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.
so if you are paying $10,000 a year in taxes and a rich person is paying $300,000 a year in taxes, they are paying less than you do.
right..........
One of those questionable accounting statements I guess.
I know someone who made $24K last year but got a tax REFUND of $11K. (thats $0 taxes paid, but a check of $11K). To watch these people claim the rich arent paying their fair share when the "poor" get a check yearly is histerical
One of those questionable accounting statements I guess.
I know someone who made $24K last year but got a tax REFUND of $11K. (thats $0 taxes paid, but a check of $11K). To watch these people claim the rich arent paying their fair share when the "poor" get a check yearly is histerical
I would rather not be paying any tax at all, and would repeal the 16th Amendment if I could. but being realistic, a flat tax of 22% would be fair to eevryone, and only if the 16th Amendment is repealed as well.
The wrong word might have been used, it doesnt change the argument
Goes to matters of credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Except the poor, who actually get more then they pay.
I thought you all were in favor of welfare reform. You know, get them out there working or at least studying something? That's where the EITC and various other refundable tax credits came from and those are what make the data for the bottom 50% look different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Wait, your the one who changed the topic and then you call me "childish" for pointing out the facts in your own thread?
Not my thread. Check the OP. The issue in any case is not whether I pay enough, but whether those similarly and even better situated pay enough. The answer is no. Bushie just threw bags of money at us. For no reason.
Last edited by saganista; 03-28-2009 at 08:58 PM..
I thought you all were in favor of welfare reform. You know, get them out there working or at least studying something? That's where the EITC and various other refundable tax credits came from nd those are what make the data for the borrom 50% look different.
Wait, you just criticized yourself getting tax credits and then justified others getting them...
People shouldnt need a tax credit to go to work, their want/needs should be sufficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Not my thread. Check the OP. The issue in any case is not whether I pay enough, but whether those similarly and even better situated pay enough. The answer is no. Bushie just threw bags of money at us. For no reason.
It became the case when you started talking about how you dont pay enough and your ability to ignore the facts that the amount of taxes the top 50% of the taxpayers supports 100% of the programs setup to benefit the poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Goes to matters of credibility.
Of which you now have none with your talks of "Bushies" and $500 dinners...
Well, yeah. They're poor, thus they have no money for taxes. It's hard to squeeze blood out of a turnip.
There is a difference between not having the ability to pay taxes, and getting paid by the government at other individuals expenses for your lack of ability/willingness to earn more..
20% is a terrible thing when your avoiding the real question, why should you be paying 20% when others are not only paying 0% but receiving a check for their lack of willing or ability to earn more?
Well, I have everything I need plus everything I want and I still have piles of money sitting around. What do those 0% people have? Who can more easily afford to give up say another $100 in taxes. I wouldn't notice it. For them, they can't make rent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I "Could", but I live within my means, if your rich enough to pay more and help those less fortunate, I'll be more than willing to send you my address, you can buy me dinner.
No "Queen for a Day", thanks. I manage to give quite a bit to the charities and other organizations that I think do important work, including the 501(c)(3) that I run myself. I don't think you'd qualify under any of my criteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
p.s., didnt you just call me "childish" for getting off topic, tell me your dinner expense isnt "off topic".
Yes, and it goes to show the level of financial freedom that the top one-percenters that you so desperately want to protect are off enjoying while millions of others struggle every day. Your priorities are skewed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Maybe I should be "childish" and stoop to calling you names in return.
Have at it if being confronted by the truth bothers you that much...
Wait, you just criticized yourself getting tax credits and then justified others getting them... People shouldnt need a tax credit to go to work, their want/needs should be sufficient.
No, I simply said that the wealthy can easily afford to pay more taxes. And about ten years ago, you all said you didn;t want people to get welfare if they didn't work. So now they work. And they get their welfare payments through refundable tax credits that make their total income tax less than zero. You asked for this. Now you whine about it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
It became the case when you started talking about how you dont pay enough and your ability to ignore the facts that the amount of taxes the top 50% of the taxpayers supports 100% of the programs setup to benefit the poor.
So what? Much is aksed from those to whom much is given. Didn't you ever hear that before? And how about marginal utility? Did you ever hear of that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Of which you now have none with your talks of "Bushies" and $500 dinners...
Hey, you're the one who's afraid that I can't get by with a $450 dinner. I wouldn't have any problem with it. There are plenty of good wines to be had at $200 a bottle. I could live with those. You apparently don't think I should have to, and that we should scam actual needy people in order to prevent it.
So what? Much is aksed from those to whom much is given. Didn't you ever hear that before? And how about marginal utility? Did you ever hear of that?
Choose to give, or forced to give? You seem to lump them all together as if they are the same...
Only those who have to help contribute to society will appreciate what they receive.
You sit there and blame the "Bushies" for economic hardships, and then try to talk about giving to "charities", talk about $500 dinners, and then proclaim its ok for people who support 96% of the government to be forced to support more than 100%, as if those who receive the most from the government shouldnt be asked to contribute back to society at all.
Give it a break..
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.
