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.
Don't you think the code favors low and high income earners?
High income earners do not qualify for the earned income tax credit.
High income earners do not qualify for child tax credits.
A family of 4 exempts $15,200 of income from taxation which, when combined with the earned income tax credit and child tax credit means most low income earners do not pay federal taxes. They will however, pay FICA and state income tax.
The tax code already favors low income earners. See how much Obama lies.
Progressive taxes attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay.
America has had a progressive income tax for over 100 years.
I think the main argument for a redistributive taxes is so that we don't allow a core of very, very wealthy people to horde money and destroy our republic by using that money to buy the government.
Dang right tax then evil rich people above 250000 a year at 100% they did nothing to deserve it. the resit of us need the food stamps they can get by taxing 100% of their income, If were going to raise taxes on them we shoudl go all out
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
NO, your's is an argument for entitlement and laziness.
You get tips when you work service jobs.
Minimum Wage jobs are for the lowest of the skilled. It give one
purpose. It gives them income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
Whast it doesn't give them is a living wage.
cue bald, argument is also an argument of entitlement and laziness.
If you don't have skills that anyone can do what makes it worth paying more money. If minimum wage is increased then prices will be increased so it will be a wash.
Then go to school and make yourself more marketable and able to demand a higher wage. Educational assistance has been available for low income people long before your "great one" was even thought of. If you refuse to increase your skill set marketability it is your decision and the result is you earn what your skill set is worth.
Some will call you indecent or greedy for not wanting to give your employees benefits.
You are giving them a job and a paycheck. I am happy for them and you.
I am assuming that you understand how taxing people that are job creators more will ultimately give this country more unemployment.
It needs to be advantageous to hire people. Those with money will find a way to keep it. They are not willing to lose money. There needs to win win situations.
Our economy and what people are calling for is win lose.
You mean the jobs that they are creating in China, Mexico, and the Northern Mariana Islands?
Anyway, we're talking here about personal income tax, not business taxes. That's a whole other animal.
Have you heard that old truism, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? Do you not think that if people in high finance and industry, etc. experience increased costs, they will just pass it on the consumers of there product as a price increase? Thus, it is the little guy, the alleged 99 percent person who will get hurt in the end. Now will one of you brilliant liberals tell me where I am making a mistake in my thinking?
The title of your thread implies wealthy individuals. The CEO of Mc Kesson was paid $130 million last year. If he was required to pay a higher effective tax rate is he going to fire his accountant and use Turbo tax? Is he going to start mowing his own lawn and cleaning his own toilets?
Dang right tax then evil rich people above 250000 a year at 100% they did nothing to deserve it. the resit of us need the food stamps they can get by taxing 100% of their income, If were going to raise taxes on them we shoudl go all out
Teddy Roosevelt a Republican introduced the idea progressive income tax and an inheritance tax. Here is his reasoning
When our tax laws are revised the question of an income tax and an inheritance tax should receive the careful attention of our legislators. In my judgment both of these taxes should be part of our system of Federal taxation. I speak diffidently about the income tax because one scheme for an income tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; while in addition it is a difficult tax to administer in its practical working, and great care would have to be exercised to see that it was not evaded by the very men whom it was most desirable to have taxed, for if so evaded it would, of course, be worse than no tax at all; as the least desirable of all taxes is the tax which bears heavily upon the honest as compared with the dishonest man. Nevertheless, a graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of Federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the Supreme Court will declare constitutional.
The inheritance tax was even more desirable, Roosevelt continued. Not only did it serve the cause of social justice, but it also enjoyed the Supreme Court's constitutional impramatur:
The inheritance tax, however, is both a far better method of taxation, and far more important for the purpose of having the fortunes of the country bear in proportion to their increase in size a corresponding increase and burden of taxation. The Government has the absolute right to decide as to the terms upon which a man shall receive a bequest or devise from another, and this point in the devolution of property is especially appropriate for the imposition of a tax. Laws imposing such taxes have repeatedly been placed upon the National statute books and as repeatedly declared constitutional by the courts; and these laws contained the progressive principle, that is, after a certain amount is reached the bequest or gift, in life or death, is increasingly burdened and the rate of taxation is increased in proportion to the remoteness of blood of the man receiving the bequest.
A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood. We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves. But proposals for legislation such as this herein advocated are directly opposed to this class of socialistic theories. Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to hisfellows.
Teddy Roosevelt a Republican introduced the idea progressive income tax and an inheritance tax. Here is his reasoning
When our tax laws are revised the question of an income tax and an inheritance tax should receive the careful attention of our legislators. In my judgment both of these taxes should be part of our system of Federal taxation. I speak diffidently about the income tax because one scheme for an income tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; while in addition it is a difficult tax to administer in its practical working, and great care would have to be exercised to see that it was not evaded by the very men whom it was most desirable to have taxed, for if so evaded it would, of course, be worse than no tax at all; as the least desirable of all taxes is the tax which bears heavily upon the honest as compared with the dishonest man. Nevertheless, a graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of Federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the Supreme Court will declare constitutional.
The inheritance tax was even more desirable, Roosevelt continued. Not only did it serve the cause of social justice, but it also enjoyed the Supreme Court's constitutional impramatur:
The inheritance tax, however, is both a far better method of taxation, and far more important for the purpose of having the fortunes of the country bear in proportion to their increase in size a corresponding increase and burden of taxation. The Government has the absolute right to decide as to the terms upon which a man shall receive a bequest or devise from another, and this point in the devolution of property is especially appropriate for the imposition of a tax. Laws imposing such taxes have repeatedly been placed upon the National statute books and as repeatedly declared constitutional by the courts; and these laws contained the progressive principle, that is, after a certain amount is reached the bequest or gift, in life or death, is increasingly burdened and the rate of taxation is increased in proportion to the remoteness of blood of the man receiving the bequest.
A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood. We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves. But proposals for legislation such as this herein advocated are directly opposed to this class of socialistic theories. Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to hisfellows.
Tax then at 100 Percent when they are alive then 150 percent on them when they are dead . after all if we tax them at 100% when alive and still have money we can get it when they are dead . We cna teach then evil rich a lesson when they are alive then nail them when they are dead. good stuff
Tax then at 100 Percent when they are alive then 150 percent on them when they are dead . after all if we tax them at 100% when alive and still have money we can get it when they are dead . We cna teach then evil rich a lesson when they are alive then nail them when they are dead. good stuff
Oh you aren't serious.
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.
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.
