Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-10-2012, 10:55 PM
 
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
7,835 posts, read 8,444,205 times
Reputation: 8564

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post

It should be everyone's role in life. Unfortunately, only half of us are paying into the system. The rest just take.
You mean the half who are:

The working poor
Seniors on Social Security who've spent a lifetime working and contributing
The disabled who can't work
The 491,000 Americans who made more than $100,000 and paid no income tax last year
Active Duty Military

Those takers?

I'll give you this: One of those groups on that list are definitely takers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2012, 10:57 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,656,384 times
Reputation: 4784
Here's a way to put a tax increase for the wealthy into perspective.

Say someone is making $15 million a year.

At the current 29 % effective tax rate their take home is $10.7 million.

If their tax rate is increased by 3 % their take home is $10.2 million.

What's the big deal? For this, the Republicans held the entire country hostage for 4 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 11:04 PM
 
3,183 posts, read 7,207,699 times
Reputation: 1818
Because the tax laws need to be changed..Too many loopholes for the rich.why do they get loopholes and poor people dont.. Let them pay up and shut up or just leave..PS the election is over
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 11:05 PM
 
9,879 posts, read 8,024,034 times
Reputation: 2521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post

Once again, Reagan gets credit for doing more for the impoverished in this country than modern day Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians would ever stand for.
Reagan cut $1 billion from the school lunch program. His Secretary of Agriculture tried to classify
ketchup and pickle relish as a vegetable to save money on the school lunch program

Even us libertarians would donate real food to schools and donate money to the homeless.

Reagan cut the budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by three-quarters, from $32 billion in 1981 to $7.5 billion by 1988. Under Reagan, the number of people living beneath the federal poverty line rose from 24.5 million in 1978 to 32.5 million in 1988.

George Bush Jr doesn't even have THAT record...

Last edited by pollyrobin; 11-10-2012 at 11:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 11:07 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,557,277 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
You mean the half who are:

The working poor
Seniors on Social Security who've spent a lifetime working and contributing
The disabled who can't work
The 491,000 Americans who made more than $100,000 and paid no income tax last year
Active Duty Military

Those takers?

I'll give you this: One of those groups on that list are definitely takers.
All the seniors I know pay taxes. ditto for the disabled on social security (I have an aunt who has been on disability since she was in her 20's). I'll have to ask my ss if he paid taxes while in the military. I believe he did. However, I don't beleive anywhere near half of all working americans are in the military so there must be a lot more out there....with all of the baby boomers retired, we'd have 1/3 people on social security.

And there aren't enough write offs for someone to earn $100,000K in income and not pay taxes. You'd be talking investments there which are handled differently for good reason. For example, you can have a bad year when your stocks lose $100,000K followed by a good year where they gain $100,000K which means you really made nothing for two years. How much tax do you think they should pay on the nothing they made in stocks for those two years? Remember stock losses can only be written off against gains. They can't deduct that from income for the year they lost.

In case you haven't noticed, we had a few bad years in the stock market lately. Yes, it's starting to move back up but your mistake is thinking people are making money. They're not. They're gaining back some of their previous losses. Do you really think that should be taxed?

Personally, I think if someone earned nothing across two years, they shouldn't have to pay taxes at all.

Try again....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 11:10 PM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
7,010 posts, read 11,984,059 times
Reputation: 5813
Subscribed!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 11:13 PM
 
2,345 posts, read 1,671,464 times
Reputation: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin View Post
Reagan cut $1 billion from the school lunch program. His Secretary of Agriculture tired to classify
ketchup and pickle relish as a vegetable to save money on the school lunch program

Even us libertarians would donate real food to schools and donate money to the homeless.

Reagan cut the budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by three-quarters, from $32 billion in 1981 to $7.5 billion by 1988. Under Reagan, the number of people living beneath the federal poverty line rose from 24.5 million in 1978 to 32.5 million in 1988.

George Bush Jr doesn't even have THAT record...
I got some of your mail on twitter...this is for you ==> Lori Buvinghausen ‏@coallb
To all of you conservatives who voted for Gary Johnson or who didn't vote, thanks for sticking us with Obamacare for the rest of our lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 11:13 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,531,102 times
Reputation: 27720
You guys keep bickering over how much the rich, starting at $200K per year need to pay.

No matter what percentage comes up the left says it's not enough.

So approach this the other way..."How much can the rich, those making $200K a year, keep?"
That's really what you are aiming for because if they still have lots of money then they didn't pay enough.

The "rich" are not earning millions. That is the old definition. There's not enough of them anymore so you had to lower your standards and say those earning $200K per year are rich.

Ya know..they don't look "rich" to me. They don't qualify for any programs. That means they foot 100% of the bill to send their kids to college.
They don't have yachts or private planes or homes all over the world. But you seem to think they owe just as much as the likes of the CEO of Goldman Sachs.
But go ahead..tell those in the 28% income bracket they are just as greedy as those in the 35% bracket and DEMAND they pay more.

Last edited by HappyTexan; 11-10-2012 at 11:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 11:19 PM
 
10,553 posts, read 9,656,384 times
Reputation: 4784
Roughly 78 % of those who did not pay income tax had incomes below the poverty level.

Oh, and a few thousand millionaires.


Who Is Mitt Romney's 47 Percent Who Don't Pay Income Taxes - ABC News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 11:23 PM
 
9,879 posts, read 8,024,034 times
Reputation: 2521
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM05 View Post
I got some of your mail on twitter...this is for you ==> Lori Buvinghausen ‏@coallb
To all of you conservatives who voted for Gary Johnson or who didn't vote, thanks for sticking us with Obamacare for the rest of our lives.
Contraire - Libertarians didn't steal votes away from Romney. If anything we took some away
from Obama.

Disgruntled Ron Paul GOP'ers did. Paul didn't even endorse Johnson
Paul GOP'ers did write-in's or didn't vote in battle ground states like OH, VA, and FL.

We (Libertarians) only got 1.1M nation wide and I've said on other posts:
Libertarians aren't going to be the kicking post for Romney's loss. We are our own party
The GOP loss is their own doing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:29 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top