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.
They can't take them at all or they can only take them up to 200k? Big difference there
many of the credits (ie tuition, energy, retirement YOU CANT NOT TAKE if the household income is over 180k for some...250k for others...some like the child credit, all can take
Hostess didn't go under because of the union. That's a damned lie. They went under because the greedy bastards didn't know how to run a company. And yes, when you already have several hundred thousand dollars but you want more so you steal the workers pensions that makes you a greedy bastard and I'm being way to charitable there
It does not matter what the greedy executives at the company did. The fact is that at the time of the negotiations the union was presented with an ultimatum that Hostess could not survive a strike and would close if the bakers did not return to work, and the bakers union chose to disregard the warning. They did this despite knowing the company was in bankruptcy and despite knowing other unions had been forced to compromise. Hostess followed through with what it said it was going to do and all the workers suffered the consequences.
Your assertion can be used to claim that Hostess would not have been in the position of potentially closing had the management been more competent. I would agree with that. But what actually closed the doors and lost all those people their jobs was in fact the bakers union refusing to return to work. Had those people returned to work, Hostess would not have closed. Don't mistake what I've said as indicating any sort of support for the unethical behavior of the executives. I'm just relating the sequence of events. I never claimed the contracts the executives were offering were fair. I'm just saying the union did have a chance to save the jobs and chose not to do it.
No I have not made a false accusation. If a poor urban single mother applying for welfare transferred her bank account over to a relative or trusted friend because there was a restriction on how much money you could have in the bank she'd be accused of gaming the system. But if a rich person did the same thing to avoid taxes they'd say good for him.
1. there is a big difference between gaming to GAIN(RECEIVE) welfare or a GOVERNMENT CHECK...than avoiding PAYING taxes
The poor people are MORE responsible for the wasteful government spending than the small group of rich people!
The poor people have a BIGGER influence on the government than ANYONE ELSE!
Well that's debatable. Campaign contributions are vital to winning an election. One rich donor can take the place of many poor donors and end up allowing a candidate to spread his message to millions of voters.
Also, loopholes, subsidies, favorable regulations, government contracts, etc are generally influence by the rich much more than the poor. So while the poor may have more influence over getting a politician elected the rich may have more influence over what the politician does after being elected.
Example being that I think the rich had quite a bit more influence in how the bank bailouts were carried out than the poor did, and those bailouts involved an awful lot of money.
Are you really that sick or are you being sarcastic?
A poor person's fair share of income taxes is $0.00
Not if the poor person makes an income. A fair share of something can't be nothing. That's not a share. If the person pays nothing then they aren't participating at all. Now if someone's "fair share" of paying the tax is 0% - no responsibility, no contribution - then why should that person's fair share of voting on how that tax is spent or, more importantly, how high that tax is, be 100% of the rich person's share?
Why is it fair that someone who contributes nothing gets an equal say in how much the person who does contribute has to pay?
Not if the poor person makes an income. A fair share of something can't be nothing. That's not a share. If the person pays nothing then they aren't participating at all.
Exactly.
And according to Congress, 51% of the tax-eligible aren't participating at all.
Quote:
"In summary, for tax year 2009, approximately 22 percent of all tax units, including filers and non filers, will have zero income tax liability, approximately 30% will receive a refundable credit, and approximately 49% will have a positive income tax liability."
i paid 22% with no refund.(maybe i need a new tax person LOL)
even though the top tax rate is 39.5% that is only on a small percentage of of income.
it is misleading to say rich people paid a higher percentage of their income to taxes.
No it isn't misleading. It is correct.
He pays a higher percentage on his income than you do, and you both pay an equal percentage on your capital gains.
What's misleading is using the word income interchangeably with capital gains, then using "overall tax rate" to imply that you're paying the same type of tax when you're not.
Are you really that sick or are you being sarcastic?
A poor person's fair share of income taxes is $0.00
WHY????
why should their """FAIR"""" share be nothing...?????
especially when they GET THE MOST FROM THE GOVERNMENT
every one should pay the same RATE...the same FAIRSHARE...be it an income tax, or a consuption tax...
a consumption tax is much more fairer, becasue a good portion of income is never reported
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.