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.
What's fair about government protecting the wealth and resources of a billionaire on the cheap?
What's fair about wealth being transferred from father to son while the poor kid gets nothing?
What's fair about money being taken from those who work and given to those who do not work?
Working Americans are the only people who get screwed.
The wealthy and the recipient class alliance that supports the Democrat Party exists to take money from working Americans and distribute it to the wealthy and those who refuse to work.
I don't disagree with your assessment on demoncrats. But you utterly ignored everything logical purely by emotion. I assume you are better than that so I'll post this for you to read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
I look at that flat America tax as a great vehicle to kill many birds with one stone.
1.No incentive to breed what you can't feed.
Mom pays half dad pays half. Don't pay... to the gulag with thee.
That ends kids having kids and dummies unfit to be parents from reproducing.
2. Quite the incentive to remain gainfully employed, mom and dad aren't legally responsible for your taxes once you are 18.
3. No incentives to have wasteful spending... the citizens would have the power via having the money. If we all did a senior skip day in highschool we screwed the school because it's size was small, they didn't receive federal funding. That's how I organized my fellow classmates to rebel against the school. We skipped 2 days straight, a conglomerate of 9-12th graders. My graduating class was of 200? At most... collectively refuse to pay they just like in highschool couldn't lock us all up.
The following year was when they introduced NY state troopers as SROs and used the state police as truancy officers because the sheriff's and local PDs couldn't be bothered to come find us. Lol we went up to Albany and down to poughkeepsie. School got screwed over BIG time. Take an average of 40 kids 10-12 per grade that had vehicles... pack em up, pool 5 bucks per kid, that's 20 per car. That paid for gas... kids that worked contributed more. We'd go to the movies.
There's more I could think of this, but we would have greater say in what our taxes go to...
The wealthy and the recipient class alliance that supports the Democrat Party exists to take money from working Americans and distribute it to the wealthy and those who refuse to work.
While Donald Trump wants tax cuts that will raise low income workers after-tax income by 0.8%, and raise the richest 1% of Americans after-tax income by 13.5% (and increase the richest 0.1% of Americans after-tax income by 14.2%.) https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno.../#687dadcd65b9
And GW Bush's tax cuts did the same thing giving the 20% of American making less than $20,000 1% of his tax cuts, and then giving the richest 1% of Americans 51% of his tax cuts. Bush Tax Cuts After 2002: June 2002 CTJ Analysis
Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich and give the poor money, and republicans want to give the rich huge tax cuts.
A standard 10% income tax and a consumption tax. Both rates could be adjusted as necessary.
I like the idea of no more TurboTax. Anyone can figure out 10%. Also, a minimal IRS.
The consumption tax cuts down on waste and is blind to whomever is spending.
A consumption tax? So a tax on the poor? No thank you.
NOT.
Have you even taken a minute to think of what a consumption tax is? The wealthy consume A LOT more than the poor. Therefore thy would they would be taxed A LOT more.
The advantage of a consumption tax over an income tax is that a consumption tax encourages frugality and savings. The saving of money encourages investment and lending. That's better for the economy and the environment. An income tax is basically a way of redistributing income. Those who produce more are forced to in effect transfer much their earnings to those who produce little or produce nothing. It's a tool which has the effect of discouraging hard work and encouraging, in some cases, healthy people to not work at all because they can collect from the government as much as they could by getting a job.
Last edited by spectator11040; 06-20-2017 at 03:33 PM..
NOT.
Have you even taken a minute to think of what a consumption tax is? The wealthy consume A LOT more than the poor. Therefore thy would they would be taxed A LOT more.
The advantage of a consumption tax over an income tax is that a consumption tax encourages frugality and savings. The saving of money encourages investment and lending. That's better for the economy and the environment.
An income tax is basically a way of redistributing income. Those who produce more are forced to in effect transfer much their earnings to those who produce little or produce nothing. It's a tool which has the effect of discouraging hard work and encouraging, in some cases, healthy people to not work at all because they can collect from the government as much as they could by getting a job.
So... the wealthy don't contribute to the economy by consuming?
Wrong.
They pay someone to build their mansion.
They pay someone to drive a big rig to deliver that Ferrari Lamborghini etc to their dealership.
I could go on...
That's an easy one. I'll take that! I would put stuff in my businesses name, I wouldn't own a damn thing on paper. It's all a business asset I like that
While Donald Trump wants tax cuts that will raise low income workers after-tax income by 0.8%, and raise the richest 1% of Americans after-tax income by 13.5% (and increase the richest 0.1% of Americans after-tax income by 14.2%.) https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno.../#687dadcd65b9
And GW Bush's tax cuts did the same thing giving the 20% of American making less than $20,000 1% of his tax cuts, and then giving the richest 1% of Americans 51% of his tax cuts. Bush Tax Cuts After 2002: June 2002 CTJ Analysis
Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich and give the poor money, and republicans want to give the rich huge tax cuts.
Talk is cheap.
1964, top rate cut from 91% to 77%.......Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
1965, top rate cut from 77% to 70%.......Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
1982, top rate cut from 70% to 50%.......Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
1987, top rate cut from 50% to 38.5%.....Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
1988, top rate cut from 38.5% to 33%.....Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
1991, top rate cut from 33% to 31%........Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
Nope. Wrong. Your blinded by emotion. Think about what I just posted and be serious. And logical. Put your emotion on hold for 5 minutes. And THINK LOGICALLY
Most cuts to the top income tax rate happened while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
" What is the fair share? How much income tax should a person pay? "
Income tax? I think everyone should pay 15%.
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.
I like that
