Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on June 27, 2007, 04:30:24 PM
-
Well I know you righties will just continue with your mantra that the poor rich folks really need those republican tax breaks. LOL
You can make a million if you prove him wrong.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/26/news/newsmakers/clinton_buffett/index.htm?postversion=2007062700
-
Surprising? No, not really. Buffet thought hard and came to one conclusion.
If there was one candidate who's vote was really for sale, it would be a clinton.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Surprising? No, not really. Buffet thought hard and came to one conclusion.
If there was one candidate who's vote was really for sale, it would be a clinton.
And the prices have reached rock bottom.
-
Buffet is a big time lib, which is funny, because if the policies he espouses had been in play the last 30 years he never would have become rich. Aside from that, most of his ASSETS are hidden from taxation---if he wants to pay more taxes, let him write a squealing check
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Buffet is a big time lib, which is funny, because if the policies he espouses had been in play the last 30 years he never would have become rich. Aside from that, most of his ASSETS are hidden from taxation---if he wants to pay more taxes, let him write a squealing check
His political party membership has nothing to do with his assertion about taxes.. You guys really ought to get away from the ManCoulter school of discussion:)
But without talking points you guys really have nada:)
The rich got a huge break. Time to fess up and admit it. They pay less then you. I pay less than you.
No its not equal.
-
Originally posted by Silat
His political party membership has nothing to do with his assertion about taxes.. You guys really ought to get away from the ManCoulter school of discussion:)
But without talking points you guys really have nada:)
The rich got a huge break. Time to fess up and admit it. They pay less then you. I pay less than you.
No its not equal.
Ahem:
Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway recently announced its net income had surged 62% in the second quarter. Buffett, the world’s second richest man, made headlines earlier this year when he announced he would be donating the bulk of his fortune to the foundation established by the world’s first richest man, his friend, Bill Gates. Buffett has been an outspoken critic of plans to eliminate the estate tax and of supply-side economics in general.
But a review of Berkshire’s performance indicates that the very policies Buffett criticizes have played a major role in creating the fortune upon which he stands to deliver those denunciations. Berkshire Hathaway didn’t start as an investment company. It began as a typically struggling Northeastern textile firm. Buffett bought it, and when he failed to make a go of it in textiles, he shut down the plant and fired the employees.
Under the anti-growth polices of the 1970s, Berkshire generally shared the weak performance of the rest of the stock market. It wasn’t until the Reagan tax cuts that Berkshire really took off. The company also had very strong growth after President Clinton signed a capital gains tax cut in 1997. Berkshire underperformed the market during the recession of 2000-2001, took off to some degree during the partial Bush tax cut of 2001, and has done extremely well since the full implementation of the Bush cuts in 2003.
Ironies abound in Warren Buffet’s career. He is a denouncer of corporate greed who began his corporate career by firing workers, a critic of supply-side economics from which much of his wealth is derived, and a supporter of inheritance taxes which he will personally avoid by donating most of his fortune to a tax-sheltered foundation. The fact that the establishment media fail to point out these ironies is, perhaps, one of the rewards he receives for fighting the system which has served his shareholders so well
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16507
-
37 billion in charitable contributions. Wonder if any Democrats out there have contributed even 10% of that to charity?
-
Silat. It's a free country and it's a capitalist nation. You're free to earn billions too, but first you have to work for it.
-
So Buffet makes his fortune under the old fair system, but wants the system changed so others can't follow. Great!
-
I have always been in favor of a consumption tax and doing away with the income tax. I think estate taxes are evil.
silat.. are you saying that you think the rich need to pay more taxes and everyone else less or are you saying that everyone needs to pay more taxes.
I would much rather see a reduction in the size of government than any increase in taxes on anyone.
estate taxes are downright evil.
Giving to charity is a tax break.. they are not paying taxes on that... what gates and buffet are saying is.....
"the government spends taxes badly and can't be trusted to spend my money wisely so I will circumvent the system like the peasants can't and give the money to the people that I think deserve it..."
They don't want their money to go to the government because they don't trust the way it will be spent yet... they think it is fine for the little people to pay and pay..
If they believed in the tax system for the rich they would not dodge payments with their "charity" they would pay full boat to the feds in taxes and let the wonderful government distribute it..
If they don't think their taxes will be spent well then why ask for more.
There simply is no way for a liberal to argue his way out of that conclusion.
The liberal rich dodge letting the government spend their money... they don't trust em to do it right.
In that respect... we agree.. buffet and gates are correct in not trusting that taxes will not be simply wasted money... money that in fact... once in the hands of government... makes things worse.
surely you must see that silat?
Or... if you think the rich pay too little... do away with the charitable contributions deduction. I bet gates and buffet would scream like little girls then eh?
lazs
-
One again Laz provides a clear, concise evaluation of the situation.
They don't want their money to go to the government because they don't trust the way it will be spent yet... they think it is fine for the little people to pay and pay..
-
A conservative mantra since Reagan was pres. is 'index capital gains to inflation'-- My Dad bought our house in Manassas in 1963 for $20,000. The last time I heard it was sold, went for $220,000. The typical tax system would assume $200,000 of taxable profit, which is WRONG!!! $20,000 of 1963 $ is worth about $130,000 in 2006, making for $110,000 of taxable income which never should have been exposed. Utter bs, man works his whole damn life to buy stuff with AFTER-TAX money, then the gov't tries to take THAT away when he dies.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
A conservative mantra since Reagan was pres. is 'index capital gains to inflation'-- My Dad bought our house in Manassas in 1963 for $20,000. The last time I heard it was sold, went for $220,000. The typical tax system would assume $200,000 of taxable profit, which is WRONG!!! $20,000 of 1963 $ is worth about $130,000 in 2006, making for $110,000 of taxable income which never should have been exposed. Utter bs, man works his whole damn life to buy stuff with AFTER-TAX money, then the gov't tries to take THAT away when he dies.
Not sure if this applies to your dads situation but there are some loop holes when selling a house...
Sellers age 55 or older had one other option. They could take a once-in-a-lifetime tax exemption of up to $125,000 in profits. And in all instances, there was tax paperwork (Form 2119) to fill out to show that you followed the rules.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/20041018a1.asp (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/20041018a1.asp)
-
if these billionares really believed the crap they were spouting they would be trying to do away with the charitable deduction.
They would want the government to be the only one who redistributed wealth.
where do I pick up my million?
lazs
-
Don't the rich folks still pay a large percentage of the total income tax while still being a very small minority?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Don't the rich folks still pay a large percentage of the total income tax while still being a very small minority?
Pretty much
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1415.cfm
Myth: The rich do not pay their fair share of taxes and therefore should not get a significant share of a tax cut.
Reality: According to data from the Internal Revenue Service, 1 the top 1 percent of income earners pay nearly 35 percent of the income tax burden; the top 10 percent pay 65 percent; and the top 25 percent pay nearly 83 percent. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay barely 4 percent of income taxes. By definition, then, it is impossible to cut taxes without the so-called rich receiving a share of the benefits.
Myth: Lower tax rates will mean that the rich pay less.
Reality: This outcome depends on how much tax rates are reduced. History indicates that the revenue-maximizing rate is less than 30 percent. 2 In other words, when marginal rates are higher than 30 percent, the rich probably will pay more taxes if rates are lowered. The reason? There is less incentive to hide, shelter, or underreport income.
Consider what happened in the years following each of the three times Americans enjoyed significant tax rate reductions.
*
The 1920s: The top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, yet the rich (in those days, individuals earning $50,000 or more) went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to paying more than 78 percent in 1928. 3
*
The 1960s: After President John F. Kennedy slashed the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, those making more than $50,000 annually saw their tax payments rise during the next three years by 57 percent and their share of the tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent. 4
* The 1980s: The top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988 during the Reagan years. What happened to the "rich"? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. 5
-
Originally posted by Toad
One again Laz provides a clear, concise evaluation of the situation.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Babylon English-English
concise[con·cise || kən'saɪs]
adj. succinct, short and to the point, brief yet comprehensive
Seems to say what I understood Toad to intimate about Lazs post.
Mark
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
If you think that then I know you do not know what it means.
Know what I mean?
-
neeeener neeeeener neeener... they said lazer was stupid... neeener neeener neeener...
lazs
-
Originally posted by Silat
His political party membership has nothing to do with his assertion about taxes.. You guys really ought to get away from the ManCoulter school of discussion:)
But without talking points you guys really have nada:)
The rich got a huge break. Time to fess up and admit it. Percentage wise, they pay less then you. I pay less than you.
No its not equal.
Fixed it as some don't get it.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Buffet is a big time lib, which is funny, because if the policies he espouses had been in play the last 30 years he never would have become rich. Aside from that, most of his ASSETS are hidden from taxation---if he wants to pay more taxes, let him write a squealing check
You sure about that?
IIRC he made most of his fortune playing the stock market.
Which assets? So maybe he would still be extremely rich.
-
So, why is it wrong to want to keep what you make? Run that by me again?
-
Originally posted by ROC
So, why is it wrong to want to keep what you make? Run that by me again?
So there should be NO taxes?
How will this country even exist?
Show me even one country that prospered with all of its populous keeping all of its earnings.
You make your salary because you live in a country that:
1) Safeguards its borders.
2) That makes sure the food and medications you consume don't make you sick or kill you.
3) Puts criminals behind bars so we don't have to worry about getting robbed/killed.
4) Educates our kids/adults so they can be more competitive and actually contribute to our being a competitive nation to continue to prosper.
5) Allows you to buy a house and live in relative safety.
6) The products you buy won't harm or kill your family.
I pay 32.28% in total taxes. I'm not complaining about it either.
I'm grateful to our wonderful country that rewards smart, hard work.
If you think that the above comes at no cost, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Is this system perfect? No, but it is good.
-
This conservative believes everyone should pay an equal percent of what they make to the federal system. Whether its ten thousand dollars or ten billion dollars. Everyone should pay the same tax.
Same goes for local county and state taxes. And once you own your property you should no longer be taxed on its value.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
1) Safeguards its borders.
2) That makes sure the food and medications you consume don't make you sick or kill you.
3) Puts criminals behind bars so we don't have to worry about getting robbed/killed.
4) Educates our kids/adults so they can be more competitive and actually contribute to our being a competitive nation to continue to prosper.
6) The products you buy won't harm or kill your family.
those points are open for discussion.
-
Fixed it as some don't get it.
The rich still pay more total money than the rest of us do. Why is the percentage of what they pay an issue?
The top 10% of income earners pay 65% of all income taxes.
I pay less than you.
Silat if that really bothers you, why not write out a check to the IRS for however much you feel you should be paying. I'm pretty sure the IRS won't turn you down. :D
-
Originally posted by Elfie
The rich still pay more total money than the rest of us do. Why is the percentage of what they pay an issue?
The top 10% of income earners pay 65% of all income taxes.
So let me get this straight....
Someone making $50,000.00 paying $20,000.00 in taxes is as fair as one making $1,000,000.00 paying the same $20,000.00 in taxes?
LOL how's someone making $10,000.00 a year going to pay the same $20,000.00 in taxes?
That's fair, right?
-
Originally posted by john9001
those points are open for discussion.
Oh, not saying they are perfect.
Lets remove all taxes and see what we're left with.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
So let me get this straight....
Someone making $50,000.00 paying $20,000.00 in taxes is as fair as one making $1,000,000.00 paying the same $20,000.00 in taxes?
LOL how's someone making $10,000.00 a year going to pay the same $20,000.00 in taxes?
That's fair, right?
Taxes are income based. If you make $1,000,000 but only NEED $50,000 to live on, your goal is to use the vast U.S. tax code and figger out how to shield the rest.
An adult making $10,000 a year isn't going to PAY any taxes, and is probably the recipient of welfare, food stamps..at the very least the Earned Income Tax Credit. The endless litany of 'tax breaks for the rich' for the last 20 years has rewarded us with a system where half the population contributes next to nothing for the tax base, yet has the voting ability to steal money from the afore-mentioned evil rich people :mad:
-
Originally posted by Yeager
This conservative believes everyone should pay an equal percent of what they make to the federal system. Whether its ten thousand dollars or ten billion dollars. Everyone should pay the same tax.
Same goes for local county and state taxes. And once you own your property you should no longer be taxed on its value.
Agreed about the flat tax rate.
So the land owner should be able to take up some valuable real estate rent free?
Or are you talking about paying taxes based on the original purchase price?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Taxes are income based. If you make $1,000,000 but only NEED $50,000 to live on, your goal is to use the vast U.S. tax code and figger out how to shield the rest.
An adult making $10,000 a year isn't going to PAY any taxes, and is probably the recipient of welfare, food stamps..at the very least the Earned Income Tax Credit. The endless litany of 'tax breaks for the rich' for the last 20 years has rewarded us with a system where half the population contributes next to nothing for the tax base, yet has the voting ability to steal money from the afore-mentioned evil rich people :mad:
The tax code is made with the wealthy in mind (the middle class is not excluded here, just not the same benefit). They are the ones funding congress with soft money donations. Members of Congress make the laws (IIRC). Tax shelters really benefit the wealthy, not the middle class (not to say that there are no shelters for the middle class, just that they are skewed for the wealthy. The middle class ends up getting the short end of the stick as they're the ones usually paying the higher percentage of taxes.
-
So the land owner should be able to take up some valuable real estate rent free?
What COUNTRY do you come from? In the US, we call that OWNERship:O
-
Tax shelters really benefit the wealthy, not the middle class (not to say that there are no shelters for the middle class, just that they are skewed for the wealthy. The middle class ends up getting the short end of the stick as they're the ones usually paying the higher percentage of taxes.
Tax shelters are invariably designed to FORCE you to do something with said money in order to 'shield' it, which is the govt's way to fund stuff they don't want to direct tax dollars to. There are tax shelters for anyone with money to hide---middle class folks (like me) typically haven't an abundant supply of such money
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
So let me get this straight....
Someone making $50,000.00 paying $20,000.00 in taxes is as fair as one making $1,000,000.00 paying the same $20,000.00 in taxes?
LOL how's someone making $10,000.00 a year going to pay the same $20,000.00 in taxes?
That's fair, right?
If the top 10% of income earners are paying 65% of the total funds that the feds receive in income tax revenue, how is that fair?
The rich pay far more dollars than I ever will.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Agreed about the flat tax rate.
So the land owner should be able to take up some valuable real estate rent free?
Or are you talking about paying taxes based on the original purchase price?
I think he is talking about yearly property taxes.
Your second statement makes it sound like you are just renting property that you own. Eh? Maybe you could clarify that one?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
If the top 10% of income earners are paying 65% of the total funds that the feds receive in income tax revenue, how is that fair?
The rich pay far more dollars than I ever will.
It's all about percentage.
If they make 75% of the money, but only paying 65%, they are paying less than you are.
If they are making 55% of the money but paying 65% of the total funds, they are paying more than you are.
The rich are paying less than they should if we are talking about percentages.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I think he is talking about yearly property taxes.
Your second statement makes it sound like you are just renting property that you own. Eh? Maybe you could clarify that one?
I thought so to but his statement was a bit vague for me.
I just wanted to put it in perspective if he was talking about a one time tax payment at purchase. Kind of like letting someone move into your house making only one rent payment, thinking they were entitled to the place just because they made that one initial payment.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
What COUNTRY do you come from? In the US, we call that OWNERship:O
Same as you but in high population, high expense state like California, the state charges property tax on the property you own. I look at it similar to rent.
I know some states charge little to no property tax, is Virginia one of them?
-
The rich are paying less than they should if we are talking about percentages.
I think that is what gets folks all outraged and ready to grab the torches and pitchforks.
When you look at the actual dollar amounts that the feds take in, then look at which groups of folks are paying what, the rich put more dollars into the pot than the rest of us. A lot more in fact.
The rich are also the ones with the means to invest money into starting businesses etc which is good for the economy.
The heavier you tax folks, the more they seem to cheat or fudge on the numbers so they don't have to pay as much. Sometimes lowering taxes can actually increase revenue because folks don't cheat as much then.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Snip~
The rich are also the ones with the means to invest money into starting businesses etc which is good for the economy.
Not just the rich, but we already have tax breaks for those willing to start up their own businesses. (as it should be)
-
BTW, what the rich don't end up paying we, the middle class end up taking the brunt for.
I pay 32% (roughly) in combined State and Federal taxes.
The rich pay what percent?
How much do you think the wealthy should pay percentage wise?
How about the middle class?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Not just the rich, but we already have tax breaks for those willing to start up their own businesses. (as it should be)
The rich are the ones with the capital to invest in those sorts of things. A good portion of American citizens just don't have the financing available to do things like that.
I do agree that there should be tax breaks for those willing to start up businesses, it ultimately brings in more tax revenue.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
The rich are the ones with the capital to invest in those sorts of things. A good portion of American citizens just don't have the financing available to do things like that.
I do agree that there should be tax breaks for those willing to start up businesses, it ultimately brings in more tax revenue.
Well heck, lets just not let the upper class pay any taxes at all then!
I guess you won't mind our middle income being taxed at 60-70%?
There's a tax burden that has to be filled. Who should pay the taxes?
The middle class alone?
I'll ask again...
What percentage rate would you find acceptable for:
1) The upper class?
2) The middle class?
Keep the figures reasonable for this country to function as it is. (just for starts)
-
Well heck, lets just not let the upper class pay any taxes at all then!
Never implied that.
I guess you won't mind our middle income being taxed at 60-70%?
Or that.....
There's a tax burden that has to be filled. Who should pay the taxes?
The rich, (top 10% earners) already pay 65% of that burden. The top 25% already carry 83% of that burden. Just how much more of that burden should they have to carry? Is this fair? Heck no it isn't fair, but then life isn't fair.
As far as your questions go, the first time we were posting at nearly the same time so I didn't see them.
I don't really care what the percentages are because those scumbags in D.C. NEVER ask me when it's time for a tax raise or a break. If they think they need a dime, they just reach in my pocket and take it. To top that, they take my dime and then waste it.
Don't start on the *you voted for them* garbage because I didn't vote for any of those scumbags. I haven't voted since the election where Bush Sr. won. I refuse to vote for any of these scumbags.
-
subaru... I can only see a point in securing the borders and running the courts.
I don't need any of the rest. The USDA has poisoned millions... so far as I know no one has been poisoned by kosher food...
Schools are open for debate.. if we paid less in taxes we could afford private schools but.. if we all agree that schools are a net plus then we should at least have vouchers...
I believe we should have only a consumption tax and it should be put into enterprise funds to be used only for that.
If I want to have a package delivered I will use the brown trucks.
I would have everyones tax burden reduced to about 10% of what it is now.
If these ultra left wing liberals really think that taxes are good and that the government knows best how to spend their money and ours..
The liar should be be lobbying to get rid of the charitable deduction.. he should pay full boat and let the government distribute more of his money.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
subaru...
1) I can only see a point in securing the borders and running the courts.
2) I don't need any of the rest. The USDA has poisoned millions... so far as I know no one has been poisoned by kosher food...
3) Schools are open for debate.. if we paid less in taxes we could afford private schools but.. if we all agree that schools are a net plus then we should at least have vouchers...
4) I believe we should have only a consumption tax and it should be put into enterprise funds to be used only for that.
5) If I want to have a package delivered I will use the brown trucks.
6) I would have everyones tax burden reduced to about 10% of what it is now.
7) If these ultra left wing liberals really think that taxes are good and that the government knows best how to spend their money and ours..
The liar should be be lobbying to get rid of the charitable deduction.. he should pay full boat and let the government distribute more of his money.
lazs
1) What about the military, police, firefighters, public school teachers, running the jails, etc.?
2) Please elaborate. So we don't need oversight of businesses cause we all know they have the public interest at heart when they introduce meds, food, and products?
Yeah, things were all nice and fine before the FDA, OSHA, etc.
3) Private schools are expensive to operate let alone there are just not near enough to take the place of public schools. You think vouchers come at no cost?
Taxes fund them. Higher education cost = higher taxes.
4) Interesting. Any figures?
What percentages are we talking about?
Will this generate enough revenue to cover expenses or will we be in a deficit spending situation.
5) The USPS employs around 700,000 employees without using tax dollars. Totally self supporting. You weren't implying getting rid of them were you?
6) How did you arrive at that figure?
What if it doesn't come close to cover your new govt?
Make even further cuts or raise taxes?
Personally, I'd like to see a flat income tax for EVERYONE regardless of income level to start at 20%. I'd keep the existing business deductions until a better system comes along. I'd stop the raiding of the Social Security funds. Any excess tax revenue will go back into the Social Security Fund reserve to bring it back to the level it should be before the raiding took place back in '69 IIRC.
when that level is reached, the extra revenue surplus goes back to the tax payers as well as the flat tax rate being reduced. Also, those that did not pay into Social Security cannot benefit from it.
7) LOL, yeah, only the ultra left are responsible for our present tax and spend situation.
So, under our fairly recent Republican controlled Presidency, Congress, and Senate, we had a reduction in govt?
Reduction in spending?
No increase in deficit spending?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Don't start on the *you voted for them* garbage because I didn't vote for any of those scumbags. I haven't voted since the election where Bush Sr. won. I refuse to vote for any of these scumbags.
Wasn't going to.
The system has been set that no matter who goes in (Republican, Democrat, etc.,), the middle class gets the short end of the stick regarding taxation.
As I see it, bottom line is that under our present system, we have to have a certain amount of tax revenue to help run our country. Reduce the the middle class' tax rate then the upper class gets theirs increased, unless you want to cut everyone's taxes across the board which will increase the deficit.
-
subaru...ok.. I would cut the tax burden to 10% because I think that is a good place to start with 90% of everything the government does being usless.. we can adjust from there.
private schools cost about 4-5k a year on a nationwide average... about half what public schools do.. if we were to simply offer vouchers we could cut that tax burden in half.. if we made the parents pay half of that we could reduce again. and.. everyone would get a better education.
As I said.. I trust kosher more than the FDA... new trusted private groups would compete for our trust... we could not be worse off.
fire and police are not federal... the only federal police should be US marshals. Teachers would be teachers.. they would just work for private schools. Where you live would determine what kind of police and fire and other utilities you have like water, sewer and power... many of which are private now in any case. An army is the constitutional duty of the government.. that would be funded by taxes. courts would be as well. these are only a tiny fraction of what we pay for with taxes.
USPS could be allowed to opperate so long as no tax money were used to prop it up... all taxes should be consumption taxes and put in seperate funds to be used only for what they were raised for. It should take 2/3 or more of the people voting to raise any tax.
There would be no tax on income. if you spend money you pay a tax on what you buy. The "poor" would simply pay less... the rich more... based on what they consume or waste.
The rich you seem to feel to be noble are the ones who want everyone to pay more to grow the government so that the government can form even more agencies to protect us and redistribute our wealth and "help" people
These same rich avoid a huge amount of tax burden by giving enourmous amounts to "charity" things they think should be funded.. they are little kings of these charities and treated like gods by the people sucking at the tit.
What is funny is that... they avoid giving their money to the government.. they somehow think that they know better for themselves where the money is needed but for everyone else... just giving money to the government in taxes is the right thing to do.
I don't care about the rich but... schemes to make the rich pay more just hurt me. The more money the government has the worse off everyone is. The more they grow. The less money the rich have to invest the worse off I am.. I don't want the government doing any "investing"
In my opinion... reducing the amount of money the government has down to 10% of what it is now would be the best thing for a free people.
Like you said... let's try that for a while.
lazs
-
As I see it, bottom line is that under our present system, we have to have a certain amount of tax revenue to help run our country. Reduce the the middle class' tax rate then the upper class gets theirs increased, unless you want to cut everyone's taxes across the board which will increase the deficit.
EVERY tax bill for the last 10+ years has come under the moniker of 'tax cuts for the rich'-- I guess it has to be defined exactly WHAT constitutes 'rich' The bottom 40% or so pay hardly any income taxes at ALL at a federal level, and very soon, the majority of voters in this country won't be fiscally responsible for ANY of the taxes which thier votes direct.
State taxes..are what they are, can't do anything about that at a national level...FICA is some 15% of your paycheck (yah I know the employer 'pays' half of that, but in fact it's money YOU would have gotten. There is even noise now about the unfairness of FICA--THATS your squealing retirement money, (hopefully not a majority of it) and now the 'poor' are supposed to be relieved of THAT!
(http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m248/bj229r/Picture1.png)Here (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/budgetchartbook.ppt) is a decent summation of current tax burdens
-
I can't believe he sold enough copies of Margaritaville to make him that rich...
-
Well Bj229....we all know the Rich aren't paying their fair share, we best start lobbying our congressmen to raise their tax rates. :rolleyes: