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.
Rakin i have corrected you before on this, i am starting to wonder if you just like to spread misinformation or you are struggling to understand basic encon.
households earning over 200k 50% - 60% of income taxes... ( i am giving you the spectrum reported instead of nitpicking)
Income taxes make up 50% of the taxes paid, the rest are mostly regressive sales taxes that impact the poor to middle class very harshly.
Have you ever considered that while the rich pay the most, they gain the most?
How exactly?
The same military that protects them protects me. The same fire department that puts out my fire puts out theirs. The same police that catches the bad guy in my neighborhood catches the bad guy in theirs. If you go very far beyond those things, you are getting into the realm of what the federal government should NOT be involved with.
Okay, now turn the table: the homeless people that I see on the public transportation system that I ride every day get free tickets. They get free food. They are provided free housing (which I suppose rids them of the "homeless" label) in the massive apartments that have recently been constructed in my area. All for doing absolutely zilch besides riding around on the buses to hang out wherever for the day.
Do the rich people in my area get free transportation? No. Do they get free food? No. Do they get free housing? No. Everything they have gotten, they have worked for, despite being fleeced by people like you. They ought to be heralded as national heroes to have been able to accumulate that kind of wealth with your hands in their pants stealing 90% of their earnings.
And you saying the rich have gotten so much from the government in providing them a place to earn their riches is an absolutely lame argument. That same protection is afforded everyone. The millionaire and the destitute. The difference is that one person is motivated and the other is not. The rich are unwillingly paying the poor to stay poor.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
I know most people would find that idea ludicrous, but logically speaking, that is exactly the way it should be. A tax is supposed to be fee for service rendered by the government. The rich use less of those services and consequently should pay less.
That's the way everything else in our system works. So why should it be different here? When you walk into a store, do you pay ten times the price for a loaf of bread that you DIDN'T buy because you make 500K a year? No. You don't pay for the bread that you didn't buy. You pay for what you DID buy. And you pay the same price as everyone else for it. That's the way it needs to be across the board.
No it doesn't, otherwise the working poor would bankrupt themselves just trying to commute to work among other problems. The commons are not supposed to function like private goods where everyone pays the same $ amount. That is the key difference between private and public
Rakin i have corrected you before on this, i am starting to wonder if you just like to spread misinformation or you are struggling to understand basic encon.
households earning over 200k 50% - 60% of income taxes... ( i am giving you the spectrum reported instead of nitpicking)
Income taxes make up 50% of the taxes paid, the rest are mostly regressive sales taxes that impact the poor to middle class very harshly.
Totally false. You realize this thread is about FEDERAL taxes, no?
The government doesn't give it to them. They earn it via working and/or investing in the economy. In direct contrast, the poor get over $1 trillion/year in freebie government benefits such as Medicaid, Welfare, SNAP, TANF, public housing or housing assistance, utility bill reductions, etc., etc., etc.
And we are better off for it.
As a business owner in logistics, I have less in expenses then I would if I had to build the roads I and my employees use.... or if I had to educate all my employees on my own dime so they could do basic things. The list goes on.
I just don't have your sense of entitlement perhaps.
What difference does that make? Why penalize responsibility, achievement, and success?
Apparently, many of you are completely unaware of the fact that you get more of what you pay for, aka the poor, and less of what you penalize, aka the responsible, achievers, and successful.
And the idiots wonder why so many are poor. They're PAID to be poor. It's a money-making gig.
That's punitive, and decreases/eliminates the incentive to be responsible and to achieve. Is that the type of country you want?
Nonsense.
What do you think would happen to the economy if we taxed based on your ideal of fairness? Would income earner B have more or less disposable income? What do you think would happen to the US economy?
Quote:
Food for thought...
Currently, 48% of all US births each year are paid for by Medicaid, the government free health care program for the poor. In a country that only has a 13.5% poverty rate. The US Census Bureau has determined that, consistently, women on public assistance as a group have a birth rate 3 times higher than those not on public assistance.
Anyone who understands compounded population growth projection will understand that this is a recipe for disaster. It's mathematically unsustainable. Period.
I'll give an example of the future consequences using the following formula (compounded population growth projection) and values, given the rate ratios we already know (non-poor : poor = 1 : 3), after a time period of 50 years (roughly, the time span of two generations), and using a small sample size for the sake of making an easier comparison.
The formula is:
present value x (e)^kt = future value
where e equals the constant 2.71828..., k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, e.g. 5% would be 0.05), and t is the number of years (or other unit, as long as it is the same as k) over which the growth is to be measured.
Given: 100 births/year. 52 non-poor. 48 poor.
k for the non-poor = 1% = 0.01
k for the poor = 3% = 0.03
Non-poor population after 50 years: 85.73
Poor population after 50 years: 215.12
They began at:
Non-poor: 52%
Poor: 48%
And after 50 years of population growth given the rate ratios we already know, that results in:
Non-poor: 28.5%
Poor: 71.5%
The poor/low-income are WAY overbreeding, encouraged and enabled to do so by all the freebie public assistance benefits they get. Do you recognize the problem for society that presents?
The percentage of the US population that cannot support themselves and their dependents will increase exponentially, while those paying taxes will be increasingly unable to pay enough to support them all. It's completely mathematically unsustainable, and the US's society is already beginning to feel the effects.
Yawn..... birth rates aren't static. The fact that you have to assume such things tells me a lot about your ideology and knowledge.
2 meals a day at school. food stamps, housing and on and on. these poor kids don't know any different, the government has turned them into addicts. It's a losers spiral.
well if you guys would stop pretending the rich pay all the taxes ,and stop with the patently false statements about low income americans i will stop remnding everyone that thebottom half pay trillions a year in non federal income taxes...
trillions a year in NON federal income taxes......trillions.
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.
