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.
As I posted, the middle class ($50-200k) do contribute but considering how many of them there are in that cohort, they don't contribute a lot. Especially if you are the "preferred" class, those married with children, a mortgage and a few other deductions. Or retirees.
That may be true, but we need to be careful how we judge those contributions and try to decide "fair share." Much of the middle class doesn't even earn 50K, there are many people who would consider earning 50K as being well off. The median income is around 46K, many people struggle to find jobs that even pay 30K-35K, and good benefits are tough to come by as well if you are not in the executive class of workers. A small tax increase could be devastating, especially on the lower middle class, what someone wealthy decides is a fair share could be enough to push them towards a poorer class, that doesn't help society, and could end up costing more in taxes.
We have far too many working poor people who are doing everything in their power to support themselves through work, and avoid any type of welfare. Many conservatives are complaining that these people are thieves always looking for handouts, and basically lumping them in with "career welfare" people which are a minority. The vast majority of working and middle class people will avoid welfare at any cost, they have just as much pride in earning their money as anyone, probably more than many wealthy people who are used to family handouts. As a society we have to be able to look at the true reality of our fellow citizens instead of going off half cocked with "they aren't paying their share, tax them more" it's very easy to be self righteous, it's not so easy to actually study and understand the reality of what others are dealing with.
That may be true, but we need to be careful how we judge those contributions and try to decide "fair share." Much of the middle class don't even earn 50K, tthere are many people who would consider 50K as almost well off, the median income is around 46K, many people struggle to find jobs that even pay 35K, and good benefits are tough to come by as well if you are not in the executive class of workers. A small tax increase could be devastating, especially on the lower middle class, what someone wealthy decides is their fair share could be enough to push them towards a poorer class, that doesn't help society.
We have far too many working poor people who are doing everything in their power to support themselves through work, and avoid any type of welfare, and many conservatives are complaining that these people are thieves and a drain on society, and basically lumping them in with "career welfare" people. As a society we have to be able to look at the true reality of our fellow citizens instead of going off half cocked with "they aren't paying their share, tax them more" it's very easy to be self righteous, it's not so easy to actually study and understand what others are dealing with.
Very good points, I do agree 100%. I am not calling for more taxes (I am actually against all income and consumption based taxes). The problem I see and a lot of this is because I deal with this cohort, are retirees who are spending $75k a year or more and paying almost nothing in tax. As I said, exclude working families with kids and a mortgage, the tax burden really falls on working renters and those without children. It is a mess.
Very good points, I do agree 100%. I am not calling for more taxes (I am actually against all income and consumption based taxes). The problem I see and a lot of this is because I deal with this cohort, are retirees who are spending $75k a year or more and paying almost nothing in tax. As I said, exclude working families with kids and a mortgage, the tax burden really falls on working renters and those without children. It is a mess.
I agree, it is a mess. The problems effect all socioeconomic groups to varying degrees, too many people simply blame the "other people"(whoever isn't them, or disagrees with them) with a rabid intensity that cuts off any chance of real communication. Unfortunately, all of this liberal vs conservative fighting can take over when we really should be working together to implement real solutions which will require compromises and thoughtful understanding from all political orientations.
Yes, it is a mess, it is a mess for all socieoeconomic groups. Unfortunately, all of this liberal vs conservative fighting can take over when we really should be working together to implement a real solution which will require compromises and thoughtful understanding from all political orientations.
That is the hope. I really focus on trying to get people to see that the left/right battle is basically pro wrestling. We need to focus on the system, not the players.
Have you seen my other thread? There are a couple big pieces of the system that if fixed, would change the whole debate.
I've never seen a solution to that end. Let me start with asking for a realistic response to this question: Assuming this is year 2009, what should be the spending limit?
Easy--no more than what the government takes in in revenue.
When 47% of tax filers don't pay any income tax, and 40% have money given to them from other taxpayers, IN ADDITION to paying no income tax, it is obvious that the middle and lower classes are pretty much along for the ride, while the heavy lifting is done by the topy 5% or so.
Just another dose of truth.
Awww… the poor rich folks. What would they do, if people like you didn’t stand up for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
Yessiree. If you can't afford it, you shouldn't have it. Period.
That is a pretty strong period. But then, throughout history, authoritarians and dictators have always wanted everything to be their way, and of course, the idea of humanitarianism was either alien or something along the lines of cowardice and a weakness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
Hey, if I had my way, people would not be allowed to have any sort of unprotected sex until they can pass a means test as well as some kind of test indicating their knowledge of children, what it takes to raise them and their ability to do so. Most would fail miserably.
And please remember that if someone returns you the favor, providing you a taste of what authoritarianism looks like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
1. Wow, rude much? I own a business, I think I would know. Again, your original statement is based on a false premise, we are talking about gov't services here, not "resources." So no, I cannot answer your question as you posed it, unless you have a point that is not related to this thread, in which case, I would recommend that you start another thread about it.
2. I'm confused as to how you think people are not paying state taxes, property taxes, etc. You previously stated something along the lines of it not counting, if I recall. It does count, and people are paying them.
3. I didn't say they were your words/weren't his. I'm saying I disagree with the statements.
4. I'm not cursing anyone. But again, why should I be forced to pay for someone else's negligence? You'd be surprised to know that I disagree with the bailing out of GM, etc. b/c I don't think the taxpayer is responsible for propping up someone or something else.
5. I have already weighed the pros and cons of the FairTax. I chose to support it. Just b/c you choose not to doesn't mean I am wrong.
1- Owning a business means absolutely nothing. And I hope it helps you earn enough to buy a mirror so you can look at yourself every once in a while to see the real face of rudeness. Here’s a clue on this point though… if you don’t have a response to the question as asked, stop complaining about it and MOVE ON (yes, I’m being rude, and you’ve earned it).
2- Did I say that? Please point out, or shut up.
Okay. At least we know that you have a personal idea of capitalism, or that you pick and choose per convenience.
3- Well, the question was on taxation, flat, fair, and in case of Buffett’s comment that the current tax structure can actually be regressive.
4- What has that got to do with GM, unions etc? Avoid trolling if you don’t want to get caught in the act.
I also agree with helping people on "humanitarian grounds, and especially kids". I just don't think that is a government function.
Government is for all people, not just the elite. Government's duty is to ensure the society is not suffering from abuses... you know something that you don't seem to be aware of that exists in the real world.
Charities are not the way to run a country.
Quote:
I don't know what the income level is that allows someone to support kids.
The fact that you use the idea of "allowing" others is preventing you from seeing things from their point of view. You couldn't draw a line on humanitarian ground and a respect for the individual, and I don't expect you to do so trying to figure out income levels. Its all about you.
Quote:
Mass sterilization? No way. That would assume that someone could not increase their income and later afford kids.
How do you suppose EVERYBODY can increase their income, with nobody suffering? Got an illustration to prove your point, from anywhere and from any time in history?
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.
Most would fail miserably.
