Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Donzo on September 21, 2008, 12:58:42 PM
-
That's right, it's time for all those rich people to step up and pay MORE than the 70% of the the total taxes collected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc&feature=related)
It's the patriotic thing to do.
-
That's right, it's time for all those rich people to step up and pay MORE than the 70% of the the total taxes collected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc&feature=related)
It's the patriotic thing to do.
What's the matter with that? Splain why the rich shouldn't pay their fair share?
-
What's the matter with that? Splain why the rich shouldn't pay their fair share?
How do you define 'fair'? If everyone pats same rate (i.e. 28%) If I make 200k, I pay 4X as much tax as someone who makes 50k....but THAT isn't 'fair'---what libs have been pointing us toward for years is said 200k evil-rich person paying MANY times beyond that, to the point where a family that makes 40k-50k pays no income tax at all, thus forcing the country to run off the backs of afore-mentioned 200k guys.
Does this phrase seem familiar? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs ?"
-
I'd like there to be zero income tax, period. It's not moral to tax achievement and productivity. Land value, on the other hand, is mostly derived from the surrounding community, and therefore is fair to tax, imo.
-
What's the matter with that? Splain why the rich shouldn't pay their fair share?
The top 1% pay 40% of the total tax.
The top 10% pay 70% of the total.
That's not "fair"?
Should they pay 100%....would that be "fair" to you?
-
i want Charley Rangel to pay taxes on that $75,000 rental income he keeps forgetting to put on his tax return.
-
Oh, but ole Charley didn't know he was supposed to pay those taxes.
I guess being the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee was taking up too much of his time to learn what the taxation laws are.
Wait, what does the Ways and Means Committee do again?
-
I don't make a lot of money. However, I sure don't want some one else's money who has worked weekends, week nights and untold hours. They've earned it, not me. Why should I get some one else's money when I'm spending my time playing games, drinking beer etc. while they work their tail off.
-
I love the "fairness" that comes with someone else telling me how much to pay, and they decide where it should go.
I love even more the growing number of people that are more willing to accept someone else telling them how much to pay with no say as to how it's spent.
Notice the bailouts? Tax money right? They are getting their money loaned back to them, or using their money so the government can take them over. I wonder how they would be fairing if they were "allowed" to keep their money in the first place.
Biden, Patriots founded this country rejecting your type of taxation, hope you know what's in store for you. You want patriotism? Ok :)
-
What's the matter with that? Splain why the rich shouldn't pay their fair share?
Everyone should pay an equal share.
That is not the case now. The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes with the top 10% making up 70% of the taxes. If Biden and Obama get into office, they will increase taxation on the wealthy further stifling economic growth in the US and pushing more business offshore.
Please research what you are discussing. It has a tendency to make one look less like an uneducated fool.
-
How do you define 'fair'? If everyone pats same rate (i.e. 28%) If I make 200k, I pay 4X as much tax as someone who makes 50k....but THAT isn't 'fair'---what libs have been pointing us toward for years is said 200k evil-rich person paying MANY times beyond that, to the point where a family that makes 40k-50k pays no income tax at all, thus forcing the country to run off the backs of afore-mentioned 200k guys.
Does this phrase seem familiar? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs ?"
That's Marxism correct?!
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/14/seeing_through_obamanomics/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7
Here's a link to and editorial about the interview between O'Reilly and Barry
He's saying the same thing as Biden. Nothing like having a gun to your head and saying "tip the waitress".
-
The top 1% pay 40% of the total tax.
The top 10% pay 70% of the total.
That's not "fair"?
Should they pay 100%....would that be "fair" to you?
Your source? Just curious.
-
Common knowledge. Taxpayer advocacy groups. Financial experts. Need more?
If so, just read the tax code. Or ask Charles Rangel. He's in charge of writing the code. And then evading it.
-
No need to get snippy CVH... I was just asking. :)
I found it online... thanks.
-
No need to get snippy CVH... I was just asking. :)
I found it online... thanks.
Not snippy, just light hearted sarcasm. Not really specifically direct at you, either.
-
:D :D :D
:aok
-
Your source? Just curious.
Heres one source, though they pretty much all have similar data (http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-the-rich-and-businesses-pay-their-fair-share)
* According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
* The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
* The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
* The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.
* From 1984 to 2001, those in the bottom quintile saw their share of the total tax burden drop from 2.4 percent to 1.1 percent.
* Those in the top quintile saw their share rise from 55.6 percent to 65.3 percent.
* The top 10 percent increased their share from 39.3 percent to 50 percent; the top 5 percent's share rose from 28.2 to 38.5 percent; and those in the top 1 percent saw their share skyrocket from 14.7 percent to 22.7 percent.
* From 1979 through 2003, the total federal tax burden on the highest-earning percentage of Americans -- who earn 52 percent of all income -- rose from 56 percent to 66 percent of all taxes.
* Their share of individual income taxes jumped from 65 percent to 85 percent.
* On the spending side, antipoverty spending has leaped from 9.1 percent of all federal spending in 1990 to a record 16.3 percent in 2004.
* In the case of for-profit firms, shareholders demand that any surplus income in excess of expenses be distributed to them as dividends or retained as accumulated earnings.
* Those firms react to taxes by trying to shift them to customers in the form of higher prices or to employees in the form of lower compensation.
-
I still don't understand why a flat tax would be so horrible. It always seemed like the fairest solution to me, with the added perk of trimming down the size of the IRS. I'm guessing tax revenue would drop horrendously?
I barely qualify as lower middle class (no car, no home, no real savings), so I don't have a personal interest in it.
-
I think the flat tax would be better. I myself and barely above the poverty line. I'm below it in some places, but I still pay what taxes I'm told to pay, I don't take welfare (food stamps, etc.) even though I qualify for them. I do go to work everyday, put food on the table, keep the rent paid, and still have cigs (they will be the death of me). I don't care about being rich, and I don't think those that have money should be paying all of the taxes for this county.
Flat tax would be equal tax. You pay (%) on what you spend. If I pay 80k for a home. I pay taxes on 80k. If someone who has alot more money than me pays 200k for a home, he pays taxes on 200k. Even tax rate. His tax is more than mine, but what he spent is more. I don't have all of the answers, but I think this would work.
OUTLAW LOBBIEST!!!
-
A flat tax would work. By going to a flat tax, we could get rid of the capital gains tax, death tax, marriage penalty and all of the loopholes associated with those.
I pulled this off of a tax website.
The Russian Federation is a claimed case in point; the real revenues from its Personal Income Tax rose by 25.2% in the first year after the Federation introduced a flat tax, followed by a 24.6% increase in the second year, and a 15.2% increase in the third year.
-
Your source? Just curious.
Sure...here ya go: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html)
-
A flat tax on income is more expensive to implement than a flat sales tax, not to mention it's simply wrong to put a tax on productivity and achievement.
-
The problem with a sales tax is its easier to dodge than income tax.
Just look at the internet... a national sales tax would require that all internet purchases be taxed, right now most people buy over the internet to avoid state sales taxes, and they've been getting away with it for years now.
Another way I can think of off the top of my head... people will barter more. When no money is changing hands, think people are going to pay the government its share?
Second problem... how can you implement a national sales tax to replace income tax without increasing the overall tax burden on the majority of the population? If right now the income tax is "unfair" to the rich, any change to make it "fair to everyone" by definition means the not-rich are getting their taxes increased. Since the not-rich hold the majority of the votes, anyone pushing that agenda won't get elected.
-
http://www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org)
The more I look at Fair Tax the more I like it.
-
A flat tax on income is more expensive to implement than a flat sales tax, not to mention it's simply wrong to put a tax on productivity and achievement.
You cannot have a "flat sales tax" unless you remove what is called the "local option".
Besides, they will NEVER repeal the income tax. That is the FIRST problem, and one you will NOT solve.
The one chance we do have is a flat income tax, with minimal allowable deductions.
-
You cannot have a "flat sales tax" unless you remove what is called the "local option".
Besides, they will NEVER repeal the income tax. That is the FIRST problem, and one you will NOT solve.
The one chance we do have is a flat income tax, with minimal allowable deductions.
All of this is moot until we get rid of the Politician's Credit Card. Namely, the 16th amendment.
They really won't care how much money they have until they realize how difficult it would be to spend.
-
You cannot have a "flat sales tax" unless you remove what is called the "local option".
Besides, they will NEVER repeal the income tax. That is the FIRST problem, and one you will NOT solve.
The one chance we do have is a flat income tax, with minimal allowable deductions.
The federal income tax could be removed. It would create a lot of lost jobs for CPA's and IRS folks, but it could be done. All we as a people need to do is force the change.
The flat sales tax is a good idea because it hits everyone.
Hypothetically, fix a federal flat tax @ 20%.
Then allow the state and local to amount up to 10%.
That's a max tax of 30%. Better than what most are paying now. Now, add in all those that do not pay "income taxes" such as drug dealers, foreigners that spend money here, and all the others that find ways to dodge the tax. Now they are forced to pay it, because when they go buy that new Lexus, or tennis racket, or bicycle, it is taxed.
Makes a lot more sense and is very easy to keep track of.
-
There's no doubt the income tax COULD be removed, at least in theory.
Perhaps I should have posted it THIS way:
THEY will NEVER repeal the income tax. THEY have NEVER met a TAX THEY didn't like. And THEY rarely repeal them.
THEY= the majority of your average elected government officials, in this case CONGRESS.
-
The federal income tax could be removed. It would create a lot of lost jobs for CPA's and IRS folks, but it could be done. All we as a people need to do is force the change.
The flat sales tax is a good idea because it hits everyone.
Hypothetically, fix a federal flat tax @ 20%.
Then allow the state and local to amount up to 10%.
That's a max tax of 30%. Better than what most are paying now. Now, add in all those that do not pay "income taxes" such as drug dealers, foreigners that spend money here, and all the others that find ways to dodge the tax. Now they are forced to pay it, because when they go buy that new Lexus, or tennis racket, or bicycle, it is taxed.
Makes a lot more sense and is very easy to keep track of.
One thing I'll do if I take over this country is to implement into the Constitution a "Not to Exceed Tax Burden." For any given person, their entire tax burden is not to exceed 20%. I'd probably set a flat tax for the US Federal Government at 8 or 9% for everyone.
So basically, figure out what the common rabble spend on income taxes (the states can set up income tax brackets, provided the worst one doesn't exceed 20%), then tack on any sales tax and figure out if the sales taxes will put the person over 20%.
-
the more money you make the more money the state should take, I think. And then give it to the poor people who arent smart enough to take care of themselves. Or have substance abuse problems...are are gamblers and such. And to pay for their family members in prison.
-
the more money you make the more money the state should take, I think. And then give it to the poor people who arent smart enough to take care of themselves. Or have substance abuse problems...are are gamblers and such. And to pay for their family members in prison.
<insertsarcasm>then let them take yours. but leave mine alone!!!!<insertsarcasm>
:rofl :rofl
-
That would be <sarcasm on> followed by <sarcasm off>. And Yeager beat you to it wrt sarcasm, which was in fact all his post was.
-
My bad with the <sarcasm> quotes. Understood his sarcasm completly I did.
-
What you just described is more or less fair tax. No income tax, just a flat % sales tax. No dodging that, everyone spends money.
-
What you just described is more or less fair tax. No income tax, just a flat % sales tax. No dodging that, everyone spends money.
There's a problem with that theory. A few years ago, some brilliant clowns came up with the "luxury tax", a sales tax on "luxury items". Know what happened? People stopped buying those "luxury items", and the regular working stiffs who made them got their hours cut, got laid off temporarily, or lost their jobs completely.
So when you slap a flat, "fair" sales tax on everything, do not be surprised when people stop buying things like boats, aircraft, exotic cars, etc. And do not be surprised when sales of these items are carefully hidden.
-
And do not be surprised when sales of these items are carefully hidden.
Hidden offshore most likely. Some LLC outside the US will own that stuff.
-
Yes. The solution is not to find a new way to tax, but rather to stop finding ways to spend. And to stop spending on ways that have already been found.
-
20%,30% is nuts, the max tax should be 5%, if the govt can't live on that they need to find a job.
-
Hell, our sales tax here, including the "local option" is 10.875%.
-
20%,30% is nuts, the max tax should be 5%, if the govt can't live on that they need to find a job.
There would be no federal income tax. Go ahead and try to figure out how much of your income and spending is taxed and then use that as a reference. Then think about it without you income being taxed. It'll make more sense.
But how would I know, I failed basic civics classes according to you.
-
I have a question about spending. What is included in that? Does spending include my bills like rent and electric, or is it what I spend at the grocery store? You have to figure, that there are certain things that are not taxed in many states. Two of them being food and clothing. Would those now be taxed?
-
I have a question about spending. What is included in that? Does spending include my bills like rent and electric, or is it what I spend at the grocery store? You have to figure, that there are certain things that are not taxed in many states. Two of them being food and clothing. Would those now be taxed?
Your income is taxed before you use that income to buy those things. Your paying taxes on them.There's a problem with that theory. A few years ago, some brilliant clowns came up with the "luxury tax", a sales tax on "luxury items". Know what happened? People stopped buying those "luxury items", and the regular working stiffs who made them got their hours cut, got laid off temporarily, or lost their jobs completely.
So when you slap a flat, "fair" sales tax on everything, do not be surprised when people stop buying things like boats, aircraft, exotic cars, etc. And do not be surprised when sales of these items are carefully hidden.
The income they used to buy those boats and pearl necklaces was taxed. Half of the reason to move to this system is the IRS doesn't have to audit the 290 million some odd tax returns anymore. They dedicate their resources to keeping track of the buisnesses in the US, which is a much more managable for their resources.
Carefully hidden sales by who? The buisness would be more worried about shady sales like that in the new system as the IRS would have all their auditors, who have no personal income tax returns to review, available to pursue shady buisnessmen.
People hating on Illegal immigrants for not contributing? Not a problem if their spending is taxed, since under the table pay isn't taxed now anyways.
Anymore excuses? Most of your questions have logical and well thought responses. The good that would come with Fair Tax would far outweigh the bad and is certainly superiour to our current system.
-
I understand what you are saying about a flat tax on income. What I was asking about was if we went to a national sales tax? Would I be taxed on necessities and what would be considered a necessity? I would prefer the flat tax on income as we don't pay state income tax. :D
-
I say have a flat sales tax.. however the powers that be (big business lobbyist) will never let that happen. That is the only fair system, because you are only taxed on what you spend.
-
Oh my god. I agree with crockett. I feel woozy. :)