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.
When did I ever state that? link please if you can stop spinning
When you're quoted, and responded to, avoid non-answers and you won't have to ask for "links" or accuse others of spin much less waste their time having to re-quote you. Here you go anyway:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
The only way to make it fair is to widen the tax base. It has been proven time and time again that only "taxing the rich" will not dig our way out of the deficit Congress and the pro-entitlement agenda Executive branch have created. And yes, to make someone pay taxes who has been getting off scot free as a recipient of re-distributive wealth practices, which is akin to accepting free stolen goods, is a tax raise.
Those who pay nothing into the system should not be able to vote to raise the taxes of those who do. Therefore, the only "fair" way is to have the recipient class of non-producers pay taxes too.
Would you mind explaining how I got it wrong, or spun into something you didn't mean? You could simply explain what you imply by widening the tax base, and how it affects taxation on (especially) the bottom 50% of the Americans.
Since they use less entitlement programs, that sounds fair.
But the rich/wealthy get far more benefit from government, because protecting property and wealth is what government is all about. The purpose of our government is to protect wealth and enforce contracts (which is how the wealthy get wealthier).
If you doubt this, let a wealthy person put their wealth in a third world country and see how safe it is.
By comparison, poor people in this country get crumbs.
Isn't it far more fair to tax consumption rather than production? I'm a big supporter of the Fair Tax. It's one of the reasons I'm following Herman Cain so closely.
Only if all consumption is taxed equally. Unfortunately, the Fair Tax does not tax all consumption equally.
There's 4,000 millionaires who will pay NO federal income taxes in 2010.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
Right, because wealth and income are not equivilant. DUH! Excuse me for not stating the obvious.
You must be unable to read the graphic that showed over 4000 households that earned over one million dollars in 2010 and won't pay any income tax at all on that income.
Here it is again, try looking at it with your reading glasses this time.
Please explain how the Fair Tax is fair to renters.
Here's an excerpt from a blogger, who explains it very well.
"Renter-occupied housing under the present Income tax is paid with after-tax dollars.
Renter-occupied housing under the FairTax is paid with pre-tax dollars, plus there will be a pre-bate added to the renters income to stretch his/her dollar further.
Since investment property is not taxed under the FairTax, but the rents are taxed, the rental property will not be subject to double taxation.
An example in the FairTax Research information compared the Income Tax structure with the FairTax structure using $500 in monthly rents. With a 15% income tax bracket, the renter would have to earn $647 in order to pay his income taxes and payroll taxes and have $500 left to pay his rent.
Under the FairTax structure, the $500 rent plus the 23% sales tax amounts to $649, $2 more than the income tax in order to cover his rent. HOWEVER, in comes the pre-bate to the rescue! And that renter has only had to use $2 of his monthly pre-bate to pay his rent, leaving the remainder to pay the taxes on his medical bills, dental bills, groceries, etc." FairTax Blog: DOES THE FAIRTAX TAX RENTALS?
But the rich/wealthy get far more benefit from government, because protecting property and wealth is what government is all about. The purpose of our government is to protect wealth and enforce contracts (which is how the wealthy get wealthier).
If you doubt this, let a wealthy person put their wealth in a third world country and see how safe it is.
By comparison, poor people in this country get crumbs.
Just check 911 call logs and you'll see how much more often calls for service are made to poorer neighborhoods. Wealthy (and not so wealthy) individuals typically use private alarm companies and security firms. In a third world country, they would simply use the same companies to secure their property. Therefore, the poor use public services much more.
Just check 911 call logs and you'll see how much more often calls for service are made to poorer neighborhoods. Wealthy (and not so wealthy) individuals typically use private alarm companies and security firms. In a third world country, they would simply use the same companies to secure their property. Therefore, the poor use public services much more.
Yes, I understand that, but it boils down to a small number of miserable failures generating most of the costs.
I kinda resent getting lumped in with the criminals, thugs, and bums.
But in third world countries, you gotta worry about losing your wealth to things like corruption, coups, and confiscation, none of which are concerns here.
Just check 911 call logs and you'll see how much more often calls for service are made to poorer neighborhoods. Wealthy (and not so wealthy) individuals typically use private alarm companies and security firms. In a third world country, they would simply use the same companies to secure their property. Therefore, the poor use public services much more.
The original intent of the senate in the congress was to ensure the security of the rich.
"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
- James Madison
The founders were clearly aware of wealth accumulating the hands of fewer people and wanted to protect their interests through the government. In other words, class struggle isn’t a modern day concept.
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.
