang4catJan 26, 2012
Because it's not some. It's most. Most people who are poor find themselves there because of their own bad life choices.
Anyone who spends about 20 minutes looking at the statistics between poverty, teenage pregnancy and high school dropout rates would understand that.
Do you think this homeless girl is going to be poor when she gets older:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/homeless_li_girl_not_among_science_jHX03CsW0RkAwkK9XJml6M
She's poor now. She won't be in 10 years.
mlw4428Jan 26, 2012
What does your crystal ball say about your continuing to spew bulls**t in 10 years? Will it continue?
slang4catJan 26, 2012
Oh snap you are right!
If you are poor it's not your fault. It's because of rich people. Not because you dropped out of high school and shoot meth all day. Yeah, right.
My crystal ball tells me that you will continue to be poor. For the rest of your life. Especially if it's not YOUR fault.
(Oh the losers of this world. Always someone else to blame for their problems!)
slang4catJan 26, 2012
I should also mention that if she started doing drugs and drinking, got pregnant and dropped out of high school when she was 16, she'd likely be poor for the rest of her life.
mjm6783Jan 26, 2012
What a crock of s**t. You just made a broad generalization about comparative statistics and socioeconomic trends, and then tried to prove it was true with a specific example of a clearly exceptional case.
Doesn't work like that.
"Most people who are poor find themselves there because of their own bad life choices."
Unprovable. More importantly you aren't considering the impact that systemic poverty has on people's ability to develop the skills necessary to rise above their circumstances. Not to mention that one setback, injury, or mistake and their financial situation can spiral out of control.
On the flip side, the path to success for someone born into a middle or upper class family is nicely paved, and has many safety nets to protect them from "their own bad choices".
Get off your high horse, and stop making assumptions about people whose lives you know nothing about.
slang4catJan 27, 2012
You obviously have ZERO life experience. You should have grown up poor like I did. It would have given you a different perspective.
mjm6783Jan 27, 2012
f**k you slang cat. Talking about my life experience like you know s**t about me is completely out of line. It proves that your opinions are nothing but assumptions.
u2canfailJan 27, 2012
You of course know it was their fault for NOT CHOOSING WEALTHY PARENTS, wasn't it?
slang4catJan 27, 2012
Nice try, but I grew up poor. I worked my way up. I expect you to do the same. If you are unwilling to do that, please at least do us all a favor and bitching about it. Either take some responsibility for yourself or STFU.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
It is an interesting phenomenon. I agree, many who can't afford to, smoke. I think, cigarette smoking may be related to stress/depression level. And then the additional "high cost for items" that help one quit the habit, with no insurance help. Their has been no study though, would you be willing to fund one? It would be nice to know, then we could address the problem, with an actual solution.
quisquisJan 26, 2012
I'd be willing to fund one if I wasn't one of the poor smokers already.
I'll be a volunteer test subject; does that count?
u2canfailJan 27, 2012
It should count, sir. I am betting slang won't think so, or bother with a study. Her attitude is, I was born privileged, therefore I am worthy of all the help that my birth gave me.
slang4catJan 26, 2012
The type of person who is irresponsible enough to start smoking despite the fact they can't afford cigarettes, is the type of person who will likely be poor.
u2canfailJan 27, 2012
But you did not address my question at all dear. I agree, many who are poor smoke. I would like to know the reason.
Is smoking somehow related to the added stress level of being poor/depressed?
You see for me, I would like to address "the issue" head on with facts, not just leave it as is.
rglarson13Jan 26, 2012
I agree with you, but I hate when people say that rich people aren't paying their fair share. The rich are not paying their fair share -- they're paying way, way more than their fair share.
But the rich can afford it, the government needs that money, and if the money is taken from the poor, the government will just end up spending more money giving out more food stamps, welfare, etc., so from a purely economics standpoint, it's not worth taxing the poor. Which means the money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the rich.
hibby76Jan 26, 2012
Wow.......you're really terrible at math. Let me fix it for you:
2 million taxed at 15% is $300,000 (with $1.7M remaining)
20,000 taxed at 15% is $3,000 (with $17,000 remaining)
I guess you're not in favor of an 85% tax rate for the poor......
mjm6783Jan 27, 2012
Already pointed out, read the thread before commenting.
BTW to everyone who was confused. Technically speaking the grammar I used is correct, (if a little vague). and your correction is wrong.
When I said that 2 million is "taxed at 15%" it is implied that you would subtract 15% of 2 million (300,000) from 2 million. That is what TAX means in this context.
I didn't say 15% OF 2 million is 1.7 million.
I said 2 million TAXED AT 15% is 1.7 million.
I should have said 2 million taxed at A RATE of 15% LEAVES 1.7 million
But then again, anyone who didn't understand is either purposefully misinterpreting me (a dick) or has no grasp of basic mathematics (an idiot). Which one are you?
markglJan 26, 2012
Seems fair to me. Everyone has to put some skin in the game. As of right now half of people who should be paying income tax DON'T!!! How the hell is that fair?
mjm6783Jan 27, 2012
"As of right now half of people who should be paying income tax DON'T!!"
Not true. The statistic you and Fox and Friends is citing is based on data collected in 2009. Obama's tax cuts and unemployment exemptions combined with the recession inflated this number. Also this is INCOME TAX, so a lot of those people still paid SS and medicare, property, and sales tax.
More importantly. your comment that they "should be paying income tax" is flat out wrong. They were abiding by the tax code, the same tax code that allowed Mitt Romney to earn millions while only paying 13.9%.
markglJan 27, 2012
WTF don't call me a liar!!!
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf
markglJan 27, 2012
And btw we're all talking bout income tax. It's always the one tax that anyone refers to. We're not debating property tax here. So don't sugarcoat it. It's awful that half of households pay no income tax. There, I'm being specific now so you don't have a cow.
u2canfailJan 27, 2012
markgl are you forgetting those large multinational, money making corporations that pay $0 taxes and get refunds? You do not mention them when angry? They even earned $$$ millions or billions of dollars too, and still pay $0 or get a refund. Again: Skin in the game, sir!
markglJan 27, 2012
No, I'm not forgetting that! I want them to pay like everyone else. Even thou I always hear corporations really never pay their tax, it's just additional cost put on the consumer to cover the tax, I don't know if that's true or not. If it is, it means we're paying more for their stuff and if they didn't have tax then we would pay less. I'm for the latter if that is true!
tcbishop12Jan 25, 2012
The Republican "trickle-down" theory: the principle that the poor, who must subsist, as they should, on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.
Trickle down this: Mitt Romney is building a $12-million beach house in California. There's a man who can sure read the mood of the country -- look at all the good you can do when you earn 40 million in two years and pay only a tax rate of 13.9%, far lower than average Americans who actually work for a living and aren't earning millions from offshore funds and foreign institutions.
paintballer747Jan 26, 2012
Agreed. Notice how the Upper Class always comes first in the Republicans "trickle-down" theory. This reveals the stereo-typicality of the Upper class Republicans and the human science of class warfare; The Lower tries to survive and somehow manage to join the Middle, the Middle will do whatever they can to be the Upper, and the Upper will do even more to stay on top. The Republican party is entirely corrupt and self-serving.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
Yet, half the country still supports the Republican party while only a small percentage are actually rich. This is another reason why I believe we need more parties. The Republican party more closely represents the views of many (libertarians for example). But, the Republican party does not represent these views very well. And yes, of course, you have some (fools in my opinion) that bought the theory of trickle down and that they, one day, will be rich as well.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
They can buy lottery tickets, and hope! You do know there is another drawing tomorrow.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
Good point. Since many in support operate more on Blind Faith than critical thought, a lottery ticket fits in nicely.
u2canfailJan 27, 2012
And if born poor, you have as good of odds with a lottery ticket of becoming wealthy as with working all your life.
FCB_3Jan 26, 2012
We don't need more parties, we just need to get rid of the separate parties all together. It's to the point where neither side is fighting for whats best for the citizens of this country, but what's best for their individual party.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
Yes, I should have said 'no parties' which clearly is my preference. Though, others make a good point that people by human nature will just 'line up' any way.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
paintballer747Jan 26, 2012
Completely agreed
barackalypseJan 26, 2012
No, its a theory of fairness and responsibility that says one man shouldn't pay into a system that gives money to another man who contributed nothing. In addition to the people who ended up paying no income tax, some people actually get more money back than their paid in in Federal income taxes and payroll taxes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rjoplingJan 26, 2012
and then....
they spend every penny on past bills, maintenance, and health services. in short it gets pumped right back into the economy. not because they want to but because they have to. $25,000 a year pays most bills and thats it. if something breaks, gets stolen, gets sick, ect. the have to cope until it can be taken care of, for the poor this time comes around tax season. are you mad because you dont get a rebate? if so then make enough to drop down below the poverty level and congrats, you now get a check.
ChuppacabraJan 26, 2012
Its not my responsibility to put food in your mouth. And its not the job of the Government to steal from me on your behalf, either.
dauntless1Jan 26, 2012
Actually, the money they already have is feeding them. That's the point of letting them keep it, cause they ONLY have enough to do that really.
YOUR tax dollars are going to fund wars we don't need with people who can't hurt us in an realistic manner for the profit of PMCs run by the rich in our country.
ChuppacabraJan 27, 2012
Ah - I guess all those social programs are just figments of my imagination.
Just like the "Paid for by tax dollrs" credit cards they use to purchase crap at the grocery store.
Get off your lazy ass and go earn a living.
Is that too tough a concept?
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
Chup, I don't see it as theft. I see it as part of calculations to determine how monies are best spent taking in to account economic and social considerations of a country. Thus, if we try 'trickle down' as a theory and take less from the rich to stimulate the economy. Why not let the 'lower ends' keep most of their money knowing that will also stimulate the economy? They'll have to spend that money.
ChuppacabraJan 27, 2012
OK - but seriously, we will never come to concession on this point if we don't do something to cut lazy, worthless people out of the whole safety net equation.
You can't just dismiss the Conservative argument on this.
I don't mind giving people a hand who are on a short term streak of bad luck...but 2 years of unemployment? Seriously?
Is it unreasonable of me to expect people to go to school, move someplace else, or pick up another skillset rather than waiting for that job in the rustmill to reopen with all the benefits and $45 an hour benefits the Union negotiated for them (that ran the plant into unprofitability in the first place)?
chilidogsJan 26, 2012
If you don't want to be part of society then leave. No one is stopping you. The fact of the matter is that we all benefit from a functional government and that is why we pay for it. If you really believe that you don't benefit they why are you still here?
ChuppacabraJan 27, 2012
What an idiotic response. And the fact that you got dugg up for it speaks volumes about the herd of kiddies following you.
JustSayNoPartyJan 27, 2012
Chup, I do believe conservatives 'play up' the amount of lazy people (percentage wise) taking advantage of the system. There are people struggling who have worked darn hard in their lives and it's insulting that the Conservative talking point is that they are all just lazy.
With that said, I'm particularly insulted by people who do take advantage of these systems through laziness, fraud, etc. And, I do favor 'welfare to work' programs. I want the government to do a better job of monitoring these systems.
ChuppacabraJan 28, 2012
Then it looks like we have room to negotiate. I don't believe (nor do I think a majority of Conservatives believe) everyone on welfare is lazy.
But I don't think I have an obligation to pay for the kids they can't afford. Especially when they are already on welfare and they have even more!
Is it wrong of me to expect them to have to pass a UA test every week before they get their check?
Am I an ass to think maybe they can do some kind of community clean up or betterment in exchange for their check?
u2canfailJan 27, 2012
I can take "the lazy" out of the equation, simply because statically their number is totally insignificant.
Easily true because the working poor population is huge. Wages have been going down for years, while costs to exist are higher every year. Trickle down has not worked, unless the goal was more poor. Maybe that was the goal.
JustSayNoPartyJan 28, 2012
"Am I an ass to think maybe they can do some kind of community clean up or betterment in exchange for their check?"
No, I don't think you are. You are right to be weary of hand outs with 'no expectations. Over all else, we should promote working for what you obtain and contributing to society. Yes, if enough people just take without giving back, social structure breaks down.
Thus, i support social safety nets but expectations come with that. I'm referring to welfare programs here though. Not unemployment benefits.
ChuppacabraJan 28, 2012
We agree on welfare.
Now lets talk about unemployment.
I think the current unemployment benefit runs 99 weeks. You don't think thats a bit excessive? After 52 weeks shouldn't people be getting the hint?
Wouldn't our money be better spent offering intensive retraining in areas where we have manpower shortages?
Sitting around for two years waiting for that great factory job requiring a GED and paying $60K a year just seems like a pipe dream.
u2canfailJan 27, 2012
Another issue they will never look at are all the additional costs for being poor. Do you know what a Pay Day loan place charges in interest? 30% was the cheapest here, and that is a title loan, if you own your car. Most have no extra funds for a simple car repair.
Then the food store in the neighborhood charges more, no supermarket.
Most have no credit because when poor, cash is easier to use and there are no bank fees, so no credit is given.
Go to a Buy Here Pay Here car lot. The cars are cheap and old, but the payment includes huge extra fees, and the interest on that loan is extremely high.
The working poor pay more at just about every turn. There are many ways to keep the poor poor already, do we really need to add income taxes?
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
FYI:
Your assertion above is true for many multinational corporations too. I believe GE got a refund, after paying nothing in taxes, and still making millions. I think I read of several other examples too, and all made huge sums of cash. But they had exemptions, write offs, expenses, and tax credits until they too got a refund of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, but that is not "who you fret over" is it?
If a poor worker, making very little money, can through "his legal deductions" end up in the exact same category of getting a refund, he still did exactly what was required by law. Why is that an issue?
Is he irresponsible? No, like Romney, he paid according to current law. His refund would also be current law. He wasn't irresponsible at all, his deductions, children, mortgage, medical added up, simply meant he had no real income left to be taxed, and he was so far down, he got a refund.
barackalypse really, son
Don't you wish you could be in his shoes? You certainly can attempt to get there, we will applaud, when your done. Adopt a few orphans. Work for much less. You will lose some weight, and several possessions, but go for it!
ChuppacabraJan 26, 2012
Frankly, I don't think any corporation should get away with paying no taxes either.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Good, we have a place to start.
ect5150Jan 26, 2012
Sure they should... taxes on corporations should be zero (unless it's a type of Pigovian tax).
Why? Because corporations aren't people! If corporations are going to remit tax dollars to the government, its going to come in the forms of higher prices for the consumers, lower wages for the workers, or lower returns for your 401K (the share owner). It ultimately must come out of someone's pocket.
If the government wants to collect more revenue from those they deem are making 'too much,' they need to place it on the income tax brackets so people can see what they are paying. Most people just look at the amount they send to the IRS as what they are actually paying in taxes - but think about all the extra taxes you pay in the form of higher prices. Do you really think the tobacco companies pay the cigarette tax? Who pays the tobacco companies?
Taxing business doesn't really mean anything. People think it's a separate part of the economy that can be taxed and will have no effect on them... but that's wrong.
geejayeJan 26, 2012
"its a theory of fairness and responsibility that says one man shouldn't pay into a system that gives money to another man who contributed nothing"
Yes - I agree - especially since corporations are now people:
Those earning minimum wage should pay into the federal kitty (they already are paying their limited dollars to payroll taxes, state taxes, property taxes, etc, etc etc).- BECAUSE THEY SHOULD BE GETTING A LIVING WAGE.
"The earned-income tax credit is the main reason those with low incomes are largely exempted from federal income taxes. Originated by Gerald Ford, it was expanded by both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as a better way to help the working poor than raising the minimum wage," http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/
So -because the minimum wage is not a living wage, those earning minimum wage pay no FEDERAL taxes - and we, the taxpayers, have to kick in "entitlements" to help them not starve.
Therefore, the Walmart corporations of the world get richer and richer on the backs of dirt-cheap labor, while we the taxpayers get less taxes from this cheap labor, AND have to give "entitlements" so this cheap labor doesn't starve to death.
Ultimately - it is corporate welfare - we are paying into a system that gives money to the rich corporations.
The rich get richer - on the backs of the poor and dwindling middle class.
mlw4428Jan 26, 2012
So then why did MY "meager" tax dollars go to bailing out the 1%ers at AIG? I dare say I've worked harder and longer in my life than any of those people have. Yet when it comes time to bail them out we're expected to fall in line, like sheep, and get fleeced with a smile on our faces.
No sir, if there is a class of people who don't do anything it's the 1%. They stand upon the shoulders of the middle and lower class who run those companies, buy their products/services, and get f**ked anytime a Repuke sees an oil company or a bank in need of a bailout.
ChuppacabraJan 26, 2012
And yet you guys continue to vote for Democrats who feel your pain even though, taken as a whole, they are far wealthier than the evil Republican Fat Cats you denounce as being out of touch.
http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/11/16/congressional-democrats-are-wealthier-than-republican-counterparts/
Amazing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
djguerrillaJan 26, 2012
Solution: vote for neither. A 3rd party needs to exist to keep the evil 2 in check.
Oh....and institute term limits, abolish campaign donations (corporate or otherwise), and reinstitute Glass Steagall while you're at it
ChuppacabraJan 26, 2012
I can agree with that. You do see how I got dugg to China for pointing out the absolute facts, though, right?
What's your confidence level these people will actually open their eyes to the fact that all the insults and innuendos they scream at the Republicans applies equally to their side?
djguerrillaJan 26, 2012
You got dugg down for appearing partisan (IMO) on an issue where both sides are equally guilty
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
No, truer statement here today, thank you.
ChuppacabraJan 27, 2012
Well if we get dugg down for having partisan views, I wonder why those with liberal partisan views are dugg up?
Thats right, Sportsfan -
Only people with conservative partisan views get dugg down.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
More parties or no parties. This two party system does not reflect the real diversity of views in this country. Though, unfortunately, some people actually 'change' their views to match their party's positions.
winniedawgJan 26, 2012
By otherwise you need to include: Unions and Activist groups also.
stabsteerJan 26, 2012
I don't see the Democrats fighting with every last breath for tax cuts for the filthy rich. Seems they are willing to pay their fair and equal share of taxes. The GOP, not so much.
geejayeJan 26, 2012
Yup, you are so right - I didn't see Democrats walking in lock-step to ensure that the wealthiest do not get even on dollar more in taxes.
ChuppacabraJan 26, 2012
Perhaps not. But you did see them in lock step spending money for things we now must now raise taxes to pay for.
geejayeJan 26, 2012
Actually, Bush spent way more in new policies than Obama has:
Bush: $5.07 Trillion
Obama: $1.44 Trillion
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday
And no, I have not seen the Dems vote in lock-step (even though I want them to).
But, the Republicans will vote in a 100% lock-step to satisfy the pledge they signed with the lobbyist, Grover Norquist.
ChuppacabraJan 27, 2012
@geejaye
$1.44 trillion?
That doesn't even pay for Obamacare.
Oh but that's right, we get to play Accounting Gymnastics when we start adding up Democrat programs, don't we?
Plus we get to pretend we've never taken a single Civics class and don't understand that the budget is not passed by the President. The Budget belongs to the Congress.
I guess we'll pretend we don't know who's been running that entire show until very recently as well.
ChuppacabraJan 26, 2012
I don't see them sending off checks for gobs of their own money - just necause its the right thing to do - either.
I'm not sayin the Republicans are right. But I'm not saying the Dems hold any moral authority on this either.
We should do an experiment. All of us regular people out here - Repugnicans and Dummycrats alike - should write all our elected Officials and proclaim we want all income over $500K taxed at the 90th percentile, to include benefit packages and any perks (like using the private company jet to fly the fat cat and his family off to exotic vacations that cost $70K). And we should specify there should be no exemptions or deductions allowed.
Then we'd see who is really in the little guy's corner.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
I am liking you better.
stabsteerJan 26, 2012
Although I agree I think the Dems would win by a landslide.
I personally hate the 2 party system and agree with many of your comments about both being responsible for our economic mess, but almost all companies are Republican, because by their very nature they want to make as much as possible, pay as little to their employees as possible, and pay as little taxes as possible.
ferretmanJan 26, 2012
@Chupp - But I don't want that, so I can't write such a letter...sorry.
rjoplingJan 27, 2012
the first one
ChuppacabraJan 27, 2012
We don't write it because we want it.
We write it to uncover who really does care about all the regular people.
anomaly100Jan 27, 2012
I'm down with that.
slang4catJan 26, 2012
"Trickle-down" began with FDR, a liberal Democrat. Started during the first New Deal. Go read a history book, for the love of God!
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Mentioned as far back as 1896, 1st known use was in 1954 IKE was President, by the way.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trickle-down%20theory
But it was Reagan who not only embraced the idea, but took it to new levels with huge tax breaks for the wealthy. And the USA has fallen ever sense.
slang4catJan 26, 2012
"The trickle-down theory attributed to the Republican Party has never been articulated by President Reagan and has never been articulated by President Bush and has never been advocated by either one of them. One might argue whether trickle down makes any sense or not. To attribute to people who have advocated the opposite in policies is not only inaccurate but poisons the debate on public issues."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
madtechnologistJan 26, 2012
Poor people have the lottery, liquor, and cigarette taxes. That should be good enough.
miklkitJan 25, 2012
They mean what they say. The republicons do want to raise your taxes by 25%.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/gop-tax-hike
auditortuxJan 26, 2012
We could also turn it around and say that Democrooks want to starve Social Security to death.
Technically, both are true.
luckyleptonJan 25, 2012
It's no wonder that Obama is out on a limb with his "fair society for all"when the USA attitude seems to be ' it's everyone for themselves!!... greed is good! Where are the CHRISTIANS (Evangelical, Born Again or whatever) in this outlook?
Over here in Europe "we are socialist" (and therefore bad ) because we care about society in a way that is obviously alien to a lot of greedy, nasty and quite honestly unchristian YANKS!!
Ouzel7Jan 25, 2012
American conservative Christians are donating more than anyone else to charities here AND elsewhere.
We don't WANT to be Europe. You seem to be swirling in the toilet economy-wise. We'd like to prevent that for our fellow countrymen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
luckyleptonJan 26, 2012
Of course you don't want to be Europeans :
(i) You're too selfish and blatantly unchristian.
(ii) Yes our economies are in a mess - but is that all that matters?
(iii) Conservative Christians are stupid anyway ... the earth is 4,000 years old, evolution is flawed , let's push creationism.... etc ad nauseam .
(iv) Your lack of culture is appalling.
(v) Your 'portions' are far too large
(vi) Don't forget .. most of your ancestors are from Europe.
(vii) Sorry , some are from Africa .. imported as ... what's the word SLAVES ( yes the British started it but I'm not a fan of them either)
(viii) Sorry again ,some were indigenous ... but what happened to them again?
(ix)You complain about paying over 3 dollars per GALLON for gasoline - we are currently paying about 1.55 euros per LITRE ( do the conversion yourself!)
(x)We don't have a perfect Health system but the less well off do have access to FREE health care.
Ouzel7Jan 26, 2012
1) - I'm not wealthy. I am Christian.
2) - Your economies matter. Your socialism is killing you. You keep blaming us for it.
3) - You don't have a right to speak about conservative Christians when you don't know that some (literalists) say 6,000...but I think the Earth is very old. Many Christians do.
4) Our lack of culture is appalling? Quit listening to our music and stop watching our films... reading our books... you elitist ****.
5) I agree that food portions can be too large ... but if you are in Europe ... I think the latest studies showed your asses growing, too.
6) No s**t. Doesn't mean I'm going to hate on my country.
7) where are YOU from ... a LOT of nations engaged in slavery. BTW - our president is BLACK.
8) Indigenous people are here. Some even post on Digg.
9) I don't care how much you pay for gas. You are small countries and you live closer to work. America contains VAST tracts of land.
10) In the USA the poorest are provided with free health care as well... through Medicaid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
GoldJacketJan 26, 2012
self-preservation - The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive
Something you most definitely lack luckylepton.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
LOL
publiclurkerJan 27, 2012
You do know that being condemned by a self-serving sociopath like you is considered a good thing by respectable people, don't you?
NeosopheusJan 26, 2012
"10) In the USA the poorest are provided with free health care as well... through Medicaid."
Wrong. Those costs are passed on to taxpayers. It is NOT free in any sense of the word.
Ouzel7Jan 26, 2012
The persons receiving it don't pay. You know what I mean . Don't play stupid.
NeosopheusJan 26, 2012
I know what you mean but what you said is false and misleading. You know it and I know it. Our taxes pay for the uninsured which means it is NOT free :)
Ouzel7Jan 26, 2012
I was responding to a poster who said they have free health care in (Europe) I'm assuming.
For the "less well-off".
We have the same in the USA.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
NeosopheusJan 26, 2012
"We have the same in the USA."
Well, it is not the same thing. They do not pay insurance premiums over there; they pay for universal health care with their taxes. On the other hand, I pay an insurance premium AND I pay taxes that pay for the uninsured. Personally, I think their model is better because they pay once, with no private insurance companies making a profit or denying benefits. We are the ones getting the shaft by having to pay for our own and paying for the uninsured. Their costs are lower while we have the highest costs in the world. People argue that we have the best health care in the world which is true with one major caveat: we have the best only if you can afford it or your insurance will pay for it.
Ouzel7Jan 26, 2012
Your thinking is completely tortured there.
NeosopheusJan 26, 2012
Tortured? If you say so. I prefer getting at the truth, so if you consider that torture, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
geejayeJan 26, 2012
@Neosopheus "I pay an insurance premium AND I pay taxes that pay for the uninsured."
Good point - something I never thought about.
Plus - Americans get to pay twice as much for their medical care and get worse medical outcomes than any other industrialized nation.
American exceptionalism at its finest. /s
hydianJan 26, 2012
You pay twice for the uninsured. Not only do your taxes pay for stuff like Medicade, but your insurance premiums are higher in part due to the large number of people who can't get insurance that are forced to default on their insane medical bills. Many times, these bills would have been much lower if they had been able to go see a doctor early instead of going to the emergency room after things had progressed to an unmanageable point.
Closed AccountJan 26, 2012
yeah..i'd rather not be european=undersexed and under germany
ferretmanJan 26, 2012
@lucky - And yet America has saved Europe's ass at least three times in the last century, and you were happy enough to have us around then. We even had to save your bacon in taking on a third-rate nation like Libya recently.
I'll be happy for the day when you can manage to fight your own wars again.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
Really!
rjoplingJan 26, 2012
conservative christians are a joke. you guys preach about god but do you follow? charity only goes so far and after that you tell the poor to f**k off. there is a time to stop but its AFTER they start recovering. its like the saying "teach a person to fish and he can eat for life" but all you do is give out a fish and expect them to just get the hang of it.
NeosopheusJan 26, 2012
I agree, especially when their bible has very explicit passages like these about the rich and poor:
Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
Mark 12:41-44 He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. 43 Then he called his disciples and said to them, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. 44 For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."
Luke 16:19-25 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.
In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.
Luke 12:16-21 Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?' Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God."
And there are so many more, but I think the point has been sufficiently made.
rjoplingJan 26, 2012
those are the verses they pass over. they tend to use the bible as long as it goes their way.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Really? Other than church tithes, and named monuments give us numbers.
I give my time sir. Lot's of it. I don't even count the hours, sir. You see, to me, MONEY GIFTS do not always come with either care or heart. It is a check for cash you did not need.
I like going, doing, interacting with those who need my services. You ought to try it. I get monuments that will last a lifetime, hugs, and smiles.
It is not tax deductible either. Pure gift.
andromedastarJan 26, 2012
Conservative Christians are donating more to 501s than anyone else. That includes tithing to an organized religion for the purpose of building huge monstrosities, buying the town cars and limos for their religious leaders and paying for mansions, art, amenities, private jets, vacations for the religious leaders and large encampments. It includes paying for private schools based on religion. It includes payment for "charities" that are little more than indoctrination camps and training.
What you fail to compare is information on contributions made to real charity that many of us do daily. Done by those of us, who are far from conservative religious bigots and zealots and that is not tracked becasue it is truly direct instead of through a 501, top heavy with admin costs and usually for the benefit of the tax write off - even for the little certificate telling the world about our magnanimous acts of godliness.
The cash to the guy on the street, the meal purchased for the neighborhood kids whose parents are unemployed, the tank of gas for the woman out of work trying to get to an interview, the hot food to take to a homeless camp, the rent payment for the family left short because of medical expenses, the cash dropped in the bucket at Salvation Army drop, the anonymous hand out of coupons for free meals, the clothing, blankets, food, medical supplies dropped at the nearby homeless camp. Some of us do this weekly with no tax exemption no certificate, no need for thanks, no top heavy admin costs and no announcement to preen egos.
There are many of us and we are doing much more directly for those in need than Focus on the Family, Oral Roberts University, and even United Way matching dollar for dollar. We don;t need huge bronze praying hands or neon signs, or slick marketing or Crystal Cathedrals or Renaissance art in the rectory.
We also don't get those donations and the value of that work counted in the stats
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
Thank you. Many have a tendency to go too far the other way when railing against Christians. In our communities (on a local level) Christians are doing great things that are desperately needed. Personally, I'm not thrilled with 'conservative Christians pushing Social Conservative values above all else. I'm not a big fan of those cumming out in droves for Santorum. But, on a local level, there are many positives. It's those mega churches and National Groups that give Christians a bad name (Falwell, Ralph Reed, et al.)
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Thank you
rjoplingJan 27, 2012
just to chime it. the parents pay for religious school.
ieatskunkJan 26, 2012
Ya...that socialist system is working out great for Europe....do you even read the news?
publiclurkerJan 27, 2012
Yes, how about you get your news from some place other than fox if you want to stay at the big boys table.
RavenshoodieJan 26, 2012
Media Matters just needs to start a "Dumb s**t Gretchen Carlson/Brian Killmeade say" category.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
The best one was when Gretchen said that poor women, when Planned Parenthood shuts down can go to Walgreen's for pap smears and mammograms.
FYI: Walgreens does have a copy machine to smash a boob, and certainly has a candy aisle with Butterfingers for sale, for pap smears.
**** Photo's of Gretchen using the services, will follow.
steve8867Jan 26, 2012
Fox News.....once again you are a bunch of silly Bastards.
u2canfailJan 25, 2012
I do find this funny, when the working poor can easily pay more than Romney.
At $34,500 you start the 25% bracket.
But we know they are wealthy, they have a refrigerator.
miklkitJan 26, 2012
And a 4:3 tv with rabbit ears.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Even sometimes a phone.
savetheseaJan 26, 2012
you forgot to mention that the TV was a color TV
rjoplingJan 26, 2012
and running water
dauntless1Jan 26, 2012
Running water?!
HOW DARE THEY!
geejayeJan 26, 2012
AND a coffee maker.
How dare they make coffee in their own homes.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
correction: How dare them buy coffee. (It has almost no nutritional value.)
auditortuxJan 26, 2012
First, you're quoting the individual tax bracket. Considering the median family income in the US is around $44k, you're already making 80% of that. You're hardly poor. In 2010, the poverty threshold for an individual was just north of $11k. You're at 300% the poverty line.
Second for an individual to get to Romney's 15% effective rate, based solely on ordinary income (ie, not interest, dividends, etc) and taking just the standard deduction and personal exemption and nothing else, you would need to earn 62.5k or so. You're at 1.5x the median household income (two earners) by yourself. So you're well off.
Now, what would it take for a couple with no children to hit that threshold? $124.7k. A couple with 2 children? $142.3k.
Remember, this is just ordinary income and only standard deductions/personal exemptions.
quisquisJan 26, 2012
Very well put.
craig1958Jan 25, 2012
Very entertaining, politicususa commenting on a fox story. I'm getting dizzy from all the spinning and reverse spinning.
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
Incidentally, I do have a simple suggestion on how to allow the poor to "pay more taxes" without doing them a great deal of harm: allow them to "pay" the tax in the form of work. Perhaps it would be in the form of work for the government itself, or perhaps in the form of volunteer work for official charities, but either way, allow people to get non-refundable tax credit (say, $8-12 per hour) for this work. (though I am suggesting it be non-refundable, I imagine being able to be rolled over from year to year if the taxpayer has an abundance.)
So, you work 32 hours per week at $9 per hour and the flat tax rate is 30%? That means you owe $86/wk or 8.6 hours of volunteer work (or some combination of money and volunteer work).
Not only does this allow you to nominally shift some of the burden onto the "poor", it also encourages people to do volunteer work and to work a little less at their job, thus encouraging employers to spread the work out to more people, lowering unemployment.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
I like the idea, but we have more working poor, than non working poor. Time will be a factor.
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
The non-working poor don't end up owing income tax?
But it would give two-adult families in which one of the adults is unable to find work a way to pay their income tax. I'm assuming that in some way the government would be required to provide unlimited "work" for anyone who wants it, even if at some point the "work" is just, here, sit at this computer and apply for jobs for the next 8 hours.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
To me the time volunteering could add job skills, but then that means organization and money for training. Work is what people want. Skill is needed for most work.
Very few are lazy.
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
I agre, ideally the time spent volunteering will be spent doing things that develop the person's human capital. But in times when productive endeavors are unavailable for one reason or another (ie a spike in much demand), I'd still expect the government to permit people to come in and trade their time for tax credit.
KapsiotJan 26, 2012
Even the poor should have to send in something - even if it's just a can of spam or a pack of ramen noodles.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
LOL
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Oh come on, just say it: blood they all have, and it is in short supply. Government control over the body.
quisquisJan 26, 2012
There ya go! Now you're in the spirit! lol
ninhJan 26, 2012
I'm all for raising the capital gains tax on people making less than $50k a year to 30%. However that should then be the minimum tax for all capital gains.
markglJan 26, 2012
Flat Tax. You guys want to be fair and equal. We there you go. Flat tax.
hibby76Jan 26, 2012
People are demanding that rich pay "their fair share". So how is it that paying $0 is somehow "fair"???
What we've created is a massive pool of irresponsible voters.
For example: "Who's in favor of raising Bob's taxes to pay for stuff that we want but don't want to pay for. Look like everyone one but Bob agrees".
......is that somehow "fair"?
People vote very differently if it affects their pocketbook.
For example: Who's in favor of raising everyone's tax rate from 15% to 20% so that we can build a new statue??? Suddenly people aren't simply thinking "hey.....a new statue would be cool".
It turns out that we spend other peoples' money much more freely than we spend our own.
kcast985Jan 26, 2012
So half this nation is 'deadbeat poor' doubt that
mitsubishiJan 26, 2012
$0 to $15,000 = 0% Tax
$15,001 to $30,000 = 5% Tax
$30,001 to $45,000 = 10% Tax
$45,001 to $60,000 = 15% Tax
$60,001 to $75,000 = 20% Tax
$75,001 to $90,000 = 25% Tax
$90,001 to $105,000 = 30% Tax
$105,001 to $120,000 = 35% Tax
$120,001 to $135,000 = 40% Tax
$135,001 to $150,000 = 45% Tax
$150,001 and up = 50% Tax
Do this for about 13 years and your debt will be more than manageable again.
dougchristianJan 26, 2012
There's no reason to stop at $150k and 50% is high for people in that bracket. There's a ridiculously huge difference between making $100k and $1M let alone $10M+. Spread out those brackets above $100k though and you're on the right track. There should be extra things kicking in for the highest people $1M+ (Obama's suggestion of no deductions of any kind other than charity above a certain income is a good one).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mitsubishiJan 26, 2012
Absolutely agreed. This is simply a basic structure, since it seems like many Americans want a Tax System that is as simple as possible to understand. My father makes $100,000 a year. We live in Canada, and he pays a tax rate of 40%, which is 10% higher than what I proposed for the United States. 200 Americans are making an average of $230 million a year. Tax them 50%, and that's an average of $23 billion in revenue for the government every year JUST from those 200 people. While I agree that a lot more needs to be done, for a quick-fix, stop-gap solution, I think my brackets would do the trick, if just to get the United States out of the gaping hole it currently finds itself in.
crashdvisJan 27, 2012
Auto-buried for politicsusa spam. How does this crap keep making the front page of Digg? It's like Digg is just a shill for politicsusa and alternet.
karmashockJan 27, 2012
If you want taxes raised, then it's only fair you raise them on yourself as well.
We're beyond tired of you advocating OTHER people pay for things but not your political allies. If you want these programs. Pay for them yourself.
geraldhiltonJan 27, 2012
Fox people said " kick in at least a buck". Do you think Romney paid a buck more than he had too? Answer NO! He took every deduction he could and set-up off shore accounts for the rest. Also, he had all of his income put into investments by the company like stock options so he did not have to pay regular taxes. And I am sure his company paid for a large amount of perks that most of us would have had to use after tax dollars to pay for too.
The rich should be paying more than the average guy. Because of the USA's system that allows them to become and stay so rich in the first place. Most other countries they would be taxed much more, with no loop holes! They owe it to the country that helped them be, or become rich.
rglarson13Jan 26, 2012
Can we just drop the bulls**t and look at simple economics for a change? I'm sick of reading page after page after page of what amounts to an endorsement of (and a demand for) tyranny of the majority.
The reason capital gains are taxed an a lower rate than regular income is because capital gains represent investments. Investments are good for the economy, and so they are encouraged, using preferential tax treatment as an incentive. If you taxed it more, people wouldn't invest as much, because investment is risky; they'd do other things with their money, which would be bad for the economy. Also, the capital gains taxation benefit is available to everyone. The reality is that the poor choose not to take advantage of it. I can appreciate that there are some people who literally cannot afford to risk a cent, but the average "poor" person still has a television, buys beer on the weekends, eats snack food, drives a car, or whatever -- the ways that people use their money is up to them. Saying that the rich are unfairly benefited by capital gains taxation because they have more money to invest is the same as saying that the literate are unfairly benefited by the library because they read more. Sure, it sucks to be part of the population that can't or won't take advantage of something, but the solution isn't to take it away from everyone.
The reality is that the rich pay way, way more than their fair share. Romney paid millions of dollars in taxes, I paid about $1,500. That's not fair -- we both get the exact same government services for our taxes, but he paid way, way more than I did. There's absolutely no reason why someone should be punished like that, simply because they have more money.
Virtually nothing else in the economy, or in the world, in general, is based on percentages. The grocery store doesn't determine your bill by your income. You don't split the tab with your friends based on how much each of you makes, rather than what you ordered. Gas doesn't cost more per gallon simply because your car has better or worse fuel economy.
There are only three reasons why Americans accept taxation based on income:
(1) Most people aren't rich, and so their tax brackets are taxed at lower rates.
(2) People think that taxation is a punishment under which everyone should suffer equally.
(3) The government has to bring in money somehow.
The first reason is discriminatory, plain and simple. It's the idea that people other than me should be treated differently. Since there are few rich people and lots of poor people, the majority wants to punish the minority.
The second reason is ridiculous, based on the childish notion that life is fair, and everyone should have an equivalent experience. Saying that the rich should be taxed more because they can afford it is like saying that the rich should pay more for the same product/service, simply because they can afford it. But everyone is getting the same thing from the government in exchange for taxes. Some (the poor) are actually getting more. Also, the rich (with some exceptions, like Paris Hilton, I'll acknowledge) do jobs that society places a higher value on and has fewer people qualified to do them. Attorneys and doctors have specialized education, fill an important need of society, and work long hours -- and society is content to reward them for that. But then society sees that being rich doesn't suck as much as being poor, so they demand that people who make more money be punished for being wealthy. But the purpose of taxation has nothing to do with the unpleasantness of the experience; taxation is only about financing the government and government services. There are plenty of other laws that suck a lot more for some people than for others, but people aren't clamoring for their reform, because the majority isn't inconvenienced by them. Further, you wanted to spread the burden evenly, you wouldn't base tax rates on income -- you'd base them on how much money someone had in the bank. I might make a million bucks each year, but if I spend it all immediately, taxes will hurt me a lot more than someone with no income, but with $500,000 in the bank.
Only the third reason has any validity. The government needs money. That money has to come from somewhere. Since the poor don't have much money to take, and because taking money from the poor would just mean that more people would need food stamps, welfare dollars, etc., any money collected from the poor would just be offset by increased need for spending on public assistance. The rich, on the other hand, have lots of money to take. Since you can't get blood from a turnip, but you can get juice from an orange, the government goes after what it can get. The poor are content with this, because they're not the ones paying, and the rich accept it, because they *can* afford it, and they can't really get a better deal anywhere else.
The reason that the tax burden isn't entirely shifted to the rich (say, anyone with an income over $500,000 / year) is because it isn't fair, and the rich would simply move somewhere else, leaving the non-rich to pay for everything (and the US to collapse, since the rich carry most of the tax burden). The reality is that the US needs the rich, and so it walks a fine line between taking as much money from them as it can and making sure they don't get pissed off by their tax treatment and move somewhere else, taking their money with them.
So, advocate for additional taxation on the rich all you want -- it makes financial sense, and it seems like a good solution to the country's financial situation -- but don't pretend that it's about fairness.
slowpitchJan 26, 2012
Pobre tu! These idiots are all for increasing business taxes. That is the best way to tax the poor with increased prices. The reality is we will have to tax everyone more to pay off this crushing debt or we will all be poor(and the rich will live in New Zealand).
auditortuxJan 26, 2012
There are two conflicting views here and its easier to understand both if you strip it away.
Most people will agree that everyone should have some skin in the game. If someone pays nothing in taxes and has an effective negative tax rate due to welfare, why would they not vote to take more from someone else? Literally, they are not paying for any of it.
However, we also need to make sure that people pay something based on fairness. You're right, someone who makes a million should pay a higher rate than someone who is in poverty.
So what should we do? On idea is to have a very simple graduated tax rate - 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, etc. Pick some set of brackets that is fair. No deductions except for one big personal exemption that is equal to what the individual poverty level is (IIRC, its $12k in 2011). We'd need to include children, so maybe $10 per adult, $5k per child.
Then, once we have that set, we pet those rates to some year's total spending. From there, its a 1:1 percentage relationship - if spending increases 10%, those brackets (and only those brackets, not the exemption) increases by 10%. Spending is cut by 5%, those brackets are cut 5%. But everything is measured by that baseline spending level. Now everyone has interest in how spending is carried out and our revenues will adjust automatically.
Dazza_TucieJan 26, 2012
Give the poor a break Bambi, you used the one yourself. Amazing what a couple of years being the big swinging dick round the White House can do to a guy.
hiropendragonJan 26, 2012
There's already taxes on the poor and middle class. When the Fed promotes cheap money through low interest rates, we get a larger money supply which leads to inflation - everything is more expensive. Since wages haven't significantly gone up in two decades, that essentially means that the Fed is pushing our debt and financial mess onto the poor and middle class. And worst thing is that the Fed is a private organization - we don't even elect them.
MidwestGuruJan 26, 2012
The point they were trying to make is that there is nothing fair about it. It is not argued that the poor can afford to pay taxes. Nor is it argued that the wealthy can't. The argument is over the use of the term 'fair' to describe and intentionally unbalanced tax. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
trivialanomalyJan 26, 2012
The term 'fair' as applied to tax is certainly a subjective expression, and shouldn't be used. After all, some may argue that no tax system is 'fair'. Why should I have to give any of my hard earned tax to the government - its not fair!
But a flat tax certainly isn't fair either. 25% to someone earning $20,000 a year has a massive impact, whereas 25% to someone earning $2M a year probably wouldn't affect their lifestyle at all.
Once you start earning such huge amounts, I think it is 'fair' that one should 'give back' a bit more.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
I have the ultimate solution. All who work, must be paid enough to both live, and pay taxes. I think they will hate that solution even worse, don't you?
Giving is sure out of style for some, isn't it? Bain was one of the group of companies that lobbied to get the 15% tax rate. It certainly paid to lobby.
treehugger87Jan 26, 2012
Now THAT is a good solution. I like it!
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Yes, it is. Will it happen, no. I am always amazed at how often "lazy" enters the discussion. Only a very few are lazy, the rest of the poor do work, they simply do not earn much money.
ieatskunkJan 26, 2012
But at least with a flat tax you could can negotiate for net salary instead of gross.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
You can do that without a flat tax, the IRS has charts, but you have to be smart to do it. I am guessing you want to show off here?
stevanoskiJan 25, 2012
Most Americans don't pay federal income tax so they are right in that context.
anomaly100Jan 25, 2012
Do you always pimp for the wealthy so the middle class can die out? That's so sweet!
stevanoskiJan 25, 2012
Love it when you call me sweetie.
cosmicsurferJan 25, 2012
He still thinks he has a chance to be a member of the 1% club so why not carry their Perrier?
stevanoskiJan 25, 2012
You carry Bam's shyte bucket quite well!
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Are you saying he has purchased a lottery ticket? WOW
stevan I am impressed.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
What are you in 9th grade? No wonder people point at you and laugh.
Ouzel7Jan 25, 2012
How are the wealthy killing the middle class? The wealthy are the ones that provide JOBS to the middle class.
antialiasJan 25, 2012
The income of top 10% has gone up by over 100% in the last 10 years, the income of the bottom 90% on average has gone up less than 10%. Shouldn't all that extra income be creating more jobs by your logic?
Ouzel7Jan 25, 2012
This seems fairly simple. As long as the stock market doesn't crash ... the wealthy are going to do better because THAT'S where their money is... investments.
In the meantime, the economic certainty has been wobbly even in the stock market.
And just to add a liberal remark ... perhaps that income has "saved" jobs...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaJan 26, 2012
Jobs are created by demand, and demand alone.
No one hires people they don't need.
The CEO of Zippo and a venture capitalist on Bloomberg today, were not hiring until demand goes up, no matter how much you reduced taxes.
YachtRokrJan 25, 2012
ouzel7,
Lay off the 'shrooms. You're hallucinating again!
Ouzel7Jan 26, 2012
Yacht ... even if you're "on a boat" quit talkin' s**t and debate on the merits.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
You should not be 'dugg down' on this comment. Please, debate the issues without the extra insults.
YachtRokrJan 28, 2012
Ouzel7,
I didn't make the baseless claim that the rich have created jobs recently, you did. So, where's your proof? I want to see the statistics which prove the Bush tax cuts and the rich have created a substantive number of jobs. If you can't produce credible statistics to back up your BS (which we both know you can't), you will simply confirm what the rest of us already know...that you're a pathological liar selling broken ideological beliefs.
It must be so hard to accuse others of "talkin' s**t" when you've got a mouthful of it.
MusicManGPJan 26, 2012
Corporations and small businesses provide jobs. Most small business owners aren't wealthy. Corporations aren't people. Furthermore, it's consumption that actually sustains jobs, and the wealthy don't consume proportionally to their wealth when compared to a middle class family/individual.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Well a mouthfull of truth sir. And on digg. THXs
NeosopheusJan 26, 2012
I am an entrepreneur. I have created jobs. I am not a millionaire. Therefore, your assertion that "The wealthy are the ones that provide JOBS to the middle class" is demonstrably false.
Ouzel7Jan 26, 2012
Oh please....
NeosopheusJan 26, 2012
That was one of the most intelligent rebuttals from you ever. It was so good I am going to repeat it:
"Oh please...."
Wow, that was powerful.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
I too have created jobs, does that mean I am wealthy and do not know it? I pay more taxes than Romney, for my income. My business does too. You can't open a door without paying 25%.
I do find it funny when they talk uber-rich, giant huge and jobs. People like us, it has been proven over and over again create jobs, real ones in our communities. We get no help and no tax breaks.
I do really wonder about that every time a huge company comes in, and for say 200 jobs, the get a boatload of tax breaks. (Amazon here in TN this last month.)
That same break.... given to small companies as low interest loans for expansion, would create that same 200 jobs and the community would have the loaned money back!
But we don't have a lobby. Good fortune, sir.
I am old and getting smaller. I will stay in business, but barely, too much work for an elderly person.
spatula7Jan 26, 2012
Exactly, it's about unfair breaks for certain individuals that don't necessarily deserve it and all of a sudden they get worshiped by certain conservatives as having worked that much harder than everyone else and you can to "if only"...it has always been about who you know and how much money you started with and, it always will be....sure there are individuals who have proven to be the exception not the rule, but I wouldn't bet the future on a few exceptions.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
You've touched on exactly the points I've been trying to make, though you state the case far better given your experience. Our focus is off. Quit giving massive incentives to 'too big to fail' businesses and give more support to the small to mid-sized companies. For one, these companies tend to be fantastic incubators of innovation (think Tesla Motors vs. GM). Second, they are going to be far more sensitive to the needs of the communities in which they are located.
slang4catJan 26, 2012
God, man. If you spent as much time being productive as you do posting idiotic bulls**t on digg, you'd BE the 1%.
kingnovaJan 26, 2012
The middle class are the ones who do the WORK that makes the 1 percent successful.
Without the people to do the work, any idea is worthless.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
That's not a very meaningful argument. Yes, wealthy people own businesses or work as Executives at businesses that provide jobs. Some 'not quite wealthy' people also provide jobs. This of course is correct. But, it's not exactly a benevolent endeavor. I'd argue that indeed the wealthy doing amazingly well in the last 30 years (a time when the country has actually been sliding back) has hurt the majority. Outsourcing, downsizing, short-term stock market focus, and more has helped the wealthy and hurt the majority. In the future, I hope not to see our country with a mass amount of 'have nots' and a select few 'haves' with little to no middle class. Will you then still say 'but the rich provide jobs'?
savetheseaJan 26, 2012
The Wealthy do not provide jobs based on their personal income and taxes. They may own companies or run companies that hire people, but the individuals do not.
Do you think if a CEO of a major corporation had to pay 1% more on his tax return, he is gong to order his company's HR department to stop hiring?
particleman420Jan 25, 2012
he thinks that they'll let him be one of them if he sells out to them
Ouzel7Jan 25, 2012
I'm not the droid you are looking for.
particleman420Jan 25, 2012
i thought you were one of Quirk's alt accounts, not one of stevatrolki's.... or are you all just quirk?
Ouzel7Jan 26, 2012
I think I told you once that you should lay off the MJ.
icwydJan 26, 2012
Ouzel7 is big nose quirk? Whowouldhavethunk?
anomaly100Jan 26, 2012
If it walks like a Quirk....
ageofmasteryJan 26, 2012
Stevanoski always seemed like quirk to me.... And notice he returned after she got banned?
Ouzel7Jan 26, 2012
When you can't debate...always fall back on saying people are other people or are sockpuppets. God forbid a new conservative shows up on Digg.
Aren't you the same people who name yourselves 4 of 6 or whatever because people have said you are sockpuppets?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Jan 27, 2012
"When you can't debate..."
who's debating anything? i was talking about the sycophant stevatrolski and you chimed in out of the blue, but saying nothing, and then start attacking me, while still saying nothing and adding nothing.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
to your if you can't debate comment:
Your contribution to real point in the debate is: "Oh please"
u2canfailJan 25, 2012
Are they able to pay in blood, because money is out?
concusionJan 25, 2012
LOL
YachtRokrJan 25, 2012
There's nothing "right" about this baseless accusation other than it emanates from right-wing nutjobs.
griberalJan 26, 2012
Not only that, but most get money back. Hell, if they'd just stop giving people back more money than they pay in I'd be somewhat ok with that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Then start fighting all the corporate loopholes.
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
It's actually difficult for an individual to get back more than he pays in if payroll tax is considered. Now, whether or not it should be considered is a separate, valid question.
Allowing families with children to get back more than they paid in is a matter of subsidizing reproduction so we can stave off the risk of an aging/shrinking population.
We're going to miss the unemployment problem when there are literally not enough young people to perform the labor necessary to provide for themselves AND their parents/grandparents/greatgrandparents.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Although I agree in principle, we have a larger issue in play, you ignore. DEMAND Without good paying jobs to give the population cash to spend, our economy fails. The only item all economists do agree on is: the US economy is consumer driven.
The wealthy 'do not and cannot' spend enough to keep the economy moving. Less than 10% of the population, simply cannot do it. And the group holding almost all wealth is that small or smaller today.
The largest problem for the USA is the shrinking middle class. Not population. Not even debt. And our tax system is helping in the destruction.
It is the fact that for many years now, wages have gone down, while wealth has accumulated greatly for a few. The entire system is imploding on itself, and it has been driven by greed, and benefits for those with wealth. If it continues, nothing will matter. The wealthy may be "insulated" for now. But eventually even globalization will not sustain their wealth.
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
Money is a veil. Just giving people money to spend doesn't help anything. We need to give people capital, human or otherwise, so they can produce things of value, so they can trade for the things they want/need.
We need a balance between supply and demand, both macroeconomically and microeconomically. We as a nation need to be able to supply the goods and services we demand in the amounts we demand, and we as individuals need to supply goods and services of equal value to those goods and services we demand.
I admit I am part of the problem here - I demand much less goods and services (in terms of value) than I supply. Or I'm overpaid for the goods and services I supply. Or both. If I increased my own demand, I could employ more people and that would improve the economy... a little.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Jan 26, 2012
"Most Americans don't pay federal income tax so they are right in that context."
You know how I know you're perpetually full of s**t?
In no universe does 47% = most.
barackalypseJan 26, 2012
I can't imagine anything less fair than an income tax where some people pay and other people actually end up getting more money than they put in.
rjoplingJan 26, 2012
then put out more jobs that pay more than min wage. our middle class is gone because factories dont pay decent wages anymore. get them to up it to $40,000/year to start and then the tax money will come rolling in.
ChuppacabraJan 26, 2012
And so will the cost of living.
rjoplingJan 26, 2012
its going up no matter what happens.
ieatskunkJan 26, 2012
Or work harder, get a better education and find a better job. Lazy f**ks.
rjoplingJan 27, 2012
those things dont really matter anymore. college just screws your credit and doesnt mean you will get any sort of good job. now its just who you know and how much you are worth.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hi808Jan 26, 2012
No. The middle class is gone because American workers have priced themselves out of the market. Companies who pay their employees $40,000/year to start cannot compete with companies using foreign workers. They will either go out of business or have to move off-shore.
rjoplingJan 27, 2012
with the cost of living going steadily up, how long do you expect $8-9/hr to continue to pay the bills. the middle class is gone because the jobs went down to min wage or just slightly over, pensions are gone, and import/export is cheaper than building it here. people used to be able to have one manufacturing job and that was enough to pay the bills, save some back, and have some left over for fun. now people have to have more than one job just to make it. is that all we are supposed to do, work 16 hrs a day and die off young? meanwhile the people making millions a minute are bitching because they dont want to pay all of their taxes. you want them to work for less then make that measly amount of pay mean something again and the only way to do that is to take large amounts out of the system. but right now we are too busy making more to pay the 1% for all their hard work.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hi808Jan 27, 2012
And the wages went down to minimum wage because American workers now have to compete with foreign workers. How long do you expect a company to stay in business if their competitors are paying their foreign workers 25% of what American workers are demanding? They pay their workers less so the price of their products is less. The cheaper their products, the more they sell. Conversely, the more expensive the products, the less they sell.
In your fantasy world, everyone would be making at least $50,000 per year. The problem is that in the real world, those companies would go out of business and the workers would be on the unemployment lines.
rjoplingJan 27, 2012
why would they go out business? the republicans said it themselves that the richest make all the jobs. anyway, yes we are competing with a foreign workers but comparing our average cost of living we need more. with all of these ludicrous paychecks to the super rich, it is decimating the dollar. i was happy making 9/hr when it meant i could live an easy life off of it but now with the cost of living going up drastically, because of greedy people screwing with other peoples lives, that hourly job NEEDS to pay more. it doesn't mean the work will be any harder or that i will need to work longer hours, it just means it needs to pay more. in the last ten years the take home pay for the average worker fell by more than 3 thousand dollars yet the top 1% has seen more than 1000% increase. rent has gone up so that living in the ghetto cost at least $400/month and the next better option is around $700-900. and that's not even going into the rising cost of utilities. just the cost of living alone has drug many people below the poverty level. the right preach about bringing America back, but what exactly do they mean? the only thing i can see is more hardships for the poor/unlucky and more breaks for those who helped get us into this mess. the government is supposed to work for the people. they are supposed to guard us from harm and make sure we are able to bring up BETTER Americans. but with the harm coming from the same people who pour billions into Washington to get laws passed that help them harm us, i just don't see why we should let someone be in charge that has already PROVEN that they can be bought out by these people. i know this is long but i just hope you consider putting yourself to the side for once and look at the people around you. they are hurting, and not just because of their own stupid mistakes but because the system they put so much faith and money into just fell apart.
rjoplingJan 27, 2012
another answer for your question, they should make export/import cost more, take away ALL the incentives for taking our jobs overseas, and make those that still insist on putting jobs over there while living here pay an even higher tax. what i am imposing is we force them to stop taking jobs away or tell them to get out. they like the USA too much to do it so we call their bluff. they wont leave and if they do someone else will fill in their shoes. that is the beauty of America's free market, if someone else sees a way to make money they will do it.
david4041Jan 27, 2012
rjopling: "they should make export/import cost more, take away ALL the incentives for taking our jobs overseas."
Okay, you not only want to make labor more expensive for a company, you also want to make the raw materials imported into the country to manufacture the products more expensive. Then once the product is completed, you want to make the product even more expensive to export to the rest of the world.
Sorry, but that is even more incentive for a company to move its manufacturing off-shore. You get cheaper labor overseas, cheaper raw materials and you avoid the American export fees. (You know, there might be American companies that want to sell their products overseas).
So, what is the result? Unemployment increases. Since the demand for American labor goes down, and the supply goes up (due to employment), the price of American labor (wages) goes down.
david4041Jan 27, 2012
"they should make export/import cost more, take away ALL the incentives for taking our jobs overseas."
So, you want the American consumer to subsidize the high manufacturing wages? So, we are talking inflation. Just how far are these higher wages going if the prices of everything increase.
And by making exports cost more, no one is overseas is going to be buying American products. So, we are going to be importing more than we export.
Sorry, but American workers now have to compete with foreign workers. When supply goes up, prices (including the price of labor) goes down. Things have changed, Americans have to deal with it.
rjoplingJan 28, 2012
so your reply for the people suffering through the down economy is for them to "deal with it"? over 70% of what we make is bought by us. we are our own best customer. what i was saying about raising the cost of import/export was meant for finished products, raw materials set their own price. are you ashamed to buy locally. that should be our first choice and as the consumer we can set the market to reflect this choice. so yes the price of coffee and mangoes will go up but your meat, dairy, vegetable, and breads will stay the same or even go down. with this happening companies will make a choice to either stay with their best customer or get out of the us. you might think this is a bad thing but thats where the so called "free market" kicks in and people start new smaller businesses to fill in the gaps.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Multinational corporations who make millions in income, do that often. Do complain, sir.
treehugger87Jan 26, 2012
You can't imagine a lot of things.
ieatskunkJan 26, 2012
The Republican point of view: If you fall on hard times then it is likely a result of your own bad planing and you need to earn your way up from the bottom.
The Democrat point of view: It you fall on hard times then it isn't your fault, it is the fault of corporations and rich people.
Do you see the difference?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
Unfortunately, when government gets big enough that the leaders(actual decision makers) don't/can't know all of their constituents, this is what you get: generalizations leading to miscategorizations (if that's even a word). We give too much help to people who don't really need it, and too little help to people who really do.
But the other extreme, in which people on the ground level can act with discretion, is a recipe for abuse.
I suppose there must be a best way, but we must recognize that the best possible way is not going to be perfect. We're always going to be able to complain about the system.
barackalypseJan 26, 2012
I prefer the libertarian point of view; whatever happens to you is your business.
rjoplingJan 27, 2012
and when it IS their fault, are we not supposed to complain? or is that just class warfare.
Ouzel7Jan 25, 2012
The article is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what is in the video. No, Fox didn't DEMAND that poor people pay more taxes. They illustrated that the rich pay a disproportionate share and then questioned whether or not everyone should have some skin in the game... because so many pay NO TAXES... Even just a buck ... so that they understand taxation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dusanmalJan 25, 2012
Not only do not understand taxation but have contrary interest - if you do not pay taxes and enjoy benefits, you want more benefits (costing you nothing) and are reluctant to contribute (pay anything for what you now receive freely).
The only fair system is fixed and single bracket taxes for all income levels and sources with no exemptions or rebates. Only in that system do secretary and the Buffet/Romney crowd pay the same percentage, always. Only in that system do secretary and Buffet/Romney crowd have the same proportion of burden for the benefits given. Only in that system everyone who has a vote contributes too.
Ouzel7Jan 25, 2012
I understand that these subs are in essence blogs... but still a whit of integrity would be good.
It's like they typed the title and counted on NO ONE to watch the video.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
To paraphrase you: 'the only fair system is one in which a secretary and the Buffet/Romney crowd pay the same percentage.'
But why stop there? They receive, more or less, the same services. Why not have the secretary pay the same dollar amount rather than the same percentage? Sure, she may not be able to afford to pay her fair per-capita share. The government can do what the banks do - give her an automatic loan. Then, if/when she has the money, she can pay back the government for the services she's received. When she dies, the government can seize from her estate whatever balance is left, and any balance that remains unpaid can be charged to her children.
Profit!
mactackle52Jan 26, 2012
Thanks for the unnecessary parade of horribles.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Ah, government for profit!
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
PS Per-capita federal spending is about $9650 per year. That's $9650 for you, $9650 for your spouse (if you have one), $9650 for each of your children.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+federal+spending+%2F+us+population
So add up all the money you pay to the federal government, subtract any money that you get back from the federal government, and ask yourself - am I paying my fair share? (Remember: You can claim your employer's contribution to SS and Medicare since that is money you'd otherwise be getting...)
(Incidentally, per-working-American-citizen federal spending is $28211 per year.)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+federal+spending+%2F+us+employment
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
By my estimation, an individual needs something in the neighborhood of $60k/yr of income to be paying his "fair share", and even more if he has non-working spouse and dependents. That's way over the per-capita aggregate wage of $18k/yr.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+aggregate+wage+%2F+us+population
ammattikiJan 25, 2012
Watch the video again. You right wingers only see what you want to see.
Ouzel7Jan 26, 2012
I watched it, thanks, which is probably more than the hordes of burying Digg liberals will do. The title is a lie.
1) It's not "Fox News" demanding ... it's a panel ON Fox discussing the issue.
2) They suggest that those who pay none should pay SOME one says, "Even a buck!"...because the wealthy pay tax plus TAX... and they suggest that the poorest pay SOMETHING. And even the poorest sometimes get tax BACK that they haven't paid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
I agree with several points you make. Yes, we have yet another misleading title. The exaggerated titles do get old. And yes, it's not specifically FOX demanding.
As for the Poor paying taxes, I really have no problem with people making minimum wage not paying Federal Taxes. They still pay taxes of course. And all monies are going towards 'life support' (the basics). For them, I don't buy the 'skin in the game' argument. Do keep in mind that the percentages being discussed (as referenced in the article) for people paying no or little taxes are a 'short term' anomaly. Those are not long-term rates.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
On the comment below on tax incentives only going to the huge already wealthy.
This actually is a place where I can see a change happening, because the "incentive cash" is there, all States have a fund. It does mean lobbying though. Getting those locally owned overworked smaller concerns to speak with a voice. Most have never thought of the idea, that taxpayer cash could help them grow. It would be a great movement. Start speaking, sir. We can't fund start ups, with public funds most do fail. But we could easily offer low interest capital to a growing local company. It has such huge benefits!
Venture Capital is expensive (BAIN), bank loans are almost impossible.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
The rich have a disproportionate share of all wealth too, does that count?
Ouzel7Jan 26, 2012
Start building your guillotines...
slang4catJan 26, 2012
So what?
Either work harder or suck it.
You want more wealth? Work for it.
monkeywithgunJan 26, 2012
"They illustrated that the rich pay a disproportionate share and then questioned whether or not everyone should have some skin in the game... because so many pay NO TAXES"
Stop with this stupid argument already.
The people who own most of the wealth in this country pay most of the taxes. . . Really, wow who would have thunk that the people who have the largest share of the wealth would pay the largest share of the taxes and that poor people and those barely scraping by would pay less to no taxes at all. Surprise, they're poor!
ChuppacabraJan 26, 2012
I'm OK with poor people paying little or no tax.
What irks me is the amount of tax I have to pay to supplement the lifestyle of these people.
If you can't afford to feed and put diapers on the 5 kids you already have, wtf are you doing making more babies?
If my tax dollars are putting food on your table, why is there even one beer in your refrigerator?
If my hard work and efforts are supplementing your rent, how can you possibly afford to pay for that Pay Per View MMA fight on Saturday?
Of course I'm not referring to you personally, MWG.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
I have a wealthy neighbor, who gave her maid, a significant cash bonus, one year. It was for years of good service. The maid was poor. The maid spent the bonus on a small boat and battery operated motor/charger. The neighbor was beside herself over the purchase, she had suggested an investment.
But the maid and her children, had never had the cash for an extra. She and her children loved going to the park to fish. It was the one small pleasurable activity they could afford. I know why she bought the boat, instead of investing the money.
Copulation is pleasure to most humans. It costs nothing to engage in. Rich or poor, it is possible to use copulation for pleasure. Babies are the result of copulation. Churches (many not all) tell people it is "sinful to use" any form of birth control. You have a number of issues to face, sir.
But it is an interesting part of the problem isn't it? Even the poor seek some pleasure in their lives.
savetheseaJan 26, 2012
great examle - it is very easy for some to judge from the top of their ivory towers.
I guess if you are poor, you are doomed to a life of constant gloom.
Wish more people would "walk-a-mile" or practice some empathy. It is easy to form a perception of poor people as told by the puppet masters vs. actually learning yourself.
hydianJan 26, 2012
But who are we to tell other people how to live? The reasoning that they receive government benefits is a weak one. Everybody benefits from government spending and/or tax breaks. Wealthy people benefit more than poor people. Should we be able to tell wealthy people what to spend their money on? How about companies that receive subsidies or tax breaks? Your tax money goes directly to BP. Should you be allowed to sit in on their board meetings and tell them what to do or check their office fridge to make sure they aren't buying beer?
Being poor does not make people less human or second class citizens. It doesn't give us the right to monitor their purchases or run their lives. Knowing that someone is currently struggling doesn't give us the insight to know how they were able to acquire a big screen TV at some point in time.
More importantly, the government has no business telling any of us how to run our private lives. The government is already too large as it is anyway. Why would anyone support government growth in such a manner? Even if you thought this specific issue made it worthwhile, it would just be expanded into other things and/or abused. Nothing good can come from such things.
savetheseaJan 26, 2012
"Being poor does not make people less human or second class citizens"
That is the strategy of the right, they even convince the poor that it is the "other poor" that are the problem.
monkeywithgunJan 26, 2012
"What irks me is the amount of tax I have to pay to supplement the lifestyle of these people.
If you can't afford to feed and put diapers on the 5 kids you already have, wtf are you doing making more babies?
If my tax dollars are putting food on your table, why is there even one beer in your refrigerator?
If my hard work and efforts are supplementing your rent, how can you possibly afford to pay for that Pay Per View MMA fight on Saturday?"
So you're more irked by those who in your view 'misuse' the help your taxes provide than you are happy for those who use that same help to better their lives and give their children a chance that they might never have had?
How is that any less short sighted than those who would condemn every rich person as being a greedy bastard?
stevanoskiJan 25, 2012
Oops, you forgot Shelia Jackson Lee already let the cat out of the bag during an interview with Neil Cavuto 4 weeks ago where she admitted the 1% thing was just a ruse to raise taxes on everyone.
http://www.therightscoop.com/sheila-jackson-lee-d-pride-of-texas-rambles-incoherently-on-payroll-tax-cut-extension/
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Pride of Texas) rambles incoherently on payroll tax cut extensionComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitJan 25, 2012
That there is huge income disparity is true. Just as it is true that this is class warfare. You 1%ers are doing this on purpose because you are sociopaths.
Look at your leaders.
A serial killer. (Corporations are people, my friend."
A serial liar. (Don't do as I do, do as I say."
A fundie. (Rape is a blessing.)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
stevanoskiJan 25, 2012
Sounds just like the Dem.s here on digg, good point.
concusionJan 25, 2012
LOL
ieatskunkJan 26, 2012
The problem is flat tax doesn't equal flat burden. A new metric would have to be established that could fairly assign the value of a tax dollar based on the person that earns it (not realistic value, but value to the owner). Perhaps a function of net worth. (For example, if you are worth 1M and Joe is worth 100K then we could say a tax dollar is worth 10x as much to Joe so Joe paying 10K in tax is like you paying 100K in tax)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
MidwestGuruJan 26, 2012
I refuse to 'give back' to the government until they start giving me something that I or my family didn't have to pay for in taxes in the first place. Make no mistake they aren't asking anyone to 'give back', they're demanding and taking the money. If the wealthy want to give back, they give to charity. Bill Gates is the biggest philanthropist in the world, but not because the government is forcing him.
My income is about the national average. This means I pay a larger percentage of what I can't afford in taxes than most. As I see it the only fair thing is to have some sort of consumption tax instead of an income tax. This is the way it was done before and it's the way it should be done now. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailJan 26, 2012
Live on a small island then, because you couldn't pay for what you have around you today, by yourself. That road in front of your home, would break you, if you had pay for each time you or your family, dare to use it.
So, go on, leave, Somolia would love you.
amaoicanJan 26, 2012
"Bill Gates is the biggest philanthropist in the world, but not because the government is forcing him. "
Our society adores Bill Gates because he gives away his wealth, and they shun Steve Jobs because he does not. Is there really a difference between taking the money with the power of the pen, the power of the gun, or the power of the shun? If you feel like you have to do something, or be punished for not doing it, it's all the same to me.
treehugger87Jan 26, 2012
If you think your tax rate is too high, you should work to make sure the idle rich pay their share. Mitt Romney most likely paid a lower tax rate than you did on 40 times the income you earned.
salbatrossJan 26, 2012
"until they start giving me something that I or my family didn't have to pay for in taxes in the first place"
...what?!