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.
Obama hasn't raised taxes... he let the Bush tax cuts expire.
So it all revolves around your federal income tax.
See that's how they get you.
If they don't raise the federal income tax then you feel good that the status quo has been maintained.
FYI..since 2008 your total taxes (city, county, state, federal) have gone up $.05 to $.59 for every $1.00 you earn.
They're getting your money and you don't even know it
There is one thing liberals never take into account --> Human nature. If you keep taking their money what will the rich do?
Central redistribution of wealth was tried in the former Soviet Union and is still in use in EU countries. The Soviet Union went bankrupt evening out the wealth. The EU is now experiencing the consequences of redistribution: forcing Great Britain to cut back on needed health services and driving Greece into a severe austerity program.
If person X contributes $5,000 in taxes and receives $6,000 in benefits, he still paid $5,000 in taxes. His net result of the redistribution is negative. Either way, the government received $5,000 worth of taxes from person X.
No, such a person would have had a net gain of $1,000 in income without having to pay any federal income tax whatsoever. How do you not understand that?
A consumption tax, or even a flat income tax, makes so much sense and would hit the rich harder but it would be DOA upon arrival on Harry Reid's desk. It would eliminate the power they have to bestow favors upon those willing to pay lots and lots of money for those favors.
Flat income tax is extremely regressive unless paired with a basic income credit.
Flat income tax looks like this (Illinois has flat income tax):
How did we become the richest, most productive nation on earth? By "richest" I mean having the highest average standard of living. Answer: by having the most opportunities for individuals to become rich and avoiding the seductive call of socialism.
When someone screams that we have a big gulf between the haves and the have-nots in our country, you can respond calmly. Yes we do, just like every other country that has ever existed: monarchy, dictatorship, capitalist, socialist or communist. The difference is that we have more ‘haves' than other countries.
So it all revolves around your federal income tax.
See that's how they get you.
If they don't raise the federal income tax then you feel good that the status quo has been maintained.
FYI..since 2008 your total taxes (city, county, state, federal) have gone up $.05 to $.59 for every $1.00 you earn.
They're getting your money and you don't even know it
No, such a person would have had a net gain of $1,000 in income without having to pay any federal income tax whatsoever. How do you not understand that?
You can't really be that stupid. Can you?
Ha!
When you have nothing else, call the other person intelligent names.
Like I said, in order for that person to get $1,000, they still had to pay $5,000 worth of taxes into the system. Without that person's revenue, the system has $5,000 less as a whole. How you quantify the benefits is up to you. It is redistribution 101. Taxes are called redistribution for a reason.
It isn't my problem if you don't like it. That doesn't make it any less true.
If you truly want the other countries' socialist benefits, why won't you then also embrace and advocate for their highly regressive taxes that pay for such?
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.