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.
The tax code favors low income and very high income earners and the very wealthy.
Those with the 400 reported highest annual AGI ( more than $100 million) paid and average of an 18% tax rate. More than half paid a rate of 10-20%. 37/400 paid less than 10%.
The working poor with children tend not to pay federal tax.
Everyone should have some skin in the game.
So, what you're saying is the people who paid $10 million in taxes don't have skin in the game and aren't paying their fair share? ROLFMAO!!!
I live that liberal think, a person paying $10 million in taxes is paying less than someone paying $5,000 in taxes. Liberal math.
I see it this way: the lower income classes are already paying their share via the inadequate income most of them (i.e. those who work, whatever it is) get for their work.
They've created their own inadequate income problem via over-reproducing and voting for Obama, who via his EO will give millions of illegal aliens work permits to directly compete with them. That forces downward pressure on no/low-skill workers' wages, which keeps their wages low, and even further lowers them. And they did it all to themselves. I've explained it, here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
...the no/low-income no/low-skill labor class in the U.S. is over-reproducing, forcing downward pressure on wages.
How is that sustainable going forward? What's the plan for paying to support all those additional people, 70% of which are likely to need some or several forms of public assistance for life?
Let's take a look at the enormity of the problem using a numerical example...
Because we now have nearly 50% Medicaid births, we'll do a 1 to 1 comparison: 1 million receiving public assistance, 1 million not receiving such, the latest published birth rate numbers for each group (halved because the rates were reported for women only), and the formula for predicting future population: future value = present value x (e)^kt, where e equals the constant 2.71828, k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, rate taken from the U.S. Census data), and t is the number of years.
After 20 years, the population of those not receiving public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 1.75 million.
After 20 years, the population of those very likely needing public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 4.953 million, 3.467 million of which will never rise above poverty.
1.75 million paying taxes to support social programs for 3.467million after just 20 years. The poverty class is growing at twice the rate of everyone else.
And that's not even counting the millions of poor illegal immigrants to which Obama's EO will give work permits.
All of that keeps wages down for all but the most accomplished, who are therefore relatively rare. Supply and demand. Very basic concept.
Why should anyone feel sorry for people who deliberately choose to play a role in ensuring their own hardships?
So what? Maybe you would get a clue to how wasteful and greedy government is if it hit you in the pocket. I have as much sympathy as you do for those you want to carry your share of the load.
That money is taken out before you even get it. A little at a time, so you don't notice how much it adds up.
Why demand others pay more, why not demand government spend less.
And you thought paying taxes is cool. No sympathy, you just love big government, you bought into the liberal rhetoric, you get what you deserve.
Playing the violin. You think big government is good. Pay your fair share. Charging one 10% and another 35% and demanding more, is liberal version of fair?
Sweetheart you don't know me, so let me make it clear. You don't know my situation at all. You don't know how much I make. You don't know my occupation. You don't know my political stances. Don't tell me what my views are about government spending, what "rhetoric" you believe I bought, and certainly don't tell me how much or how little I pay in taxes--you don't know me. Quite frankly I've read enough of your paranoid rantings and obsessions with Obama embedded in the majority of your posts in this forum that I don't take and won't take you and the ilk that cosigns you seriously.
Aren't you a business owner? How about worrying about running your business and stop making misguided ASSumptions about mine.
So, what you're saying is the people who paid $10 million in taxes don't have skin in the game and aren't paying their fair share? ROLFMAO!!!
I love that liberal think, a person paying $10 million in taxes is paying less than someone paying $5,000 in taxes. Liberal math.
Now you know why U.S. students lag so far behind other countries' students in math. The liberal teachers unions and those they represent are mathematically illiterate. /SMH
Everyone under $200,000 a year would see an increase in taxes and everyone above this would receive massive tax cuts. This would only widen the gap (according to this chart) on income inequality.
By paying a flat tax rate, you are guaranteeing that people who make more money pay more money.
If you have a person making $10,000,000 a year and a person making $10,000 a year and tax them both at 18%, the rich person pays $1,800,000 in taxes while the poor person pays $1,800 a year.
Simple math shows that the rich person is paying $1,782,000 more in taxes. See how that works. Rich people pay more taxes than poor people with a flat tax.
If you feel that $1,800 is too much for a person making $10,000, we simply reduce the tax rate so that it is where you feel it should be. If he should be paying $500 in taxes, let's reduce the tax rate to 5%. He'd be paying $500 while the rich person still pays $500,000. You see, the rich person would still pay $499,500 more than the poor person.
By paying a flat tax rate, you are guaranteeing that people who make more money pay more money.
If you have a person making $10,000,000 a year and a person making $10,000 a year and tax them both at 18%, the rich person pays $1,800,000 in taxes while the poor person pays $1,800 a year.
Simple math shows that the rich person is paying $1,782,000 more in taxes. See how that works. Rich people pay more taxes than poor people with a flat tax.
If you feel that $1,800 is too much for a person making $10,000, we simply reduce the tax rate so that it is where you feel it should be. If he should be paying $500 in taxes, let's reduce the tax rate to 5%. He'd be paying $500 while the rich person still pays $500,000. You see, the rich person would still pay $499,500 more than the poor person.
Math.
Exactly. Excellent explanation.
Perhaps the liberals will now explain why they don't understand basic math.
And that same expectation applies to the point I made about certain segments of our population over-reproducing and voting for politicians who grant illegal aliens work permits who will then compete with them for jobs therefore putting downward pressure on wages, thus guaranteeing themselves additional hardship.
I disagree with your pseudo-explanation. They are confusing cause and effect, and neglect how the human mind works.
Of course poor people have more kids, that happens always when there is no adequate social security system. Just like in developing countries where parents know they will not be able to finance themselves once they get old. So what they do is have more children hoping some of them will make it big and care for them when they are old.
That is why I am in favor of a minimum pension for everyone so that nobody has to worry about getting old.
In the US in particular the poverty problem has existed for centuries, but nobody cared about it during the times of slavery (after all, many of those current problems affect mostly black people). And even later nobody cared about it as long as whites had their privileged social standing.
I bet as soon as EVERY full-time job enabled people to lead a decent life, most of the problems (poverty, education, racism, etc.) would go away within a generation. But many Americans prefer the social-Darwinist system because they are greedy and hope they will be among the winners of that societal war. But they complain when it leads to a lot of problems that ultimately affect their own lives as well.
I disagree with your pseudo-explanation. They are confusing cause and effect, and neglect how the human mind works.
Of course poor people have more kids, that happens always when there is no adequate social security system. Just like in developing countries where parents know they will not be able to finance themselves once they get old. So what they do is have more children hoping some of them will make it big and care for them when they are old.
That is why I am in favor of a minimum pension for everyone so that nobody has to worry about getting old.
In the US in particular the poverty problem has existed for centuries, but nobody cared about it during the times of slavery (after all, many of those current problems affect mostly black people). And even later nobody cared about it as long as whites had their privileged social standing.
I bet as soon as EVERY full-time job enabled people to lead a decent life, most of the problems (poverty, education, racism, etc.) would go away within a generation. But many Americans prefer the social-Darwinist system because they are greedy and hope they will be among the winners of that societal war. But they complain when it leads to a lot of problems that ultimately affect their own lives as well.
None of which changes the fact that the no/low-income have created their own inadequate income problem via over-reproducing and voting for Obama, who via his EO will give millions of illegal aliens work permits to directly compete with them. That forces downward pressure on no/low-skill workers' wages, which keeps their wages low, and even further lowers them. And they did it all to themselves.
None of which changes the fact that the no/low-income have created their own inadequate income problem via over-reproducing and voting for Obama,
LOLOLOLOLZ. So this wasn't happening before Obama? Throughout most of America's history, this country has been rather poor or had a very large segment of the population that is poor and the poor have always had a high birth rate. You're understanding of cause and effect is almost nonexistent.
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.
