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 posted earlier, no, nobody can explain it to you. As seen above, you don't want an explanation, you only desire an admission that it's not logical to argue for the rich to "pay their fair share". You want to browbeat others into admitting that your position at the outset is the correct one. To you, anything less than such an admission is "deflecting" or "obtuse" regardless of any good points raised by others. You've categorically stated they are not good points because they run counter to your point.
Why not just go talk at the mirror?
That's because there has been no explanation. Feel free to point it out, oh smart one.
All we've seen are deflections to millionaires...capital gains....state and local taxes....payroll taxes......everything BUT the FEDERAL INCOME TAX fairness issue, which is the topic of the OP.
And what "good points" would those be? Feel free to point them out, oh smart one.
Since you've apparently witnessed these "good points," I fully expect you to come back and lay them out precisely so that everyone can understand them. You know, since you've got it all figured out. Right?
We await your unbounded understanding and expertise of tax fairness in the USA.
When are you guys going to wake up and realize that it's the republicans who love federal deficits and debt? When has the national debt ever shrunk on a republican president's watch? Never, that's when.
Bill Clinton ran a surplus 6 of 8 years and drastically paid down the federal debt. By the year 2016 we were set to be even steven with the house. At that point all income tax could have been ended. The Gov could have run on import/export tariffs and other revenues.
College tuition could have been free. People could have worked 32 hour work weeks and paid their expenses.
Republicans love debt. It gives them an excuse to cut benefits on the lower part of society. Oldest trick in the book, claim poverty and cut money to people you don't like.
Care to provide some data to back up your assertions?
$5480 taxable income * 10% federal income tax rate = $548 federal income tax.
This person would qualify for EITC and therefore would not only not pay but also get cash back. Also this assumes that the burger flipper would work 40 hrs/wk for 52 weeks. Anyone who has had a burger flipper in the family knows that that doesn't happen much.
That's because there has been no explanation. Feel free to point it out, oh smart one.
All we've seen are deflections to millionaires...capital gains....state and local taxes....payroll taxes......everything BUT the FEDERAL INCOME TAX fairness issue, which is the topic of the OP.
And what "good points" would those be? Feel free to point them out, oh smart one.
Since you've apparently witnessed these "good points," I fully expect you to come back and lay them out precisely so that everyone can understand them. You know, since you've got it all figured out. Right?
We await your unbounded understanding and expertise of tax fairness in the USA.
Twice now I've bought up the issue of Self Employed and Sole Proprietors reducing their earned income through itemized deductions, and as a result ending up not owing any FIT. They are not "impoverished" or what you would normally think of as a "lower income" segment of society.
You can bet that anybody who is a managing partner in a business is taking every and all deductions relevant to their field. You know that they're paying themselves nothing in order to not incur federal income taxes on their "salary".
Are you going to address this at all or are you going to keep trying to press the point that it's only poor people who don't contribute to the country's tax burden?
This person would qualify for EITC and therefore would not only not pay but also get cash back. Also this assumes that the burger flipper would work 40 hrs/wk for 52 weeks. Anyone who has had a burger flipper in the family knows that that doesn't happen much.
Twice now I've bought up the issue of Self Employed and Sole Proprietors reducing their earned income through itemized deductions, and as a result ending up not owing any FIT. They are not "impoverished" or what you would normally think of as a "lower income" segment of society.
You can bet that anybody who is a managing partner in a business is taking every and all deductions relevant to their field. You know that they're paying themselves nothing in order to not incur federal income taxes on their "salary".
Are you going to address this at all or are you going to keep trying to press the point that it's only poor people who don't contribute to the country's tax burden?
What is there to address?
Ok, so lets assume that a sole proprietor or managing partner pays no federal income tax. What's your point? That they shouldn't have to pay any federal income tax because they're sole proprietors/managing partners? Being a business owner is not a reason to not pay federal income tax. If the tax code allows it, then the tax code is the problem. Let's not forget that it's the tax code that allows the rich to skirt their responsibilities as well.
The issue here is not the tax code in and of itself. The issue and point of the OP is the "fairness" and the "class warfare" theme being pushed by the liberal left. How can one push for "fairness" against one segment of society while completely ignoring the other segments of society that are not "paying their fair share."
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
You've made the assumption that the person in question doesn't qualify for other deductions and credits, most glaringly the Earned Income Tax credit, which was set up for those who make low to moderate incomes.
I knew there was reason to be skeptical of your claim.
BZZT! You lose also, thanks for playing! (This is fun!)
Ok, so lets assume that a sole proprietor or managing partner pays no federal income tax. What's your point? That they shouldn't have to pay any federal income tax because they're sole proprietors/managing partners? Being a business owner is not a reason to not pay federal income tax. If the tax code allows it, then the tax code is the problem. Let's not forget that it's the tax code that allows the rich to skirt their responsibilities as well.
The issue here is not the tax code in and of itself. The issue and point of the OP is the "fairness" and the "class warfare" theme being pushed by the liberal left. How can one push for "fairness" against one segment of society while completely ignoring the other segments of society that are not "paying their fair share."
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
That's the point.
That's not your point. The quote below is your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
47% of able-bodied adults are getting a free ride.
You phrased this thread title in the hopes of drumming up the class warfare you purport to despise so.
And - there are people not paying federal income tax that are taking legitimate business deductions that are hardly "getting a free ride".
You know that business people operating at a loss or reduced income while building their business pay very little tax because their incomes are so low. You know, so their businesses don't tank in the fragile first years of operation because of a high tax burden.
Are you saying you'd rather they pay the government than grow their business? Are you not for free enterprise, and the advancement of small business in this country?
You never took advantage of the tax code while you were starting out with your business? You do own a company, right?
When are you guys going to wake up and realize that it's the republicans who love federal deficits and debt? When has the national debt ever shrunk on a republican president's watch? Never, that's when.
Bill Clinton ran a surplus 6 of 8 years and drastically paid down the federal debt. By the year 2016 we were set to be even steven with the house. At that point all income tax could have been ended. The Gov could have run on import/export tariffs and other revenues.
College tuition could have been free. People could have worked 32 hour work weeks and paid their expenses.
Republicans love debt. It gives them an excuse to cut benefits on the lower part of society. Oldest trick in the book, claim poverty and cut money to people you don't like.
Not once did Bill clinton pay down the national debt.
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.
