- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 7,676
- Reaction score
- 2,850
- Location
- Your Head
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
If you consider the fact they own 75 percent of all "wealth" in the country, then no, the statement might not hold. But since this is about "income", of which they constitute about 48 percent of, then yes, the statement could be considered true.
I still voted "no" however. There are plenty of other factors to consider. There is a reason we have a "progressive" tax system, it helps compensate for the inherent inequalities in a system such as ours. Yes, that would be the "redistribute the wealth" thing.
If you are replacing the income tax with a regressive tax like a sales tax then yes the govt is picking winners and losers. The wealthy win.no income tax-then we have no picking winners or losers. everyone pays for what they use. You are a citizen, you pay the same for your citizenship benefits as I do
just like everything else in life
I suspect if you got your way colleges and other charities would hire a cleaner for you:mrgreen:
And you honestly think that charities will receive the same amount of money if all their contributions are non deductible?
And you honestly think that charities will receive the same amount of money if all their contributions are non deductible?
If you are replacing the income tax with a regressive tax like a sales tax then yes the govt is picking winners and losers. The wealthy win.
I don't care if they don't.
You are correct the statement is false, however the fact they are in a group is literally meaningless. People pay their taxes as individuals, not as a member of a group.
no, the government doesn't pick who wins. everyone pays the same for what they use-just like at the McDonalds or the car wash. the government shouldn't try to even things up. if you are a failure, the government shouldn't tax the rich more to make your failure less painful
I don't care if they don't.
So anyone who isn't wealthy is an automatic failure? That's pretty myopic view.
Okaaaaay...so you don't care if charities don't get enough money to operate?
Let's hope you never get to a position of power.
nope, they just have failed economically. is everyone wealthy a target to you?
No. I just believe if you make more you should pay more. Not less which is the case in our current tax code with so many loopholes to exploit.
And what evidence do you have that taxes are the reason people donate to charities?
No. I just believe if you make more you should pay more. Not less which is the case in our current tax code with so many loopholes to exploit.
Me...I have given at least slightly more to charity because of the tax deduction.
And I guarantee you I am not the only one...especially for the rich.
Now prove to me using links to unbiased, factual evidence that charities would receive at least as much from donations if the deduction was eliminated?
And besides, why take the chance that Americans might suffer needlessly if people do give less?
Do you get more government help if you pay more? Can you drove on more roads or use better public water or get better medicare? No. We all get and have the same opportunity to government services and protections.
I think that, ideally, every citizen of age should have the same tax burden. That would mean roughly $14,000 per citizen over 18 years old. I'm well in the minority on that line of thinking, though.
I should pay the same as you. I don't get any more government benefits than you do. why should I subsidize your citizenship benefits when you do nothing beneficial for me?
I probably make more money than you and pay more in taxes than you. And it isn't about govt benefits. The rich probably use as much govt benefit as everyone else.
And what evidence do you have that taxes are the reason people donate to charities?
really? you are making over 2.5 million a year and have a net worth north of 50 million dollars?
wow, then why do you call yourself a 99percenter?
Im sorry but you dont make 2.5 mill a year. If you did you wouldn't be trolling messageboards 24-7. You are probably one of those 47%er's romney talks about. Therefore the taxes i pay subsidize your food stamps, medicare and obamaphone yet here you are bitching about taxes.
its statist horsecrap. the biggest problem is those who want more and more spending don't get hit with tax increases to remind them how expensive the government they want.
It doesn't matter what i make because this is a messageboard and we have no way of verifying incomes. I just know that you dont make 2.5mill a year and probably never did in your life.what would you care to bet on that? I'd be happy to prove it if it meant you'd pay a stiff price
I am retired, and I don't need to work. so what do you make a year? I guess you were just lying about what you claimed as to your income
You failed to even make an attempt to address what I said "Also very true" about.
Your second bit is incorrect. First off, it's entirely nonspecific and very generalizing. You are attempting to tarnish the stance that the government should increase it's spending on social welfare programs (and other progressive causes) by claiming that those who support such polices don't and will not feel the pinch of the taxes required to carry out such polices. Essentially trying to take the issue down from a simple ideological stance to a more petty self interest stance, which is in and of itself a logical fallacy because it avoids the heart of the argument. Secondly, quite a large number of higher earners support such polices, so it would appear that your claim is not only partially wrong, but mostly wrong. Not to mention that many liberals would agree to pay higher taxes for such polices, though they would of course support the cutting of the standard set of what they consider "wasteful" spending.
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?