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.
Except for state tax, payroll tax, and various other bs taxes that the rich rarely thinks about.
I guess your "46%" do not include the elderly who have worked all of their lives paying taxes or the people who are unable to work due to infirmities.
If you really believe that 46% of the citizens in this country do not pay taxes you really should stop watching faux news
It has been pointed out so many time it isn't funny anymore. Ever time federal income taxes are discussed some leftie tries to tie local taxes into the mix because they can't defend their position.
Let me say it real slow for you. NO ONE SAYS PEOPLE ARE NOT PAYING LOCAL TAXES AND FICA TAXES. THE 46% IS FOR FEDERAL INCOMES TAXES ONLY. Are you happy now? Maybe YOU should stop watching MSNBC and you might learn a little. Try to stay on topic.
Let me get this straight. The IRA laws were passed around 1974 and people failed to take advantage of them. The infirmities are excluded from this point.
And don't try to give me that crap, "they couldn't afford to".
I worked in the biggest slums in Wash DC. There is ALWAYS "disposable income".
because NO-ONE should be taxed more than someone else
tax EVERYONE at the same equal rate
...and taxing INCOME is just stupid since a good portion of income is never reported..tax spending..that's the one way to really tax the rich
we(the people) pay too much in taxes as it is
tax everyone equally, with very few deductions and you will see MORE money come into the government at a lower rate
if we can (right now) say the top 50% pays 97% of the federal income tax..and the average rate is 19%..then why not lower the tax rate to 15% or 10% FOR ALL
the biggest question is why would you want to tax someone at a higher rate,just for making a good living
Income taxes on labor but no taxes on wealth is like 5 men. 1 sits in a field while the other 4 build the walls of his house. The one sitting in the field is not to be taxed because he took the risk that the other 4 didn't want to pay income tax. The value of the house is the town built around it.
Income taxes on labor but no taxes on wealth is like 5 men. 1 sits in a field while the other 4 build the walls of his house. The one sitting in the field is not to be taxed because he took the risk that the other 4 didn't want to pay income tax. The value of the house is the town built around it.
Wealth is the accumulation of taxed labor and investment. You want to tax it twice? Three times?
Yet, 90+% of households, or 99 Million households have cable, satellite or both.
And, 80% of households have a computer and 92% of those have internet connection, or 88 Million households.
Still waiting for a response....
Mircea
The federal government does not need to maintain those "popular programs" and you are unable to provide any evidence to justify the existence of such programs at the federal level.
There is no possible way you can justify a federal Food Stamp program. As I often point out, a story in the Cincinnati Enquirer demonstrates the total failure of the federal government. A family of 3 in Kenton County, Kentucky earning less than $13,000 could not qualify for Food Stamps, but a family of 4 in neighboring Boone County, Kentucky qualified earning $32,000.
Why? Because they are issued as block grants and Kenton County is urban, more populated, and has a higher percentage of low income families than Boone County, which is semi-rural, low population and few low income families.
If Boone County receives $1.5 Million from the federal government, it must spend all $1.5 Million during that fiscal year, or the amount of money received will be reduced. The only way Boone County can spend that money is by raising the qualifying income to permit more people to qualify so that more money can be spent.
You have repeated failed to demonstrate why the several States cannot successfully operate their own food stamp programs, housing assistance programs, retirement programs, farm subsidy programs, health care programs, or any other "popular programs."
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that FDR established a "social security" like program as governor of the State of New York. And while that program might have been successful for the State of New York, FDR committed a non sequitur by falsely assuming such a program would be successful at the federal level.
For someone who professes to be so knowledgeable in economics, you appear to be incapable of grasping the fact that you have 50 separate economies, that each State has its own economy that its economy is not necessarily dependent on the economy of another State for either success or support.
That is why programs like the federal minimum wage fail. Some people earning minimum wage live a Middle Class life-style, while others couldn't even afford an 8' x 10' carpeted room in a boarding house.
You don't understand that cost-of-living varies greatly, and that conditions in labor markets for economic sectors vary dramatically as well. Fast food in the Cincinnati MSA has always paid more than the federal minimum wage. And while that is true here, it does not logically follow that fast food workers in all 50 States will be paid 30%-40% over minimum wage like they are in this particular market.
Likewise, you don't understand that the huge differences in labor markets and economic sectors, plus the dramatic differences in cost-of-living result in some doctors charge $15 to $25 for an office visit, while other doctors simply have no choice in the matter and must charge $45 to $60.
And then the Wizened Ones in Washington decree that Medicare will only pay $30 for an office visit.
And then you have the gall to wonder why health care is "unaffordable."
It is absurd to think that just because those "popular programs" are not bestowed upon us by a bestial all-powerful central government that they will not exist. They will exist, but they'll just be administered by the several States, which is in accordance with both conservative and Republican values, as well as common sense and constitutional/federal values.
You see two States with 15% unemployment. Your ideology blinds you to the fact that while both do have 15% unemployment, the reason(s) why unemployment is 15% are not the same for both States.
And because you are blinded by your ideology, you are unable to effectively tailor programs to address the root cause of unemployment in each State, which are different.
The end result is that $Millions are wasted and the root causes of unemployment in those two States are never resolved or ameliorated.
Where is the logic in taking money from Hoosiers and family farmers in Indiana and giving it to corporate farms in California?
If Californians want to subsidize corporate agriculture in their State, then that is something that Californians should be paying for, not people from Indiana or Ohio or Kentucky.
And if those "popular programs" were eliminated, then the national government has no need to collect the tax revenues to support them, and that frees up that money for the States to collect and administer programs more effectively and efficiently than any federal or national government ever could.
You all do it ass-backwards.
You should be paying 1%-3% to the federal government in taxes and 10%-35% to your State governments in taxes. When you finally figure out that is the way it should be, you'll find that 40%-60% of your economic problems magically disappear.
This is the United States, with 308 Million people in 50 States with 50 separate economies and hundreds of micro-economies where cost-of-living and doing business varies dramatically, not Norway with 5 Million people, 1 economy and a uniform cost-of-living.
Cruelly cutting populist programs...
Mircea
No, it's politics.
Unless you want to admit that tying $8 Million to give to the French government to build private schools strictly for Jewish school children to critical legislation is also dishonest (the Democrats and Daniel Inouye did that).
The Democrats have also repeatedly tied federal minimum wage hikes to critical legislation.
If you don't like it, then might I suggest that you amend the US Constitution to do either of the following:
1] grant a president the right of line-item veto; or
2] prohibit omnibus bills and require that each act be introduced as a separate bill.
Politicking....
Mircea
No, you do NOT want aFlat Tax. You could actually end up worse off than you are now.
If you want an alternative tax, I would suggest a Value Added Tax (national sales tax).
If you wanted to implement a VAT, then you would need to do so incrementally over a period of say, 8 years. That would allow tax attorneys, tax accounts and others related to the tax field to retrain and transition to new jobs, since you would experience job losses there, especially at the federal level since the IRS would no longer be necessary.
Advocating...
Mircea
There are many things the government can cut WITHOUT hurting people.
This country already has too many homeless. We don't need any more.
The shrinking middle class should resent the 47% (or more by now) who pay no income tax and in many cases get to eat for free via food stamps as well as get other handouts. Because we have to support the ever expanding welfare state the FED has to print more money which is causing the middle class to suffer inflation in food (as they see everyone else swipe their food stamps card), gas and more. So the middle class should have no problem at all with the 1% and have great animosity towards the so called "poor" who are getting free food, medical, heating, cash and more.
Then the question you posed was stupid. You know darn well congress could lay and collect a tax on wealth.
THIS ONE:
Its not my fault you dont know the difference between income, and wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
Wow, how many things can you find WRONG with that post. Take your time.
Show me where I said it was wrong...
I said it has nothing to do with the discussion..
If I ask who the president is, and you respond with the sun keeps the earth warm, did you really answer? I think not, but thats the garbage being posted here To recap, I said the House passed a 2 month bill, while the Senate wanted 1 year. Show me where he proved me wrong..
Well, my wages are taxed by state, federal income, and payroll taxes. That's 3x.
So, yeah, taxing investment income higher than wages is a good idea.
Say goodbye to your pension/retirement. Much of that is investment income.
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.
To recap, I said the House passed a 2 month bill, while the Senate wanted 1 year. Show me where he proved me wrong..
