|
On September 28 2011 13:09 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +Love how the ppl who's parents are making "6 figure incomes" are complaining about how they have a hard time putting 4 kids through school and having a grandmother in a nursing home.
Laughable actually. I'm sure it really is, I do happen to do stand up on the side actually  .....How about you quit trolling and realize that 100k is by no means a shit ton of money (It's pretty good, but not as good as you make it out to be). 4 years of college here costs $80,000 here and decent nursing homes are insanely expensive, and on top of that there are always bills to pay. Show nested quote +Please ppl, take a step back from you life and look @ other peoples situations. I'll do that once I've got all of my shit taken care of. We actually also do donate a ton of money to our church (OH NO RELIGON!) which does charitable work in the community, and helps feed the homeless on a daily basis. Show nested quote +So once again, please don't complain when mommy and daddy buy you a nice sports car. Just remember there are ppl like me who take a 2 + hours bus ride commute.
LOLOLOL sports car (I walk my ass to class everyday buddy), and you claim to be in a fairly well-off family and your parents won't even buy you a junker for a two hour round trip commute?? You're either trolling, poor, or your parents are stingy as fuck. Don't read it then, I'm trying quite hard to convert it from a "Bash all things Republican/Opulent thread" to a meaningful discussion. Maybe this is what's upsetting you.
if you don't have much of an income buying a junker then paying insurance for it will be sucking all your money though gas and insurance esp if you're under 25, male, possibly not yet done with college or no college and the car is a piece of shit.
About nursing homes, my grandparents lived with me when i grew up for a good 5 years of my life till they moved to my aunt and uncles in the Philippines =p my other grandparents, my grandmother had alzheimer's, it was a family decision after her alzheimer's progressed to a point where my grandpa wasn't confident that he could take care of her himself that we would use their savings which would have gone to us after they died to pay for the nursing home.
4 years of college doesn't cost 80k, get grants and scholarships run 2 years in community college for a couple thousand a year and finish at a state college near home so it cost half that even less depending where you live. But zeesh even then you're lucky i know plenty of people who put themselves though college his dad is very nice for putting his kids though college but you say that to some of my friends that grew up in trailer parks they would laugh the shit out of you because their future college would be community college, military or crushing student government loans.
100k depending on which state you live in as sole income for a family of 5, 6 dependents? wouldn't even be touched by such "rich taxes" anyways =p the point of progressivism is for the best of us to sacrifice to bring up the worst off of us. A rich tax now then an overall raise on income taxes once the econ is stronger would be the best bet.
|
if you don't have much of an income buying a junker then paying insurance for it will be sucking all your money though gas and insurance esp if you're under 25, male, possibly not yet done with college or no college and the car is a piece of shit.
Fair enough I forgot how much of a bitch insurance is, considering I don't pay for it as long as I keep my grades up.
4 years of college doesn't cost 80k
If you want a college that virtually guarantees you a job for a decent GPA and major choice (D1 state school), yes it does. Here it does. Obviously technical college / trade school doesn't cost this much, but that's not what I was getting at, and I can say with almost utmost certainty that my siblings will be taking the same route I am.
get grants and scholarships
I'm a white, christian male both of whose parents have masters degrees and earn good money.. You think i have any chance at grants/financial aid? and to a lesser extent scholarships? I don't mean to be rude but I chuckled a little bit at this.
100k depending on which state you live in as sole income for a family of 5, 6 dependents? wouldn't even be touched by such "rich taxes" anyways =p the point of progressivism is for the best of us to sacrifice to bring up the worst off of us.
IMHO I think you underestimate how varied the cost of living is throughout the states. (100K in Cali /= 100K in Mississippi.) I also think you underestimate how much everyday life nickles and dimes you.
A rich tax now then an overall raise on income taxes once the econ is stronger would be the best bet.
Would not be surprised to see this once we climb out of this hellhole, even though I will not be eager to see it enacted.
|
I don't understand how we have so much correlating data between recent tax cuts and wealth disparity, and yet we still argue that the wealthiest Americans are being taxed too much. Our current tax code isn't even noticeably progressive when you look at it in respect to income distribution. In fact, the top 10% minus the top 1% is paying less of the tax burden compared to their slice of the wealth. The top 1% BARELY pays more than it has out of the pie, but so do the bottom 50%. If you look at it as %pay/%own, the middle brackets are under 1 and the outer are above.
So, before you go calling our system progressive, just remember that each income group is paying roughly proportional to the slice of wealth they have.
|
On September 28 2011 15:11 aksfjh wrote:
So, before you go calling our system progressive, just remember that each income group is paying roughly proportional to the slice of wealth they have.
Good Statement.
|
On September 28 2011 10:15 semantics wrote:FabledIntegral So you would undo the social safety nets of the new deal, the fair deal and the great society? You seem to not know that the lower your income and education level is, which often go hand in hand, the more likely you are to have children have multiple marriages pick up smoking et al. His numbers may seem ridiculous but 50% of americans make less then 33k a year if you're counting unemployed 41k if you're not and how many you suppose have a familys? what happens if one get laid off due to a volatile econ and frankly the lower your wage is the more expendable you are as it's likely to have less requirements to find a replacement. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eYbUx.gif) As you can see as we undone such things upward mobility for a person in this country has stagnated Your comment on working harder is a lie, just because you make money more doesn't always coincide with working harder, just like making less doesn't mean you work less. And on avg if you look it up the lower your income is the higher your stress level is in life compared to that of a wealthier individual. Remember this is in the context of raising taxes for the top earners in the country to help close the budget defect which the alternative esp proposed by republicans is to cut spending often in aid to the poor. When they throw out such crap like only half the people pay federal income tax, which is only true because they count people who are unemployed, retired or make such shitty pay like 20k a year that there would be little point to tax it as it would only further hurt your quality of life which in turn they would take from programs to help lift them out of that.
I don't really care if you're more likely to pick up smoking. That's your own life choice. Same with your decision to have a child.
I just got annoyed with the 20k number being right at the border so he could then conclude "family A is making 80x more than family B in terms of disposable income after necessities." It's a heavily twisted/warped way to look at it that has no place in an argument, imo.
You're more likely to get laid off when labor prices are higher, so it's really a poor argument if you're looking for stability vs volatility. Also I don't understand your statement at all "the lower your wages the more replaceable you are as it's likely to have less requirements to find a replacement" because it doesn't make sense to me at all. The lower your wages, the less likely other people are willing to take said spot. For example, if minimum wage is $8, there might be 100 people that want the job. If it drops to $6, maybe only 70 people want the job. Assuming you're willing to work for $6, you have a better chance of getting that job opening, and following this system we can assure those most willing to do the jobs are the ones that get them.
I'll repeat it again as I don't remember if I posted this in this topic or another, but I'm not for abolishing the minimum wage anyways. I'm merely arguing that increasing the minimum wage does NOT help fix the wealth disparity arising in the U.S. and actually potentially increases rather than decreases it, despite that seeming counter-intuitive.
|
On September 28 2011 09:50 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +
You think this doesn't happen for the lower classes either? Sales taxes, sin taxes, payroll taxes, etc, etc also hit lower income earners. Payroll tax is actually capped, so once you hit a certain level of income, you don't pay further payroll tax on additional income.
That said, the reason why a flat tax is regarded as unfair:
Consider two families, couples with three children. One family earns 20k, the other earns 100k, pre tax. Let us assume no government welfare, and no other taxes. Let us also assume that a 20k income is sufficient for the following: basic transportation, basic shelter, plain clothing, sufficient food, maintenance and insurance of home + contents and $1000 a year left over for appliances, luxuries, health care, investment etc.
The 20k income family is barely squeaking by. They have $20 a week left over for discretionary spending. Taking the family to the cinema once per month would use up the remainder of the budget.
Consider now the 100k income family. Now let us assume that this family was originally a 20k family. At the beginning, they have the same lifestyle. Suddenly, the 100k family is earning 5x more than the 20k family. However, this does not tell the whole picture. The fixed expenditure of both families is 19k a year. Below this income, the family has to either go hungry, stop maintaining/insuring, wear tattered clothing, etc. Now, the 100k family has 81k a year left over for discretionary spending (upgrading transport, the house, new clothes, high quality food, appliances, luxuries, health care, investment).
You see, even though the 100k family makes five times more money, they have eighty one times more money to spend as they wish.
Now consider a 5% flat income tax. The 20k family now has an after tax income of 19k. They now have absolutely no money left over after buying the bare necessities. The 100k family still has 76k a year left over.
Now consider a 10% flat income tax. The 20k family now has 18k after tax. They can longer afford to feed every member of the family, while the 100k a year family still has 71k a year left for discretionary spending.
How the hell is that story even relevant. Maybe you shouldn't be trying to support a family of four on $20,000 a year? That's below minimum wage of a single person working full time! It's of my personal belief that you should not be able to support a family on minimum wage, and if you can, something is wrong. If you want to have a family, get a better job first. If you can't find one, don't have a family anytime soon as it's fiscally irresponsible. Otherwise you're relying on other people to feed your children because you can't do it yourself. Amount of disposable income left after necessities is an utterly terrible argument imo, and your numbers presented are so ridiculous and extreme to try to portray your point it's simply dismissable. The person making 100k probably works a lot harder too, has a more stressful job, went to college and incurred a ton of debt there he has to pay back when he wasn't working full time, probably works more than full time unlike the minimum wage worker, etc. If you ARE trying to support a family on minimum wage and only one parent is working, you better damn well be working more than 40hr/week. Because that's what a TON of people that are making 6 figures are doing ( new investment bankers, etc. work their fucking asses off year round working probably more than twice as much in a far more stressful environment).
Mate, you're retarded.
IT IS AN EXAMPLE DESIGNED TO ILLUSTRATE THE REASON WHY WE HAVE PROGRESSIVE TAXATION.
IT IS NOT A PERFECT REPRESENTATION OF THE REAL WORLD.
The assumption of no welfare/taxes should have clued you in
As for supporting a family on minimum wage: do you even know what minimum wage is? Do you know why it came about? I'll tell you.
When minimum wage, for full time workers, was first introduced, the amount was set to be an income sufficient for a man alone, to feed and shelter a wife and four children.
I don't give a shit how many hours are being worked, the presence or absence of student debt, the stress of the job, the education level of the workers, or even whether its 2011 or 1911 because they are not relevant to the example or the principle.
And the principle is this: the state of taxation should not be the determining factor of whether or not a person is homeless or starving.
|
On September 28 2011 09:50 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +
You think this doesn't happen for the lower classes either? Sales taxes, sin taxes, payroll taxes, etc, etc also hit lower income earners. Payroll tax is actually capped, so once you hit a certain level of income, you don't pay further payroll tax on additional income.
That said, the reason why a flat tax is regarded as unfair:
Consider two families, couples with three children. One family earns 20k, the other earns 100k, pre tax. Let us assume no government welfare, and no other taxes. Let us also assume that a 20k income is sufficient for the following: basic transportation, basic shelter, plain clothing, sufficient food, maintenance and insurance of home + contents and $1000 a year left over for appliances, luxuries, health care, investment etc.
The 20k income family is barely squeaking by. They have $20 a week left over for discretionary spending. Taking the family to the cinema once per month would use up the remainder of the budget.
Consider now the 100k income family. Now let us assume that this family was originally a 20k family. At the beginning, they have the same lifestyle. Suddenly, the 100k family is earning 5x more than the 20k family. However, this does not tell the whole picture. The fixed expenditure of both families is 19k a year. Below this income, the family has to either go hungry, stop maintaining/insuring, wear tattered clothing, etc. Now, the 100k family has 81k a year left over for discretionary spending (upgrading transport, the house, new clothes, high quality food, appliances, luxuries, health care, investment).
You see, even though the 100k family makes five times more money, they have eighty one times more money to spend as they wish.
Now consider a 5% flat income tax. The 20k family now has an after tax income of 19k. They now have absolutely no money left over after buying the bare necessities. The 100k family still has 76k a year left over.
Now consider a 10% flat income tax. The 20k family now has 18k after tax. They can longer afford to feed every member of the family, while the 100k a year family still has 71k a year left for discretionary spending.
How the hell is that story even relevant. Maybe you shouldn't be trying to support a family of four on $20,000 a year? That's below minimum wage of a single person working full time! It's of my personal belief that you should not be able to support a family on minimum wage, and if you can, something is wrong. If you want to have a family, get a better job first. If you can't find one, don't have a family anytime soon as it's fiscally irresponsible. Otherwise you're relying on other people to feed your children because you can't do it yourself. Amount of disposable income left after necessities is an utterly terrible argument imo, and your numbers presented are so ridiculous and extreme to try to portray your point it's simply dismissable. The person making 100k probably works a lot harder too, has a more stressful job, went to college and incurred a ton of debt there he has to pay back when he wasn't working full time, probably works more than full time unlike the minimum wage worker, etc. If you ARE trying to support a family on minimum wage and only one parent is working, you better damn well be working more than 40hr/week. Because that's what a TON of people that are making 6 figures are doing ( new investment bankers, etc. work their fucking asses off year round working probably more than twice as much in a far more stressful environment).
While I don't like the fact he left out the increased cost of living for those making more money, his example is quite valid. Having a higher income allows for a larger portion of loose capital. There was a user earlier who mentioned having a 2nd home. This is a good example of higher expenses from higher wages. What is emphasized about the example, however, is how close to the brink each increase in taxes brings the poor family to the wealthier family. While one faces a shortage of meals, the other faces liquidation of capital or removing redundancies or excesses from their lifestyle. I personally don't like it when taxes affect any lifestyle in a significant way, but I'd rather them hit the people who have a large number of ways to offset the cost.
|
I have a question for people who think this is actually significant.
How does making class warfare in our country solve anything?
Why should a person be hurt for being more successful, usually from hard work, than another?
I think we should just cut out the loopholes and make everyone pay a fair tax, with no deductions. This is a free country based on free thinking, with this Pythagoram thought we should therefore all pay the same tax, with no statues to uphold upon it. This means that if you have kids, you do not get a tax break. If you give to charity, you do not get a tax break. If you make 100K because your a doctor and the next guy makes 50K because hes a factory worker, both should pay the same % of money they earn.
To make it more fair, we could say the first 40K can't be taxed.
Just so people don't rage on me this is some of my more provocative opinions below.
+ Show Spoiler +I think that jealousy has spread among Americans who think they are entitled to what the hard working Americans have. Most CEO's are people who are engineers or have doctorates, not business majors. Knowing this you should know they have to have worked hard during college and during their careers. So why can't these CEO's make more than the average person? In reality the Social Darwinism is in effect, and the people who are smarter should make more money. It's like one football player making more money because hes better than another.
|
On September 28 2011 10:32 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +Remember this is in the context of raising taxes for the top earners in the country to help close the budget defect which the alternative esp proposed by republicans is to cut spending often in aid to the poor. When they throw out such crap like only half the people pay federal income tax, which is only true because they count people who are unemployed, retired or make such shitty pay like 20k a year that there would be little point to tax it as it would only further hurt your quality of life which in turn they would take from programs to help lift them out of that. Even if you double the federal income tax collected every year, we'd still be in the red on an annual basis. Like it or not the the majority of the problem rests with government spending + wasteful practices, and that needs to be fixed before taxes even consider being raised, otherwise we'll just be wasting even more money.
Why do we need to cut aid to the poor before we raise taxes for the rich? I really don't get this line of thinking. You want the people already suffering to suffer MORE before you tax the ones who are living a very luxurious lifestyle.
|
On September 29 2011 00:07 SySLeif wrote:I have a question for people who think this is actually significant. How does making class warfare in our country solve anything? Why should a person be hurt for being more successful, usually from hard work, than another? I think we should just cut out the loopholes and make everyone pay a fair tax, with no deductions. This is a free country based on free thinking, with this Pythagoram thought we should therefore all pay the same tax, with no statues to uphold upon it. This means that if you have kids, you do not get a tax break. If you give to charity, you do not get a tax break. If you make 100K because your a doctor and the next guy makes 50K because hes a factory worker, both should pay the same % of money they earn. To make it more fair, we could say the first 40K can't be taxed. Just so people don't rage on me this is some of my more provocative opinions below. + Show Spoiler +I think that jealousy has spread among Americans who think they are entitled to what the hard working Americans have. Most CEO's are people who are engineers or have doctorates, not business majors. Knowing this you should know they have to have worked hard during college and during their careers. So why can't these CEO's make more than the average person? In reality the Social Darwinism is in effect, and the people who are smarter should make more money. It's like one football player making more money because hes better than another.
While some do want to tax the rich vindictively, many of us would just rather see government paid for. Those that can afford it most at this time are those who have the most spare capital. It's a little ridiculous to think that the main reason people want to tax the rich is because we hate them. It reminds me of the argument that the only reason terrorists attack America is because they hate our "freedom."
|
On September 29 2011 00:12 Bandino wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2011 10:32 Pillage wrote:Remember this is in the context of raising taxes for the top earners in the country to help close the budget defect which the alternative esp proposed by republicans is to cut spending often in aid to the poor. When they throw out such crap like only half the people pay federal income tax, which is only true because they count people who are unemployed, retired or make such shitty pay like 20k a year that there would be little point to tax it as it would only further hurt your quality of life which in turn they would take from programs to help lift them out of that. Even if you double the federal income tax collected every year, we'd still be in the red on an annual basis. Like it or not the the majority of the problem rests with government spending + wasteful practices, and that needs to be fixed before taxes even consider being raised, otherwise we'll just be wasting even more money. Why do we need to cut aid to the poor before we raise taxes for the rich? I really don't get this line of thinking. You want the people already suffering to suffer MORE before you tax the ones who are living a very luxurious lifestyle.
Do you really think everyone on welfare is suffering? Come on now. Our welfare system routinely overpays many of its recipients, many of whom are unqualified for the aid they receive. That's what is wasteful about the current system. Fix that first, and you can stretch every dollar you tax much, much further. It's not making people suffer it's common sense.
|
On September 29 2011 00:31 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 00:12 Bandino wrote:On September 28 2011 10:32 Pillage wrote:Remember this is in the context of raising taxes for the top earners in the country to help close the budget defect which the alternative esp proposed by republicans is to cut spending often in aid to the poor. When they throw out such crap like only half the people pay federal income tax, which is only true because they count people who are unemployed, retired or make such shitty pay like 20k a year that there would be little point to tax it as it would only further hurt your quality of life which in turn they would take from programs to help lift them out of that. Even if you double the federal income tax collected every year, we'd still be in the red on an annual basis. Like it or not the the majority of the problem rests with government spending + wasteful practices, and that needs to be fixed before taxes even consider being raised, otherwise we'll just be wasting even more money. Why do we need to cut aid to the poor before we raise taxes for the rich? I really don't get this line of thinking. You want the people already suffering to suffer MORE before you tax the ones who are living a very luxurious lifestyle. Do you really think everyone on welfare is suffering? Come on now. Our welfare system routinely overpays many of its recipients, many of whom are unqualified for the aid they receive. That's what is wasteful about the current system. Fix that first, and you can stretch every dollar you tax much, much further. It's not making people suffer it's common sense.
Do you really think a small handful of welfare fraud cases should condemn the rest? Should the actions of Bernie Madoff reflect on everyone making over $250,000 a year?
|
On September 29 2011 00:07 SySLeif wrote:
I have a question for people who think this is actually significant.
How does making class warfare in our country solve anything?
This isn't about class warfare
This is about doing what is right and equitable.
Like someone said, this isn't being talked about for vindictive reasons. Hell, even the richest of the rich agree that their portion of the tax burden is too low (those that are honest about it)
You need to get it out of your head that the rich are" being punished for their success" That simply bullshit. They are just being asked to cough up what most think is their fair share.
|
On September 29 2011 01:49 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 00:07 SySLeif wrote:
I have a question for people who think this is actually significant.
How does making class warfare in our country solve anything?
This isn't about class warfare This is about doing what is right and equitable. Like someone said, this isn't being talked about for vindictive reasons. Hell, even the richest of the rich agree that their portion of the tax burden is too low (those that are honest about it) You need to get it out of your head that the rich are" being punished for their success" That simply bullshit. They are just being asked to cough up what most think is their fair share.
Yes, it is actually about class warfare at this point. That's the only thing Democrats can do to win elections. "The Republicans are only for the rich!" The rich pay their fair share, and even more than their fair share most of the time.
Also if you look at small business owners who's business's take in a revenue of over 250,000 a year, instead of hiring a new person or two they are forced to pay more taxes. We have some of the highest business and corporation tax rates in the west.
Also they are being punished. Why should I go to college and become a doctor to make good money when I know the person who never worked hard in their life is relying on me to pay more taxes than him so that he can sit on his but and collect welfare?
|
On September 29 2011 01:53 SySLeif wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:49 Deja Thoris wrote:On September 29 2011 00:07 SySLeif wrote:
I have a question for people who think this is actually significant.
How does making class warfare in our country solve anything?
This isn't about class warfare This is about doing what is right and equitable. Like someone said, this isn't being talked about for vindictive reasons. Hell, even the richest of the rich agree that their portion of the tax burden is too low (those that are honest about it) You need to get it out of your head that the rich are" being punished for their success" That simply bullshit. They are just being asked to cough up what most think is their fair share. Yes, it is actually about class warfare at this point. That's the only thing Democrats can do to win elections. "The Republicans are only for the rich!" The rich pay their fair share, and even more than their fair share most of the time. Also if you look at small business owners who's business's take in a revenue of over 250,000 a year, instead of hiring a new person or two they are forced to pay more taxes. We have some of the highest business and corporation tax rates in the west. Also they are being punished. Why should I go to college and become a doctor to make good money when I know the person who never worked hard in their life is relying on me to pay more taxes than him so that he can sit on his but and collect welfare?
How is that different to now? Doctors are already doing that. You're saying that raising taxes a few percent is going to cause an avalanche of Doctors quitting their job because they don't want to help pay for people on Welfare, which, FOR THE RECORD, is not getting a huge payment increase as a result of these taxes. You're trying to make it sound like all of this extra cash is going to go straight into the hands of the poor.
There's always going to be a billion good reasons to work hard, get an education and a high-paying job despite how much of that you have to pay in taxes. More money is more money. The tax system doesn't ask someone making $150,000 to pay $160,000 in taxes every year. THAT would be punishing success, but we don't do that, and nobody is even considering it.
Letting taxes go back to their 2001 levels (i.e. the Bush Tax Cuts were always meant to be temporary and eventually expire) is not punishing success. Success was given a freebie back in 2001. Technically, everyone was because the Bush Tax Cuts affected every income bracket, but people in the top 5% got a much bigger portion of the pie than they reasonably should have. The discrepancy in those taxes have added a huge amount to the deficit and made the wealth distribution in the US even WORSE, and thus one wonders how the hell the rich, who depend on the lower-income families of the US to purchase and consume their good and services, are going to maintain themselves if those of us down here in the bottom 90% have no money left to do so? You can't make a lot of profit selling brand-spanking new, cheap HD TVs if the vast majority of your customers, the bottom 90%, can't even pay their bills. The direction the country is quickly heading, is that we are going to stop becoming a consumer-economy. The bigger the wealth distribution gap gets, the less disposable income (and hence the less goods and services, provided to us by the rich) the bottom 90% are going to be able to buy. Every day we sacrifice long-term stability, for short-term profit. It's basic economics, and it's not going to work.
We've had our fun. The 2000s are over and there are bills to pay. Now it's time to reign it back in.
|
You should probably go to college and become a doctor because you'll still have lots more money and live a much more satisfying life.
|
Not to mention dignity and self respect.
|
On September 29 2011 02:21 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:53 SySLeif wrote:On September 29 2011 01:49 Deja Thoris wrote:On September 29 2011 00:07 SySLeif wrote:
I have a question for people who think this is actually significant.
How does making class warfare in our country solve anything?
This isn't about class warfare This is about doing what is right and equitable. Like someone said, this isn't being talked about for vindictive reasons. Hell, even the richest of the rich agree that their portion of the tax burden is too low (those that are honest about it) You need to get it out of your head that the rich are" being punished for their success" That simply bullshit. They are just being asked to cough up what most think is their fair share. Yes, it is actually about class warfare at this point. That's the only thing Democrats can do to win elections. "The Republicans are only for the rich!" The rich pay their fair share, and even more than their fair share most of the time. Also if you look at small business owners who's business's take in a revenue of over 250,000 a year, instead of hiring a new person or two they are forced to pay more taxes. We have some of the highest business and corporation tax rates in the west. Also they are being punished. Why should I go to college and become a doctor to make good money when I know the person who never worked hard in their life is relying on me to pay more taxes than him so that he can sit on his but and collect welfare? How is that different to now? Doctors are already doing that. You're saying that raising taxes a few percent is going to cause an avalanche of Doctors quitting their job because they don't want to help pay for people on Welfare, which, FOR THE RECORD, is not getting a huge payment increase as a result of these taxes. You're trying to make it sound like all of this extra cash is going to go straight into the hands of the poor. There's always going to be a billion good reasons to work hard, get an education and a high-paying job despite how much of that you have to pay in taxes. More money is more money. The tax system doesn't ask someone making $150,000 to pay $160,000 in taxes every year. Letting taxes go back to their 2001 levels (i.e. the Bush Tax Cuts were always meant to be temporary and eventually expire) is not punishing success. Success was given a freebie back in 2001. Technically, everyone was, but people in the top 5% got a much bigger portion of that pie. We've had our fun. The 2000s are over and there are bills to pay. Now it's time to reign it back in.
I can't remember who's chart it was, but someone had a chart showing the rich tax levels and how it correlated to our success. The rates of the 40s to 80s were ridiculous. But the 90s and before the Bush tax cuts were fine. And I agree we should have never had those tax cuts, they were stupid. Although you can't blame Bush, we could afford them before the wars and that's when he put them in place.
What I'm saying is America is about opportunity > equality. We start with equality but give opportunities and where you end up is your fault. If you end up rich, then you must have done something right. If you end up poor, then you did something also to deserve that.
But when we have huge social programs and this new Obamacare which is an EPIC FAIL, the money is going straight to the poor.
An example being, socialized healthcare in the United States and these high regulations. Two communities in the U.S. are never the same. This is not like Europe or Canada. America is a melting pot.
If you have lets say East Michigan, and everyone there smokes, is fat and has bad health. And you have West Michigan, where everyone takes care of themselves.. etc. Then why should West Michigan be burdened with the East Michigan's high health care costs?
It's the same as,
Why should West Michigan have to pay taxes for the welfare of East Michigan, when West Michigan people decides to get college degrees and work harder to keep their economy going?
(Pretty sure East Michigan has more money though because of all the CEO's of the big motor companies live there.)
We should leave power for social programs to communities, if they want them. We shouldn't give more power to the federal government. This would also ensure a few elitists would have less power when controlling our federal government. Remember its the United STATES.
Anyway's this is my view.
After their (doctors, lawyers, professionals) years of sacrifice and investment(college), what right does Obama and his liberal/progressive/socialist cabal have to demonize them for paying only 29 percent in taxes so he can buy even more votes from the 50 percent of entitlement takers/non-taxpayers who never sacrificed or invested?
|
On September 29 2011 01:53 SySLeif wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:49 Deja Thoris wrote:On September 29 2011 00:07 SySLeif wrote:
I have a question for people who think this is actually significant.
How does making class warfare in our country solve anything?
This isn't about class warfare This is about doing what is right and equitable. Like someone said, this isn't being talked about for vindictive reasons. Hell, even the richest of the rich agree that their portion of the tax burden is too low (those that are honest about it) You need to get it out of your head that the rich are" being punished for their success" That simply bullshit. They are just being asked to cough up what most think is their fair share. Yes, it is actually about class warfare at this point. That's the only thing Democrats can do to win elections. "The Republicans are only for the rich!" The rich pay their fair share, and even more than their fair share most of the time. Also if you look at small business owners who's business's take in a revenue of over 250,000 a year, instead of hiring a new person or two they are forced to pay more taxes. We have some of the highest business and corporation tax rates in the west. Also they are being punished. Why should I go to college and become a doctor to make good money when I know the person who never worked hard in their life is relying on me to pay more taxes than him so that he can sit on his but and collect welfare?
High on rhetoric (punishing success blah blah)
Low on facts (USA has amongst the highest tax tates in the west) - Complete and utter bullshit.
Its clear your pov is just a political one and you won't let facts cloud your judgement. I'll leave you be now.
|
On September 29 2011 02:52 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:53 SySLeif wrote:On September 29 2011 01:49 Deja Thoris wrote:On September 29 2011 00:07 SySLeif wrote:
I have a question for people who think this is actually significant.
How does making class warfare in our country solve anything?
This isn't about class warfare This is about doing what is right and equitable. Like someone said, this isn't being talked about for vindictive reasons. Hell, even the richest of the rich agree that their portion of the tax burden is too low (those that are honest about it) You need to get it out of your head that the rich are" being punished for their success" That simply bullshit. They are just being asked to cough up what most think is their fair share. Yes, it is actually about class warfare at this point. That's the only thing Democrats can do to win elections. "The Republicans are only for the rich!" The rich pay their fair share, and even more than their fair share most of the time. Also if you look at small business owners who's business's take in a revenue of over 250,000 a year, instead of hiring a new person or two they are forced to pay more taxes. We have some of the highest business and corporation tax rates in the west. Also they are being punished. Why should I go to college and become a doctor to make good money when I know the person who never worked hard in their life is relying on me to pay more taxes than him so that he can sit on his but and collect welfare? High on rhetoric (punishing success blah blah) Low on facts (USA has amongst the highest tax tates in the west) - Complete and utter bullshit. Its clear your pov is just a political one and you won't let facts cloud your judgement. I'll leave you be now.
I said the corporate and business tax rates.
Our political class has managed to maintain America's rank with the second highest corporate tax rate in the world at 39.3% (average combined federal and state).
OECD study, "Taxes and Economic Growth,"
Maybe if you could read what I wrote, you wouldn't be so ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
