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.
No, not everyone else. People in this country who earn under the level of poverty pay no income tax. I agree that the rich should have to pay their fair share, but you are playing both sides of the argument. Nobody has said that the rich shouldn't have to pay, but the top 50% of the people carrying 96% of the burden is unfair.
Firstly, the "poor" utilize many g'ment programs. No reason in my opinion why they shouldn't also pay, even if it's merely a token amount to help offset the costs of those programs. However, a cut off point, perhaps at the poverty level, would be a valid comprimise.
Secondly, almost each and every person to the right of my Centrist fence hints that the "rich" should either not pay at all, or pay less than their fair share. There ARE expections, of course, on a person to person basis. But many Republicans support the flawed trickle down theory, even after witnessing and/or experiences the results first hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu
Nobody is arguing raw numbers here as obviously when taxes are percentage based those who earn more will pay more. The issue is the percentages changing as they go up the income bracket ladder. Obviously in your argument regressive tax policies put a burden on the consumers, who in large part are the lower income bracket folks. On the other hand, heavily progressive tax policies like ours, make those in positions to hire the working class say "screw it" and move taking their money and company with them.
Find the middle, you find the answer.
I believe I have found the middle, and the answer. A flat tax rate would provide everyone with a fair "piece of the tax burden pie", and spread that burden out over most of the population, leaving everyone with more disposable income to invest and/or spend. Supposedly, as well, such a flat tax rate would also allow for the elimination of the corperate taxes by providing more than enough tax revenue to allow this.
However, I make no claims of expertise in economics, perhaps an "informal student" at best. What I state comes from personal observation and some research into different economic theories, as well as an ingrained sence of fairness.
Firstly, the "poor" utilize many g'ment programs. No reason in my opinion why they shouldn't also pay, even if it's merely a token amount to help offset the costs of those programs. However, a cut off point, perhaps at the poverty level, would be a valid comprimise.
Secondly, almost each and every person to the right of my Centrist fence hints that the "rich" should either not pay at all, or pay less than their fair share. There ARE expections, of course, on a person to person basis. But many Republicans support the flawed trickle down theory, even after witnessing and/or experiences the results first hand.
I believe I have found the middle, and the answer. A flat tax rate would provide everyone with a fair "piece of the tax burden pie", and spread that burden out over most of the population, leaving everyone with more disposable income to invest and/or spend. Supposedly, as well, such a flat tax rate would also allow for the elimination of the corperate taxes by providing more than enough tax revenue to allow this.
However, I make no claims of expertise in economics, perhaps an "informal student" at best. What I state comes from personal observation and some research into different economic theories, as well as an ingrained sence of fairness.
But many Republicans support the flawed trickle down theory, even after witnessing and/or experiences the results first hand.
I believe I have found the middle, and the answer. A flat tax rate would provide everyone with a fair "piece of the tax burden pie", and spread that burden out over most of the population, leaving everyone with more disposable income to invest and/or spend. Supposedly, as well, such a flat tax rate would also allow for the elimination of the corperate taxes by providing more than enough tax revenue to allow this.
I have never seen anything besides the Democrats actually show the trickle down theory caused our problems. Most economists I know and from ones I read agree it was nothing to do with free market, more a perfect storm of GM collapsing to gov't intervention in the housing mortgage sector that caused the sub-prime markets to go crazy.
And no one here, or I doubt anywhere is saying the rich shouldn't pay taxes. They should pay just as much as everyone else. But the don't, they pay more than everyone else when they infact use less.
I believe I have found the middle, and the answer. A flat tax rate would provide everyone with a fair "piece of the tax burden pie", and spread that burden out over most of the population, leaving everyone with more disposable income to invest and/or spend.
Nope. Implemented as a flat income tax on everyone above poverty level. That way everyone has an equally proportionate stake in ensuring the gov's fiscal responsibility.
I have never seen anything besides the Democrats actually show the trickle down theory caused our problems. Most economists I know and from ones I read agree it was nothing to do with free market, more a perfect storm of GM collapsing to gov't intervention in the housing mortgage sector that caused the sub-prime markets to go crazy.
And no one here, or I doubt anywhere is saying the rich shouldn't pay taxes. They should pay just as much as everyone else. But the don't, they pay more than everyone else when they infact use less.
Firstly, trickle down has indeed helped to tank our economy by removing much of the income that companies and service providers count on. Less disposable income means less spent. Why do you think GM tanked in the first place, besides the complete lack of consumer R&D and quality vehicles? Less people in the working class has money to spend on new vehicles.
Secondly, no one forced banks to make sup-prime loans. It is their own fault and own greed that made them take toxic loans without adequent background and credit checks for their loan customers. You simply will not find any legislation demanding quotas. A "Free Market" doesn't mean free from regulations as well. Deregulations under the past administration, again part of the trickle down philosphy, have also contrubuted to our current economy.
Thirdly, the "rich" recieved huge tax breaks under Bush43, again part of the trickle down philosphy that claims that somehow investors carry the Nation along and drive the economy. The theory is that the upper earners, ahving mroe cahs, will ivnest more. This they certainly do, where it make them the most money, many times overseas as well. I've no problem with this, it's part of American Capitalism, more power to them, I say.
Lastly, if I read your comments correctly (and I'll apologize if I am mistaken) as a whole, the upper earners do not utilize g'ment services and infrastructure as much as everyone else, on a group level. That's comparing a few tens of thousands people to millions of people. However, on a personal level, they do utilize those services just like everyone else. And on a corperate level, they use the infrastructure MORE than everyone else. We drive to work, so do they. We do not ship millions of tons of cargo over the roads every year tho.
Capital gains is unearned income. Flat tax is proposed on income, not just wages.
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.
