Author Topic: Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind (Read 2719 times)

Raider179 · « **Reply #60 on:** June 07, 2005, 01:54:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Well, they don't PAY any tax now, so they get no refund now. Instead, money is given to them.

Under your system, the poorest of the poor would be.......... poorer after paying their taxes.

That's the system you want? Folks that make $14,600 now would make $13,200 after taxes?

You think that's a good thing then?

hmmm not sure where you are getting this dont pay taxes info. Everything I have seen says otherwise.

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=133625,00.html

Everybody pays taxes. Poor people don't get exempted. I made 5k 1 year and I paid 500 bucks in taxes.(student) You think someone who made 5k has got 500 just sitting around, let me tell ya they dont. lol

straffo · « **Reply #61 on:** June 07, 2005, 02:59:08 AM »

Only the Poor should be taxed (or enslaved) not the Rich.

The reason is pretty logical : only the poor use welfare so they should pay what they use.

Steve · « **Reply #62 on:** June 07, 2005, 03:26:58 AM »

Straffo that just might be the worst bait you've ever used.

straffo · « **Reply #63 on:** June 07, 2005, 03:52:42 AM »

Arggg now I won't have any fish !

pffff

lada · « **Reply #64 on:** June 07, 2005, 05:29:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Wow, Liz. You just contradicted yourself.
Nobody should get public money.
Organizations should get public money.

Ahem....flip-flop?

average non-native speaker understand his statement in this way.

nobody = any single person

person =/ organization

Why somebody so cool like you didint get it ?

lada · « **Reply #65 on:** June 07, 2005, 05:34:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Only the Poor should be taxed (or enslaved) not the Rich.

The reason is pretty logical : only the poor use welfare so they should pay what they use.

There is something about that....

That remind me old joke..

Do you know the diference between communism and capitalism ?

In communism are people exploited by people. And in capitalism its opposite.

Anyway thats what i love about some eastern countries. For example, where you can, but dont have to pay for healty insurance and later on if you go to hospital, you can simply pay by money or use your insurence.

Once i will be allowed to die on the street coz i will refuse medical care, i will feel free person in a free country.

Toad · « **Reply #66 on:** June 07, 2005, 07:30:51 AM »

Yeah, it's 10% nominal for Married Filing Joint in the 2005 tables. I saw the "0" and missed the 10% over between $0-14,600. My mistake on that.

I think they still get things like the Earned Income Tax Credit so it's really less than that. Unless RPM gets his way.

lazs2 · « **Reply #67 on:** June 07, 2005, 08:04:15 AM »

"same percentage".... isn't say 20% of 75,000 a lot less money than 20% of 10 billion? and....

Why would the rich pay more for one persons medicare and social security (which they will probly never use anyway) than the poorest person?

I mean... maybe we should make it so that all goods are on a sliding scale too? no? then how bout just the sales tax on em... you buy an alarm clock and you have to show your IRS issued income card... if you are poor... the tax is small... if you are rich then the tax is like 10 times the cost of the clock..... all done at the regester... a big surprise everytime you buy something.

"fair share" is the most misused phrase in the whole liberal vocabulary of newspeak.

lazs

Eagler · « **Reply #68 on:** June 07, 2005, 08:18:18 AM »

it would be nice if, after I retire, I could send my medical and housing expenses directly to the liberal hollyweird type of my choosing... lol

that is basically what we are saying right?

oboe · « **Reply #69 on:** June 07, 2005, 08:55:29 AM »

I agree with Laz that "fair share" is often misused or misunderstood. One person may feel that everybody paying an equal dollar amount is fair, while for another "fair" means everybody paying the same percentage of their income, while for a third, "fair" is a sliding scale where those who can more easily afford it pay a higher amount than those who can't as easily afford it. And I'm not sure agreement is possible. We may have to just agree to disagree.

One point, our taxes pay for more than social security and medicare. We pay for national defense, for roads, for education, police and fire protection, and for the higher courts.

Some people say those who benefit the most should pay the most. But who really benefits the most from our first rate national defense, generally excellent transporation system, judicial and law enforcement system, and mediocre educational system? Does a trailer park denizen working a minimum wage job benefit more from an effective highway system than a CEO of manufacturing or large retail company? Seems to me that many functions of the national government provide more assistance to the wealthy in their pursuit and protection of wealth than to the poor in their subsistence lifestyle.

I think we often concentrate too much on programs where fixed dollar costs can be examined and don't pay enough attention to benefits of government that are more intangible, yet still extremely important.

Toad · « **Reply #70 on:** June 07, 2005, 09:05:04 AM »

Yeah baby! USER FEES!

For EVERYTHING!

oboe · « **Reply #71 on:** June 07, 2005, 09:20:59 AM »

In one sense, we do have user fees for everything-- its all rolled up into the income tax. Paying the tax helps provide for national defense, court system, law enforcement, transportation, etc.

You get my point about how much more benefit these things are to the wealthy than to the poor?

Toad · « **Reply #72 on:** June 07, 2005, 09:24:22 AM »

Allow to rephrase then......... SPECIFIC USER FEES! For EVERYTHING!

I should only pay for what I use, don't you agree?

Let's have Toll Booths on every Federal Highway. Bill on a "per exit" driven basis. Booths all over the place... think of the JOBS that would create!

No reason for me to pay toll on a Fed road on the East Coast I'll never use. And if I choose to drive rural country roads and stay off Fed roads... well, no payment to the Feds.

There ya go!

And no, I don't agree. Unless you agree with the above posted precept.

lazs2 · « **Reply #73 on:** June 07, 2005, 09:51:53 AM »

oboe.... what are you talking about? the rich person doesn't drive on roads any more than the poor person commuting... any unfairness in the cost of roads is more than compensated by our punitive tax on gasoline and regestration of vehicles.

as for defense and other things... the rich person is paying a higher amount due to his higher income even tho his hide is not being protected any more than say... yours. Everyone is being protected equally yet some are paying more.

Fairness is a word that should not be used in the same breath as income tax.

lazs

Shuckins · « **Reply #74 on:** June 07, 2005, 09:58:50 AM »

The graduated income tax system was created to "punish" the rich if they kept a large portion of their wealth for personal use, but NOT if they reinvested it in their corporate or business enterprises.

The current tax system encourages investment and economic growth, which benefits everyone.

Class envy is such an ugly thing. A pity that it has become a major tenet of a certain political movement.