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.
Fascinating that you who complained about not being able to afford your cell phone plan in another thread would take the position that those of making a half-million or more per year shouldn't have our tax breaks repealed. We're not talking about new taxes. We're talking about a repeal of tax reduction legislation that was never meant be permanent.
This might surprise you,being an American and all,but just because someone makes more money than we do doesn't mean I think they should pay a higher percentage in taxes...
It is called principles,something lacking in most modern Americans...and sadly your 'millions' won't buy you any.
I volunteer my money to church and my alma mater. I just pay my taxes. Dumb argument BTW...
Good for you....
Although I think a movement where people such as yourself can get together and pledge money to pay down the deficit would generate tens of dollars a year....
Why do you think you should be able to dictate to others how much they should be forced to give?
Just what right does anyone have "to take my money in taxes".
Never!!!!
This is interesting. Your right, what right does any body - such as a government - have to take people's money in taxes?
I suppose, if the people say that they don't want to pay any taxes, then none. Interestingly, though, no politician I can name has ever run on this ticket, because politicians of all hues know that their electorates have received some education*, and will therefore be able to deduce that zero taxation would have to entail, for example, the abolition of most criminal justice and defense infrastructure, the closure of most schools, and the end of highway maintenance and construction. So while it's true that politicians often get elected on a platform of lowering the tax burden, they are almost always also elected on a platform that involves at least maintaining, and in many cases even expanding or improving, such services. If you want to know where the 'right' of governments to act in any given way comes from, here's where: they said they'd tax you**, y'all voted for them, and guess what - tax remained part of the deal.
So if you want to argue that tax should not exist, you will have to take your argument to democracy itself.
Further, since democracy is, crudely put, the business of pleasing the largest proportion of the electorate you can, then progressive taxation, whereby the tax burden is shifted as far as possible off the majority and onto a minority comprised of the wealthiest, is absolutely in line with the democratic imperative.
*Much of it payed for with taxation, FWIW
** They might lie about how much, but never about the fact itself
Quote:
Originally Posted by stayinformed40
Not sure where - or if - the Idiot actually said people making $250k own private jets. However, he has said NUMEROUS times that people making $250k are 'rich' and that the rich are private jet owners and should not be receiving tax breaks for those luxuries and countless other class-based, income-based, inflammatory, divisive, socialist, remarks.
There...does that satisfy you??
There are no real arguments against calling people who earn several times the median income 'rich'.
It follows from a poor application of logic to see an inconsistency in, on the one hand, describing someone who earns $250,000 a year as rich (for I solicit your argument to the contrary), and on the other, pointing out what the trappings of wealth are as one travels even further up the scale. It might surprise you to discover that it makes no odds to the vast majority even of Americans that an income of quarter of a million dollars per year is insufficient to pay for a private jet; the point is that it is enough to buy all the things they worry about being able to afford three times over, and then to come back for seconds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
To others it would make a dent so forget "the collective" and just send in your check.
You don't have any right to determine where other people should send their earned money.
Well, it is quite evident that you are wrong here, because all modern democracies do tell their citizens where to send a proportion of their earned income - do you take issue with the will of democracy?
Last edited by Benjamin Hubard; 07-26-2011 at 03:55 PM..
This is interesting. Your right, what right does any body - such as a government - have to take people's money in taxes?
I suppose, if the people say that they don't want to pay any taxes, then none. Interestingly, though, no politician I can name has ever run on this ticket, because politicians of all hues know that their electorates have received some education*, and will therefore be able to deduce that zero taxation would have to entail, for example, the abolition of most criminal justice and defense infrastructure, the closure of most schools, and the end of highway maintenance and construction. So while it's true that politicians often get elected on a platform of lowering the tax burden, they are almost always also elected on a platform that involves at least maintaining, and in many cases even expanding or improving, such services. If you want to know where the 'right' of governments to act in any given way comes from, here's where: they said they'd tax you**, y'all voted for them, and guess what - tax remained part of the deal.
So if you want to argue that tax should not exist, you will have to take your argument to democracy itself.
Further, since democracy is, crudely put, the business of pleasing the largest proportion of the electorate you can, then progressive taxation, whereby the tax burden is shifted as far as possible off the majority and onto a minority comprised of the wealthiest, is absolutely in line with the democratic imperative.
*Much of it payed for with taxation, FWIW
** They might lie about how much, but never about the fact itself
Obviously your education (paid for by STATE taxes) failed you. The federal income tax only makes up 60% of the government's revenue. A government could get rid of the IRS and the federal income tax and still exist and provide many services just fine...
We are talking about federal income taxes in this thread.
Obviously your education (paid for by STATE taxes) failed you. The federal income tax only makes up 60% of the government's revenue. A government could get rid of the IRS and the federal income tax and still exist and provide many services just fine...
We are talking about federal income taxes in this thread.
I would invite you to have another go at reading the post to which my comments were a reply:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1
Just what right does anyone have "to take my money in taxes".
Never!!!!
(my emphasis)
Besides which, I was sure to give a range of examples - to which you can refer above - which, unless you can explain otherwise, I believe are paid for in your country through a combination of state and federal revenues.
This might surprise you,being an American and all,but just because someone makes more money than we do doesn't mean I think they should pay a higher percentage in taxes...
It is called principles,something lacking in most modern Americans...and sadly your 'millions' won't buy you any.
That was entirely uncalled for. Our disagreement about taxes does not warrant declaring me unprincipled. At no time have I personally insulted you or anyone else participating in this thread, and I deserve an apology.
Obviously your education (paid for by STATE taxes) failed you. The federal income tax only makes up 60% of the government's revenue. A government could get rid of the IRS and the federal income tax and still exist and provide many services just fine...
We are talking about federal income taxes in this thread.
Here's an easy-on-the-eye representation of where that federal budget goes:
Sure, you'd probably chop half of it (although for every cut you make to welfare, don't underestimate how much more will need to be spent by states on law and order...)
But I'll leave you to do your own research, or guesswork, into what might happen to US international interests if that $700bn defense budget were to go up in smoke, or to the domestic economy if the road infrastructure lost $70bn pa of investment.
Personally, I would like to see a system where either Direct Revenue is made for specific programs (like SS tax goes to SS and is completely untouched by any other program)... other programs would need to be a Zero Deficit program (It is initially funded by the government but the program itself is responsible for generating its own revenue to support itself)... other things I like to cut off entirely like International Aid program as it isn't the job of the Federal government, it is the choice of the American people... in all that would mean taxes would go down because the government isn't spending irresponsibly... So if you were on Welfare and collected X amount, then your wage would be garnished in the future should you find a job to pay back what was "loaned" to you at 0% interest rate.... Also, please note that during the Clinton Administration, welfare was cut from lifetime to 5 years maximum... so far, no increase in crime...
That is such bull. 4000 to a person making 20000 a year is wayyyyyy more of a burden than 4000000 to someone making 20000000. Yet the stupid 20000 a year white southerner well vote for it everytime.
Well, in this concept that you made 20K and 4K a year came out in taxes (through payroll deductions) and this was a "burden" then you need to change your situation. Why not, I don't know, work harder to earn a better rate? The more you'll make, the more that will come out. When does that "burden" go away? Double your pay to 40K a year and you paid 8K in taxes. Is that better or still just as bad? Who shouldn't pay taxes and why? If they don't, why should the be entitled to things taxes pay for (besides handout programs, but schools, roads, firemen, police, etc). We ALL have to pay taxes and we shouldn't rely on the wealthy to take care of us. How is that even remotely fair? This is coming from someone no where NEAR wealthy --heck, I'm no where near "Well off" lol
But I'm making the best out of what we're earning on our current and messed up tax system.
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.
