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.
What did you pay? We'll compare it to Romney's $1.9 million. And do you think Romney is getting $1.9 million worth of federal benefits and services?
One family paying $1.9 million is nothing? How greedy ARE you?
Where on earth do you get that BS. Actual IRS data on average effective federal income tax rates by income group, right here. Read and learn. You've made an incredibly uninformed statement: Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
What part of "All" and "Cumulative" wrt to the middle class statement do you not understand?
My bad, I noticed you said "Federal Income tax" and not "total taxes". Total taxes are what comes out of my pocket. Thats why some of the CEO's only pay themselves a buck are a very small amount, so they have very little Federal Income tax. Realistically I'm sure may pay next to nothing if they keep they're home/car/meals under the company name.
Regardless, the Middles class carries a larger percentage of Americas tax burden than any other group.
You're not into equality, are you? You want to continue to maintain an inferior subset of American citizens. Those who less are expected from. The bigotry of soft/low expectations. Got it. Ugly.
Not speaking for Einstein here, but I'm not into equality. We're not equal, and to treat unequal things as equals is the very definition of injustice. Progressive taxation is just. To whom much is given, much is required.
James Madison in the federal papers tries to convince the states to adopt the constitution, by assuring them that the general welfare clause isn't a blanket power. But rather is a qualifying idea for the actual powers in Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution.
The idea being that general welfare of the nation would entail the best interests of the people the government is instituted for.
The idea being that general welfare of the nation would entail the best interests of the people the government is instituted for.
Let me repeat what James Madison said about the General Welfare clause....
Quote:
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
If you read what he, James Madison, the father of the constitution, says in the federalist papers #41, with any comprehension whatsoever. You will realize that the General welfare clause doesn't exist as a real power. It is a qualifying idea for the following powers.
So to say that the Congress has the power to enact legislation "for the general welfare", it is true only to the extent that the general welfare is qualified in the actual powers outlined in powers enumerated by Article 1 section 8. And anything not listed specifically in article 1 section 8, is not a power of Congress.
What James Madison says is that, why would you need to outline the powers of Congress, if they were already unlimited to begin with? That it seems logically inconsistent to believe that the general welfare clause gives Congress the authority to do anything and everything that they alone deem to be for the general welfare.
Let me repeat what James Madison said about the General Welfare clause....
If you read what he, James Madison, the father of the constitution, says in the federalist papers #41, with any comprehension whatsoever. You will realize that the General welfare clause doesn't exist as a real power. It is a qualifying idea for the following powers.
So to say that the Congress has the power to enact legislation "for the general welfare", it is true only to the extent that the general welfare is qualified in the actual powers outlined in powers enumerated by Article 1 section 8. And anything not listed specifically in article 1 section 8, is not a power of Congress.
What James Madison says is that, why would you need to outline the powers of Congress, if they were already unlimited to begin with? That it seems logically inconsistent to believe that the general welfare clause gives Congress the authority to do anything and everything that they alone deem to be for the general welfare.
General welfare is an expectation, just as defense is, not a power. The powers outlined in the article/section are to meet those ends (and more). Tell me what you believe to be the significance of it being in the first clause of the article/section (and the Preamble of the US Constitution).
What part of "All" and "Cumulative" wrt to the middle class statement do you not un(blue bars in chart), derstand?
The IRS data includes ALL tax returns within the income groups. Not sure what you don't understand.
Quote:
My bad, I noticed you said "Federal Income tax" and not "total taxes". Total taxes are what comes out of my pocket.
You're wrong about that, too. Look at the data on Total Taxes (blue bars in chart) to see who's overpaying and who's underpaying:
Now look at where the money goes:
60% are reaping MUCH more in government benefits and services compared to the share they pay of all taxes local, state, and federal. Of course they want to stick it to "the rich." More freebies for them at someone else's expense. It isn't rocket science.
Not speaking for Einstein here, but I'm not into equality. We're not equal, and to treat unequal things as equals is the very definition of injustice. Progressive taxation is just. To whom much is given, much is required.
There's a difference between "given" and "earned."
What's not just is to insist that someone who studies for a decade to become a cardiologist who saves lives deserves to pay more taxes than someone who drops out of high school and works at a convenience store.
Why does someone who owns a business, takes the risk of its failure, and provides jobs as well as goods and services to the public deserve to pay more than the person who runs the cash register in that business?
The only way to make what you say true that I can see is to assume that people with more money didn't legitimately earn that money and therefore have no right to keep it.
Progressive taxation is just. To whom much is given, much is required.
Given? Given? Not very many people were "given" their salaries or wealth. The vast majority of people EARNED it. Read "The Millionaire Next Door." The Millionaire Next Door
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That's your philosophy. Who said it?
The idea being that general welfare of the nation would entail the best interests of the people the government is instituted for.
Who's best interest is it in to have the money earned by only a very small percentage, confiscated from them at a greater rate than all the others? Certainly not those from which the excessive amount of money was taken.
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.
