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 taxes that poor people pay come out of their rent and grocery money. It would come out of their health care budgets too, but those have already been zeroed out. The taxes that the middle class pays come out of the cars they drive, the appliances they use, the clothes they buy for their kids, and their ability to save for college and retirement. The taxes that rich people pay don't come out of anywhere. The rich have everything they need and everything they want, and they still have piles of money lying around. The average Top 1% income earner currently has more after-tax income than 21 average middle class workers. They could probably get by with only more than 18 or 19 average middle class workers...
Federal tax doesn't begin until 8k for a single person. If you feel extending that limit would help, then so be it. How about instead of pouring more money into government, how about focusing on reducing how much it costs to deliver services. Do we really need 10% of our workforce in government? I don't think so....cut down on labor costs and maybe we'd have more money left over for food stamps, section 8, public transit, cops, the military, etc....
And BTW, I don't believe in telling anyone what someone can "get by" with. I bet if I looked at what you made, compared to what I'm able to live on, I could find ish loads of money to deem "too much" for you too....
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,454,406 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizzles
How about instead of pouring more money into government, how about focusing on reducing how much it costs to deliver services. Do we really need 10% of our workforce in government? I don't think so....cut down on labor costs and maybe we'd have more money left over for food stamps, section 8, public transit, cops, the military, etc....
If you're really that concerned with government "efficiency", how about we start with just letting them do their job, instead of continually being censored or replaced whenever they're being not good "team players" on behalf of the GOP.
Some examples that quickly come to mind include seasoned FEMA managers being replaced by inexperienced but compliant hacks ("Great job, Brownie!"), political interference in Government scientific reports (EPA, NOAA, H&HS, etc.), and the "Attorney-gate" scandal in which State Attorneys were replaced who were deemed not sufficiently "vigorous" in pursuing bogus charges of "voter fraud" against close Democratic wins.
How about the fact that the liberal democrats lead by edward keenedy tried to stop physcription drugs after rpomising it for years. How about refusing to have any versite on Fannioe Mae and Nac until government took them over.How about the demcrats in congress promising less pork in the budget only to have more in this budget than ever before. Walk the walk and forget the talk. Cut the budget and quite borrowing against our childrens future because so many want free stuff.Get back to what federal governamnt is responsiable for and quit bribing the people for their votes.Outlaw all pork in any bill.
Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, in "The Wealth of Nations", says:
The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
It means that a flat tax should do it. For example, lets say that Joe makes $100% per year, and the flat tax is 10%. In that case, Joe pays $10.00 in Federal taxes. Then Joe's friend makes $400.00 per year. In this case, Joe's friend pays $40.00.
Some examples that quickly come to mind include seasoned FEMA managers being replaced by inexperienced but compliant hacks ("Great job, Brownie!"), political interference in Government scientific reports (EPA, NOAA, H&HS, etc.), and the "Attorney-gate" scandal in which State Attorneys were replaced who were deemed not sufficiently "vigorous" in pursuing bogus charges of "voter fraud" against close Democratic wins.
Let's not forget the 30% or so of senior intelligence analysts purged from the CIA under hatchetman Porter Goss. In their place, we got the likes of Dusty Foggo, Goss's hand-picked #3 man, now beginning an eight-year stretch in the pen after plea bargaining fraud, bribery, and money-laundering charges. There's some more GOP efficiency for you...
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,454,406 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Let's not forget the 30% or so of senior intelligence analysts purged from the CIA under hatchetman Porter Goss. In their place, we got the likes of Dusty Foggo, Goss's hand-picked #3 man, now beginning an eight-year stretch in the pen after plea bargaining fraud, bribery, and money-laundering charges. There's some more GOP efficiency for you...
You bet. And let's not forget a hamstrung SEC so that markets could be "free"!
It means that a flat tax should do it. For example, lets say that Joe makes $100% per year, and the flat tax is 10%. In that case, Joe pays $10.00 in Federal taxes. Then Joe's friend makes $400.00 per year. In this case, Joe's friend pays $40.00.
Actually, Smith says,"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
The issue isn't taxation, but spending. If we started to elect politicians who didn't sell their votes for earmarks, then they could represent us in a more practical way. (Like fighting the socialists and fascists.) However, we get so caught up in gimmicks, they always win.
Rich Americans take ALL of their income out of the aggregate national wealth. But they pay no taxes at all
My dentist needs $200,000 a year to live on. He sees 2,000 patients, so he needs to charge them an average of $100 per visit. Howver, he is in a high income tax bracket, so he needs to gross $300,000 to maintain his $200K life style. So he charges each patient $150. From which he keeps $100 and pays $50 in income tax. I just paid his income tax. And mine, which I was not allowed to deduct from my dental bill.
(This is ultra-simplified for illustration purposes only. Disregard the fact that I also paid for his office, which needs to be in a lavish palace in a high-rent professinal park, and other factors.)
In short ALL the taxes are paid, directly or indirectly, by people who are powerless to pass their tax bite along to somebody else. If people earning only wages and salary were exempt from paying any taxes whatsoever, it would still be the people earning wages and salaries who would ultimately pay every cent of the national tax levy.
This scenario only works if this dentist can, in fact, find patients who are willing to pay him $150. If he has a lower-priced competitor, he would either have to lower his fee (and lower his personal cost of living), or go out of business.
But otherwise, I like the idea behind what you posted. It is a basic truth that the tax structure imposed on a market changes the basic "economics" (in this case, cost structure) of that market. If the underlying facts of that market cannot support a price structure that permits "normal" payment of the tax, that market will either fall apart or go "underground" such that taxes cannot be effectively collected.
The issue isn't taxation, but spending. If we started to elect politicians who didn't sell their votes for earmarks, then they could represent us in a more practical way.
Earmarks are an entirely appropriate legislative device. Like guns, they can be misused. It's amazing to me how right-wingers can simply walk away from say 30,000 deaths and 200,000 injuries that guns contribute to each year, yet go completely berserk if somebody gets a research project that was going to be done somewhere in any case done at a completely competent university that happens to be in his or her home-district. Oh, the horror...someone out there is actually working for the interests of his or her home-district...what next!!!
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.
