- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I actually wish you did. I really do. But you have completely skipped the point of what was posted.
Not at all, 47% of the income earners pay no Federal Income Taxes, the rich are paying a larger dollar amount and higher percentage of the taxes than before the Bush tax cuts, and the lower income wage earners are paying less in taxes. If you want more govt. revenue implement the flat tax so everyone is paying something and put 16 million Americans back to work.
I repeat:
. . . 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole.
Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html
I got my information from the IRS. Apparently you believe the NY Times is more accurate.
You didn't get any information that disputes this.
an opinion i disagree with. a consumption tax is even better but the main evil is allowing politicians to buy the votes of the many by promising the wealth of the richProgressive taxation is needed for 2 primary reasons
1) Lower income people spend a far higher proportion of the money on consumer spending, which is the primary driver of our economy.
2) Lower income people tend to spend most of their money on basic needs and lowering their income would have a significant impact on social stability.
Fairness, in either income earned or taxation is a pipe dream. With an all-so fair flat tax, it still runs into issues with how to treat capital gains, inheritance, and income earned overseas.
Not true, the govenment protects the wealthy far more that they protect the poor.
That's because 47% of the income earners earn essentially nothing as a proportion of national income.
High income earners are paying more under the Bush tax cuts? How do you figure? The top rate was 39.6% in 2000, and it's now 35%.
To which loopholes are you referring?
Except YOU literally do this.
Oh the irony...
I'm in favor of a more progressive tax than we currently have. No one is an island of productivity, totally unreliant on others. Have you made no use of public services such as roads and other infrastructure in making your money? Did you invent all the technology used to produce your product or service? Did you create the trade routes that make one location more productive than another? What gives you the right to keep all this wealth which is not a result of your own labor? If you think you earned it all on your own go to Afghanistan and work your magic.
The reality is that a welfare state has to exist in order to keep a degree of social order in tact. Without throwing a minimal amount of money at those who are down on their luck, a door is left open for robberies, murder, assault and other personal crimes because of a exceeding amount of social strain in those populations.
Also the percentage of total income total taxes paid (FICA, Fed. income, state income, property, capital gains, sales taxes, etc.) by the wealthy is less than total taxes paid, as a percentage of income, by the middle class.
I don't support a completely flat tax, since it would really hurt people who are living near the poverty line.
The best solution in my opinion is a flat tax on income above a certain amount.
For example, if the the poverty level for a family of 4 is $30,000/year and the tax rate is 10%, then there would be a flat tax of 10% on any income a family of 4 made over about 35,000 per year. If you make 40 grand a year, you pay $500 in income tax. If you make 135 grand a year, you pay 10,000 in income tax.
It's simple, it's fair, and it's just progressive enough that it doesn't hurt the people who are barely getting by as it is.
If an income tax has to exist at all (it should be abolished) a progressive tax would be better than a flat poll tax. A poll tax just punishes the poor and middle class.
What really is punishing the poor and the middle class is the total irresponsibility shown by politicians in D.C. on both sides. Our Founders never envisioned a 3.8 trillion dollar bloated Federal govt. riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse. Our Founders understand that power corrupts and that is why they put the power with the people at the state level. They wanted a small central govt. and it is amazing to me that far too many Americans continue to buy the rhetoric and support all the spending that Congress generates not realizing that it is being done by a bureaucrat in D.C. yet designed to help people hundreds or thousands of miles away. Much of what Congress spends should be a state and local issue not a Federal Taxpayer issue. If taxpayers appropriated money for exactly what our Founders envisioned we would have a budget of less than 2 trillion instead of 3.8 trillion and growing.
Do you have any figures I can see to back that up? Don't really care, just wondering.
You mean figures like the Budget of the United States?
Current Report: Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government (Combined Statement): Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
If taxpayers appropriated money for exactly what our Founders envisioned we would have a budget of less than 2 trillion instead of 3.8 trillion and growing.
No...
How do you get the 2 trillion figuring what the founders intended.
Either it is a guess, or you based it on some kind of comparative statistic that can be verified. Before I comment on your response to me, I want to see if it is fact or fiction and reply accordingly.
I'm in favor of a more progressive tax than we currently have. No one is an island of productivity, totally unreliant on others. Have you made no use of public services such as roads and other infrastructure in making your money? Did you invent all the technology used to produce your product or service? Did you create the trade routes that make one location more productive than another? What gives you the right to keep all this wealth which is not a result of your own labor? If you think you earned it all on your own go to Afghanistan and work your magic.
The reality is that a welfare state has to exist in order to keep a degree of social order in tact. Without throwing a minimal amount of money at those who are down on their luck, a door is left open for robberies, murder, assault and other personal crimes because of a exceeding amount of social strain in those populations.
Also the percentage of total income total taxes paid (FICA, Fed. income, state income, property, capital gains, sales taxes, etc.) by the wealthy is less than total taxes paid, as a percentage of income, by the middle class.
Take the Budget of the U.S. the link I gave you that shows line items and then plug in the items that our Constitution requires from our Govt, defense, small central govt. expense, debt service, V.A. affairs and see what you come up with?
From the Budget, this is what I come up with as categories that should be funded by Federal Income Taxes
Defense 662.8
Gen. Science, Space 29.9
Commerce 292.5
Transportation 84.4
Health 334.3
Veterans Benefits 95.5
Justice 53.4
General Govt. 118
Net Interest 190.9
Total 1861.7
Well I don't agree or disagree although it has little to do with my statements or this thread. It is simply about taxes and not the deficit.
LOL, it has everything to do with the thread as taxes lead to govt. revenue that funds the expenses. As long as the liberal left distorts the true role of the Federal govt. and convinces people that it is about tax revenue and not spending we are going to face the deficits we have today and the argument over the right amount of taxes to collect. Seems to me that far too many have bought into that larger bloated Federal govt. as it is always about the revenue generated vs the actual spending.
Some here seem to believe that Conservatives don't want any taxes. That is bs, Conservatives understand that it takes taxes to run the govt. The real issue is the role of the govt. and thus the amount of taxes. There is absolutely no need for progressive taxes with a limited Central govt. A flat tax will do quite well and will be considerably more fair that what we have right now.
Again it does not. The deficit is what it is, and the type of tax has absolutely no affect at all.
Funny how you blame liberals for distorting when it was so called conservatives who got the ball rolling under Bush.
Be it progressive or flat an income tax is not and never was needed. I do however try to stick with realistic goals. Our system that we have now is what we have to work with. The income tax is not going to go away, nor is it going to be changed to a flat tax. So we have to try and cut taxes within the system we have.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?