Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-10-2012, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,509,263 times
Reputation: 27720

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
Why are you pretending the income tax is the only tax that exists?

Sales tax
Property tax
Gas tax
Auto excise taxes
Sin taxes
Licenses
Every single one of them a regressive tax
Cities and states collect their own taxes. You think every dollar goes to the Fed ?
Each group taxes but doesn't share with the other. So paying your property taxes does nothing to the Fed's coffers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2012, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,861,032 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthlyfather View Post
Jack...you have a comprehension problem...Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden...this is certainly outsized. We understand the economy's pitiful performance is making the progressives nervous that their man might not be reelected. We understand the stress that would make you call someone a liar. It can't be helped if the pressure of the evaporating dream of total redistribution is causing you to be anxious. But, do try to act like a man, and not an immature boy.
Errr, If you earn more money, your tax rate is higher. The wealthy would pay a larger tax rate on a larger amount of income. So, the idea that those that earn 50% of all income, would pay 70% of taxes is in keeping with what a progressive tax system does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 02:56 PM
 
4,911 posts, read 3,431,347 times
Reputation: 1257
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad View Post
You are welcome to your opinion, however, please define "rich".
It does not need to be defined

Do you really think there's some magic number? That once you reach that number you're rich? Rich is a relative term and that's how it's being used here.

If I say that Peyton Manning is big are you going to demand that I define big?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 02:58 PM
 
667 posts, read 516,420 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
I'm afraid you are the one with a comprehension problem. Apparently you don't know the difference between an opinion and a fact.

What was in the CBO report was facts.

The claim that the rich pay an "outsized" share is opinion.

The claim that such a conclusion was part of the CBO report is a lie.
Jack, I understand what you are saying and I agree that I do not see where the CBO used the word "outsized".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,509,263 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Errr, If you earn more money, your tax rate is higher. The wealthy would pay a larger tax rate on a larger amount of income. So, the idea that those that earn 50% of all income, would pay 70% of taxes is in keeping with what a progressive tax system does.
Yeah but this "tax the rich" mantra isn't happy with the current scheme. You want them to pay 90% perhaps ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,509,263 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
It does not need to be defined

Do you really think there's some magic number? That once you reach that number you're rich? Rich is a relative term and that's how it's being used here.

If I say that Peyton Manning is big are you going to demand that I define big?
Obama says it's $250K per year. That is the magic number to be rich.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 03:00 PM
 
667 posts, read 516,420 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
It does not need to be defined

Do you really think there's some magic number? That once you reach that number you're rich? Rich is a relative term and that's how it's being used here.

If I say that Peyton Manning is big are you going to demand that I define big?
Please, do not interpret my comments as demanding anything from you. If you are unwilling or unable to answer please do not feel it neccessary to do so.

I think you are trying to make a point that the "rich" are not paying more in taxes than the "poor" but you are unable to define either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,861,032 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Yeah but this "tax the rich" mantra isn't happy with the current scheme. You want them to pay 90% perhaps ?
I think the tax rates should go up, maybe even higher than when Clinton was Prez. But mostly, I think the 47% who pay no income tax, should be allowed to earn enough to have a tax bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,509,263 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
I think the tax rates should go up, maybe even higher than when Clinton was Prez. But mostly, I think the 47% who pay no income tax, should be allowed to earn enough to have a tax bill.
The only ones stopping them from "being allowed" to earn more is themselves.
A HS dropout working at wallymart is not going to make it far in life. And they have no one but themselves to blame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2012, 03:06 PM
 
667 posts, read 516,420 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
I think the tax rates should go up, maybe even higher than when Clinton was Prez. But mostly, I think the 47% who pay no income tax, should be allowed to earn enough to have a tax bill.

How much should that amount be?

In what ways are people not allowed to earn that amount today?

Who or what is not allowing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top