that, sir, is not the same amount, you are paying 15 cents, I am paying $15,000, that sir, is not, "the same".
They are the same percentage. I edited my post before I read this. I'll paste it here for you.
We both pay 15%. I know what your trying to do here. Either you want to pay $0.15 in taxes or you want someone who makes $1 to pay $15,000 in taxes. Both scenarios are retarded. Neither is fair. Fair is paying the same percentage no matter what you make.
15% for all, seems fair. I will still pay more than you..... :shrug:
You're not paying more of your discretionary income though. Again, not the same.
uhm... what????
I'll pay $15,000 you pay $.015 cents.... I would be fine with that, 15% across the board.
Class envy.......
I'd be somewhat ok with that from the standpoint that the rich would finally start paying their fair share, and the lower classes will finally start pulling their weight. However 15% is not enough in my opinion.
This seems to be a good time to share my favorite JFK quote:
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
-- John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
class accountability.
Class envy.......
I make more money, therefore I should pay more in percentage than TNE simply due to my success? is class envy.
So says the one that wouldn't be affected by a tax increase, yet wants the lower and middle to pay even more taxes.
Pardon me if I throw your term in the trash where your comments go.
No, you are afforded more opportunities because of your status. That's fact.
Your god is money.
Middle class pays 25-58% poor pay 15% unless they make less than 8 grand..... I want everyone to pay a 15% tax rate, that's it. that would be..... wait for it.... LESS FAIL. You shouldn't post out of ignorance, it's embarrassing bro.
Just a page back or two you were saying it would be unfair for everyone to pay 15% because you would pay more.
Also the 25-58, or the 15 or any of those numbers are total horse ****. Very few people actually pay what they should pay in taxes. There are millions of ways around them. Dont keep lying to yourself.
The Libby/Demos of today are not Kennedy Democrats.
I really think you are confused...... I never said this, I want this, I am happy to pay 15% on my rich mans salary and happy for TNE to pay 15% on his poor mans salary, yes I would pay more, but that's fair. 15% across the board...
As I said, get rid of all deductions ALL loopholes and charge 15%.... TNE was claiming I wanted folks to pay more, I countered proving I want them to pay less. He failed.
Cars, baseball cards, Hershey bars, bathing suits - hell, the whole damn nation has changed since Kennedy. And in othe breaking news, the suns tonight in the west.
That certainly is not what I took from some of your posts.
In any case, the same across the board is not happening. Neither side will agree to that it seems and it is not coming any time soon. While the buffet rule is not perfect it is a step in the right direction.
The Libby/Demos of today are not Kennedy Democrats.
The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - US News and World ReportThe notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962. Here's one quote—I've italicized the crucial part often left out: "Our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." JFK was not expounding an implacable economic philosophy; he was speaking about a very specific circumstance. The top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's 35 percent top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate? Applying Kennedy's tax talk to the current structure, JFK biographer Robert Dallek says, is like comparing "apples and watermelons."
Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits. While FDR and his aides had embraced countercyclical deficits as necessary in times of recession or depression, Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.
Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics, which saw tax cuts as a way to boost investment (the supply side versus the Keynesian demand side) by helping the wealthy and business. Deficits were handled with the magical declaration that tax cuts pay for themselves.
It's a notion that the new House GOP majority has taken to bizarre and irresponsible extremes, eliminating "pay-go" rules mandating that new tax cuts or new spending be offset by tax increases or spending cuts. Instead the House now has "cut-go" rules, which require only that new spending be offset with spending cuts—tax cuts need not be offset and tax increases don't count as offsets. This from the party that oversaw deficit explosions in the Reagan and George W. Bush years, then claimed the mantle of fiscal responsibility in last year's elections. At least JFK and his partisan descendants are intellectually honest about deficits.
And the debate about JFK and tax cuts speaks to a broader misconception in our politics, that Republicans always want to cut taxes, while Democrats don't. Although it's true that tax cuts have become the alpha and omega of GOP economic policy, an astonishing number of conservatives actually advocate tax increases for lower-income Americans because those who don't make enough to pay federal income taxes lack "skin in the game" to really understand big government's villainy. Seriously.
But if ever advocating a tax cut makes someone a supply-sider, then JFK joins the ranks of other conservative economists like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama (the tax cuts in the stimulus package, for example, were arguably the largest in history). The key distinction is that JFK and his successors saw tax cuts as one of many available economic tools. Indeed Kennedy, like Obama, favored both tax cuts and spending increases to stimulate the economy. He moved first on tax cuts because he didn't think increased spending was initially politically viable, but it remained a large part of his agenda for 1964. "First we'll have your tax cut," he told chief economic adviser Walter Heller, 11 days before his assassination, "then we'll have my expenditures program."
Kennedy's economic philosophy was less about means—tax cuts versus spending increases—than ends. As he put it in his first address as president: "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
True, but I earned them, you didn't.
Not at all, my god is success.... if I had to start over again, I could, because I worship at the alter of success, not at the alter of class envy....impdaddy:
Cars, baseball cards, Hershey bars, bathing suits - hell, the whole damn nation has changed since Kennedy. And in othe breaking news, the suns tonight in the west.
You completley misread me then, no worries, it happens.... I am for a flat tax, the only "deductions" I would consider would be for those making less than 10k a year, single mothers, active students. That's it. everyone pays the same percentage of thier income. so I would pay more than most, but we all pay the same percentage. That is fair.
I would almost agree with you. I think 15% is too low, but it would be leap years better than what we have now.
But you also put in a tax breaks for single mothers, kids in school, and people making less than 10k. Why? They can pay their taxes just like the rest of us. NO DEDUCTIONS on earning. The only thing I think that should be taken into consideration is welfare benefits should not count as income. But if you have a job and make 10k a year you should pay taxes on those earnings.
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?