rushmc 23 #51 April 8, 2010 Quote >You and her think you are the only ones smart enough to figure out what he meant? No need to get so angry! Take a deep breath before you get back to your jokes about ovens. You sure project about anger alot anymore You should get some help But me angry? No a bit digusted with lack or respect shown? Ya, maybe some But it is what I expect from you anymore"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #52 April 8, 2010 I'd like to combine a couple separate comments that came up here... Quote Quote About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. 2 distinct classes of folks here being lumped together. If we have people who have enough deductions and exemptions that 'should' be paying some income tax that needs to be addressed. Quote Quote Those few who pay the taxes to support everyone else will no longer have an incentive to work hard and prosper. pay the workers a decent minimum wage and they'll earn enough to pay income tax I don't take issue with people who earn minimum wage not having any federal income tax liability. As discussed (after much coaxing) in the other thread, minimum wage should be able to get you by frugally but not in misery either. I don't think a pass from the IRS is too much to ask when you're in that situation. As airdvr points out though, this article isn't really about that situation, it's about people with incomes 3x minimum wage living at well over double the poverty line for that size of family having no federal income tax liability. It's the expansion of this particular group of people that worries those crying, "bread and circuses." Should the majority of the tax burden be shifted off the rich and onto these groups? Absolutely not. But you can't allow an ever larger and ever more comfortably living group of people to be relieved of their entire tax burden. /edited because my last sentence was missing a verb in there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,033 #53 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm a liberal and I'm one of the people paying more in taxes - and I'm willing to pay more if the objective is good enough. Well Bill everyone knows your a great guy....so the rest of us are uncaring assholes because we don't want to.......ok we get it. The point to me is that +70% is paid by the "rich" and close to half don't pay anything. Just how long do you think this can go ON and UP? When half the population doesn't pay how long is the other half going to want to keep going? When the top 1% owns 42.2% of the financial wealth of the USA, the top 20% owns 93% of the wealth of the USA, leaving the remaining 80% with just 7% of the financial wealth (2007 data) it seems to me that the "rich" are getting off pretty lightly. The top 10% already have a higher ratio of tax share to income share than Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. So it's OK to compare ourselves with other nations over taxes when it suits the wealthy, but not over healthcare which suits the poor.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,033 #54 April 8, 2010 Quote Should the majority of the tax burden be shifted off the rich and onto these groups? Absolutely not. But you can't allow an ever larger and ever more comfortably living group of people relieved of their entire tax burden. Federal income tax is NOT the entire tax burden of anyone.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #55 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm a liberal and I'm one of the people paying more in taxes - and I'm willing to pay more if the objective is good enough. Well Bill everyone knows your a great guy....so the rest of us are uncaring assholes because we don't want to.......ok we get it. The point to me is that +70% is paid by the "rich" and close to half don't pay anything. Just how long do you think this can go ON and UP? When half the population doesn't pay how long is the other half going to want to keep going? When the top 1% owns 42.2% of the financial wealth of the USA, the top 20% owns 93% of the wealth of the USA, leaving the remaining 80% with just 7% of the financial wealth (2007 data) it seems to me that the "rich" are getting off pretty lightly. The top 10% already have a higher ratio of tax share to income share than Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. So it's OK to compare ourselves with other nations over taxes when it suits the wealthy, but not over healthcare which suits the poor. You kinda hit on something here Obama care is not going to help the poor or anyone. (well it will help those who govern gain more power) but I digress It only takes away the desire for self reliance which does no one any good But I am sure you will go back to your hate the poor pay no tax etreme examples (which is not even close to what I mean) But most will know what I mean."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #56 April 8, 2010 Quote>Wish everyone could read Atlas Scrugged. It explains what is going to happen. Atlas did _what?_ I didn't know Atlas could play the banjo. Cool, might make for a funny looking statue though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #57 April 8, 2010 Quote >You and her think you are the only ones smart enough to figure out what he meant? No need to get so angry! Take a deep breath before you get back to your jokes about ovens. Hi Bill, the *funny* jokes about ovens were made by Dreamdancer. Not first time. I just replied to rushmc as he was last poster and I was not that sure if he knew what DD was really meaning. Just to correct a misunderstanding. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #58 April 8, 2010 >I didn't know Atlas could play the banjo. Well, he couldn't until he put that big planet down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #59 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote >You and her think you are the only ones smart enough to figure out what he meant? No need to get so angry! Take a deep breath before you get back to your jokes about ovens. Hi Bill, the *funny* jokes about ovens were made by Dreamdancer. Not first time. I just replied to rushmc as he was last poster and I was not that sure if he knew what DD was really meaning. Just to correct a misunderstanding. he knew (i think someone is cooked - and he knows who he is)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 April 8, 2010 Quote According to St. Ron Paul (R, but really Libertarian) (10/18/2009) the bottom 40% of the US population has 0.2% of all US wealth. So the "poor" part is right there. And yet millions of Mexicans try to jump the border every year to be one of them. There's a wealth versus income distinction. Most of those in this 40% do not have wealth. Yet income tax is about income, not about wealth. Taxing those who choose to save money and paying those who (often) choose to live paycheck to paycheck sends a bad message about responsibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,033 #61 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm a liberal and I'm one of the people paying more in taxes - and I'm willing to pay more if the objective is good enough. Well Bill everyone knows your a great guy....so the rest of us are uncaring assholes because we don't want to.......ok we get it. The point to me is that +70% is paid by the "rich" and close to half don't pay anything. Just how long do you think this can go ON and UP? When half the population doesn't pay how long is the other half going to want to keep going? When the top 1% owns 42.2% of the financial wealth of the USA, the top 20% owns 93% of the wealth of the USA, leaving the remaining 80% with just 7% of the financial wealth (2007 data) it seems to me that the "rich" are getting off pretty lightly. The top 10% already have a higher ratio of tax share to income share than Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. So it's OK to compare ourselves with other nations over taxes when it suits the wealthy, but not over healthcare which suits the poor. You kinda hit on something here Obama care is not going to help the poor or anyone. (well it will help those who govern gain more power) but I digress It only takes away the desire for self reliance which does no one any good But I am sure you will go back to your hate the poor pay no tax etreme examples (which is not even close to what I mean) But most will know what I mean. I'm not sure that "most" can understand the mangled language in that post. Regardless, how much revenue are you going to get out of that 40% of the population that only owns 0.2% of the wealth (according to Ron Paul).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #62 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuote Should the majority of the tax burden be shifted off the rich and onto these groups? Absolutely not. But you can't allow an ever larger and ever more comfortably living group of people relieved of their entire tax burden. Federal income tax is NOT the entire tax burden of anyone. Believe me I know. My location means I'm part of a science project in just how much one person can possibly pay in various types of taxes. I was referring to federal income tax burden in the last paragraph of that post just as I had (albeit more explicitly) in the rest of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,033 #63 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuote According to St. Ron Paul (R, but really Libertarian) (10/18/2009) the bottom 40% of the US population has 0.2% of all US wealth. So the "poor" part is right there. And yet millions of Mexicans try to jump the border every year to be one of them. There's a wealth versus income distinction. Most of those in this 40% do not have wealth. Yet income tax is about income, not about wealth. Taxing those who choose to save money and paying those who (often) choose to live paycheck to paycheck sends a bad message about responsibility. What is so sacrosanct about income, as opposed to wealth, as a basis for taxation?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #64 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote Should the majority of the tax burden be shifted off the rich and onto these groups? Absolutely not. But you can't allow an ever larger and ever more comfortably living group of people relieved of their entire tax burden. Federal income tax is NOT the entire tax burden of anyone. True. We get taxed when we make it, taxed if we invested it, taxed when we spend it, and taxed just for owning certain items that we spent it on. This is why a flat tax on income for general services with federal sales taxes on specific services is the answer. FAA/ATC? Sales tax on flights, GA, etc. You don't fly, you don't pay. Military? Income tax. etc. etc.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #65 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Should the majority of the tax burden be shifted off the rich and onto these groups? Absolutely not. But you can't allow an ever larger and ever more comfortably living group of people relieved of their entire tax burden. Federal income tax is NOT the entire tax burden of anyone. True. We get taxed when we make it, taxed if we invested it, taxed when we spend it, and taxed just for owning certain items that we spent it on. This is why a flat tax on income for general services with federal sales taxes on specific services is the answer. FAA/ATC? Sales tax on flights, GA, etc. You don't fly, you don't pay. Military? Income tax. etc. etc. Won't be too long before you have that Value Added Tax (VAT) to go along with the regular taxes.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #66 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote According to St. Ron Paul (R, but really Libertarian) (10/18/2009) the bottom 40% of the US population has 0.2% of all US wealth. So the "poor" part is right there. And yet millions of Mexicans try to jump the border every year to be one of them. There's a wealth versus income distinction. Most of those in this 40% do not have wealth. Yet income tax is about income, not about wealth. Taxing those who choose to save money and paying those who (often) choose to live paycheck to paycheck sends a bad message about responsibility. What is so sacrosanct about income, as opposed to wealth, as a basis for taxation? Taxation usually targets cash flow, not cash itself. If you invest in a stock (or any other vehicle), you don't pay taxes during the investing period. You pay them when it results in a gain (capital, dividend, etc). To tax an unrealized gain would discourage any investment. Why shouldn't half the country pay taxes on their income? They are using those highways, police, military defense. I don't see any reason why such a large portion of the country should be getting a free ride. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #67 April 8, 2010 Quote Taxation usually targets cash flow, not cash itself. which makes the perfect tax inheritance tax stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,033 #68 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote According to St. Ron Paul (R, but really Libertarian) (10/18/2009) the bottom 40% of the US population has 0.2% of all US wealth. So the "poor" part is right there. And yet millions of Mexicans try to jump the border every year to be one of them. There's a wealth versus income distinction. Most of those in this 40% do not have wealth. Yet income tax is about income, not about wealth. Taxing those who choose to save money and paying those who (often) choose to live paycheck to paycheck sends a bad message about responsibility. What is so sacrosanct about income, as opposed to wealth, as a basis for taxation? Taxation usually targets cash flow, not cash itself. If you invest in a stock (or any other vehicle), you don't pay taxes during the investing period. You pay them when it results in a gain (capital, dividend, etc). To tax an unrealized gain would discourage any investment. Why shouldn't half the country pay taxes on their income? They are using those highways, police, military defense. I don't see any reason why such a large portion of the country should be getting a free ride. In 2007, the top 0.01% of earners took 6% of the nation's earnings. The top 1% took 23% of the nation's earnings. The top 10% took 49% of the nation's earnings. There's not a whole lot left to tax by the time you get to the bottom 50%.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #69 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote According to St. Ron Paul (R, but really Libertarian) (10/18/2009) the bottom 40% of the US population has 0.2% of all US wealth. So the "poor" part is right there. And yet millions of Mexicans try to jump the border every year to be one of them. There's a wealth versus income distinction. Most of those in this 40% do not have wealth. Yet income tax is about income, not about wealth. Taxing those who choose to save money and paying those who (often) choose to live paycheck to paycheck sends a bad message about responsibility. What is so sacrosanct about income, as opposed to wealth, as a basis for taxation? Taxation usually targets cash flow, not cash itself. If you invest in a stock (or any other vehicle), you don't pay taxes during the investing period. You pay them when it results in a gain (capital, dividend, etc). To tax an unrealized gain would discourage any investment. Why shouldn't half the country pay taxes on their income? They are using those highways, police, military defense. I don't see any reason why such a large portion of the country should be getting a free ride. In 2007, the top 0.01% of earners took 6% of the nation's earnings. The top 1% took 23% of the nation's earnings. The top 10% took 49% of the nation's earnings. There's not a whole lot left to tax by the time you get to the bottom 50%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #70 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote It's so easy to complain that other people aren't doing enough for your agendas, isn't it? you seem to find it easy Do try and keep up. I realize it's difficult without an alternet link to copy and paste. increasing the minimum wage will mean a lot more people paying income tax - problem solved for you no it wouldn't, because the "poverty level" would just be adjusted along with the inflation that raising the minimum wage would cost. It's possible that it would include more people in the group of folks that don't pay taxes.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #71 April 8, 2010 Quote Regardless, how much revenue are you going to get out of that 40% of the population that only owns 0.2% of the wealth (according to Ron Paul). I'd tax the bottom 40% earning 12% of the income (in 2006 according to the U.S. Census Bureau) enough that they feel the effect of government spending and resist unnecessary increases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #72 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuote I'm a liberal and I'm one of the people paying more in taxes - and I'm willing to pay more if the objective is good enough. Well Bill everyone knows your a great guy....so the rest of us are uncaring assholes because we don't want to.......ok we get it. The point to me is that +70% is paid by the "rich" and close to half don't pay anything. Just how long do you think this can go ON and UP? When half the population doesn't pay how long is the other half going to want to keep going? the question is, when half the voting population doesn't pay taxes, who's going to elect the guy that will make them pay taxes?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #73 April 8, 2010 QuoteIn 2007, the top 0.01% of earners took 6% of the nation's earnings. The top 1% took 23% of the nation's earnings. The top 10% took 49% of the nation's earnings. There's not a whole lot left to tax by the time you get to the bottom 50%. good point - clearly a flat tax in 2007 would have been a very progressive tax that would still have everyone contributing proportionately to what they earned, but still having all citizens paying for those roads, schools and protection ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #74 April 8, 2010 Quote When the top 1% owns 42.2% of the financial wealth of the USA, the top 20% owns 93% of the wealth of the USA, leaving the remaining 80% with just 7% of the financial wealth (2007 data) it seems to me that the "rich" are getting off pretty lightly. so a few people have most of the money. You don't reference any downsides, yet feel they're getting off lightly. I can only take that to mean that the government should take their money and give it to the poor. Redistribution of wealth? is that your game?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #75 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It's so easy to complain that other people aren't doing enough for your agendas, isn't it? you seem to find it easy Do try and keep up. I realize it's difficult without an alternet link to copy and paste. increasing the minimum wage will mean a lot more people paying income tax - problem solved for you no it wouldn't, because the "poverty level" would just be adjusted along with the inflation that raising the minimum wage would cost. It's possible that it would include more people in the group of folks that don't pay taxes. raising the minimum wage doesn't increase inflation (but it does increase the tax take)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
