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.
I would like everyone that has a say in how the country is run to also have some skin in the game. If they don't, they'll inevitably just vote for people who promise to continue to give them free stuff without charging them for it.
If you're not contributing financially, you tend to not care about how our collective tax dollars are spent. If virtually everyone with an income paid at least some taxes on that income, I guarantee that our government would be much a more efficient machine.
It looks like the ones that are being served by our government are the ones that bought the politicians. Make donations from special interests groups illegal, and limit individual contributions to 100$.
If everyone should have skin in the game, then everyone should also be represented on the flipside, which is not the case now.
As it is now, the ones that own the politicians should be paying 100% of the taxes. Don't like it? Then quit buying politicians then.
and when you take $90,000 and divide it by what they pay, its a higher % then the lowest group.
Someone who makes 1,000,000,000,000 a year still pays the same percentage on the first $8,500 that you, I and Joe Panhandler pay. This person also pays the same percentage of the next $20,000 that you, I and Mary Churchmouse pays.
Are you getting this now? We don't tax "people" -- we tax income. No one is treated unfairly by having to pay more than his or her neighbor. Everyone pays the same. Some people have income above $350,000. Once you hit that number, every dollar you make is taxed at 35 percent.
People who don't make income in that bracket, don't get taxed on income in that bracket. (You can't tax someone for property they don't own.)
It would be wrong and immoral to tax Warren Buffet or Bill Gates or, for that matter, Mary Churchmouse, a high rate on the first $8,500 they make. Why? Because no matter who you are, rich or poor, that first $8,500 is going to go toward essentials like food. The government should not be taking a percentage of food out of anyone's mouth.
This is a serious question. Is the Republican Party positioning itself to be the tax-the-poor party? I'm asking because it seems like that's the logical next step after you launch a massive talking point campaign about how 47 percent of Americans don't pay taxes (ie, federal income taxes, one tax of many). Why point out an "injustice" if you're not planning on correcting it?
I just can't believe this is about to happen. Am I reading this right? The Republican Party will be committing political suicide if it does this. They are going to become the raise-taxes party for 47 percent of Americans. How could they possibly think that's a winning strategy?
Do you know of any Republican that has called for raising taxes on poor people?
And why would they? Republicans have always said lower taxes are good for the economy. Last Republican at the national level that supported tax increases lost his next election. And that was 20 years ago. (Bush)
I do remember Walter Mondale proposing a tax increase on everyone. Including the poor. And I do remember Bill Clinton raising taxes on social security income. But that wasn't a tax increase on the poor.
Do you know of any Republican that has called for raising taxes on poor people?
And why would they? Republicans have always said lower taxes are good for the economy. Last Republican at the national level that supported tax increases lost his next election. And that was 20 years ago. (Bush)
I do remember Walter Mondale proposing a tax increase on everyone. Including the poor. And I do remember Bill Clinton raising taxes on social security income. But that wasn't a tax increase on the poor.
The GOP has lowered taxes so low that it now jeapordizes our ability to function as a nation. Even they see that this is not sustainable and some new income revenue is going to be needed. Law 1 when it comes to the Republicans is to protect the interests of its wealthy patrons at all costs, so they have launched a tax-the-poor campaign.
If everyone paid a dollar each year then that'd be $300M in tax revenue. If a dollar is gonna make or break your existence then you need to get your financial house in order.
e: Sorry that's stupid, ain't 300M people in the work force... but my point still stands.
the lower taxes are not the problem...the problem is the governments over spending
revenus increased over 27% from 2001 to 2007...since 2007 it has dropped because of the recession
SPENDING has INCREASED over 60% since 2007...its up over 400% since 1990((((our 'budget' was 1 trillion in 1990...now just 20 years later....... its nearly 4 trillion (3.7 trillion)........ in just 20 years the spending has quadrupled))))
btw the gross COLLECTIONS of INDIVIDUAL income tax in 2000 was 1.13 trillion and in 2007 was 1.36 trillion...total from CORPORATE taxes in 2000 235 billion and in 2007 395 billion......total from employement tax (payroll(ss/medicare) in 2000 639 billion and in 2007 was 849 billion..........
revenue in 2007 was 2.7(2.69 to be exact) trillion and INCREASE of 30% from 2000
Sure, and I also support a (modest) wealth tax, since the wealthy receive far more benefit from government than do the non-wealthy.
How so?
In fact, the poor receive MANY more federal government benefits and services than do the rich. Social programs spending is the bulk of the national budget.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,726,125 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01Snake
So what happens when that 47 becomes 57 or even 60? At the rate we're going, probably won't be long.
only a few short years
the 2 percent predators have had a 275 percent increse in wealth in 20 years.. and the middle class grunions only 18 percent.. who should pay more?? why of course the grunions
In fact, the poor receive MANY more federal government benefits and services than do the rich. Social programs spending is the bulk of the national budget.
Lol, you can make any point you want, but you would be wrong. The effective tax rates for different tax brackets are different. Thus a progressive tax rate.
Even the 15% capital gains tax rate is nearly TWICE the tax rate the bottom 90% pay (8.25% or less, Table 8).
It's shocking how misinformed liberals are on how much federal income tax the various groups pay. They are being deliberately misinformed by leftist propaganda, and almost without exception... they easily swallow the lies. Why don't liberals try researching the actual facts and use critical thinking, for a change?
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.
