Currently 40% of Americans pay no income tax, should these financial failures be permited to influence the country?
Also should people on government assistence be permited to vote?
I understand the "right" to vote can not be removed ... but what if?
And what about the wealthy who find loopholes to pay no income tax?
ok, fine the old people can vote.
college kids should be working also, but really do we want a bunch of branwashed college kids voting?
You need to give them atleast 2 or 3 years of the real world to get all the socialism out of their systems.
I hope that was a joke. Think what you will ... Every single wealthy person pays taxes. Well unless you work for obama, and get to run the irs .. or the other half dozen people he apointed.
You really think that "loopholes" stop the rich from paying taxes .. sure they can avoid some but not even close to a large amount. Most of the ways people use to avoid taxes is called fraud. We all know where those people end up .. one day (unlesss you are a member of congress)
Why should people who contribute nothing, be permited to vote .. they will only vote for somone who will keep giving them free stuff.
Think of it like high school .. the one that got voted class presedent was the one who promised to do the most stuff for the most people.
Got any proof of this.No joke at all. If you do not believe that this happens, you are being quite naive.
What if people who cheated on there taxes or pretended they forgot to pay taxes could not be appointed to or elected to public office? Ron Kirk, is the latest in a line of crooks appointed by Obama. My point is people who expect the government to take care of them from craddle to grave will allways vote for socialist like Obama, and socialist like Obama will surround himself with a den of thiefs. Experts at wealth redistribution from the hard working taxpayers to themselfs or there causes.
Typical wealth envy, When the top 5% of achievers pay 60% of the taxes .. sounds to me like they are paying plenty.I'd rather have college kids vote than old people with their ancient reactionary ideals mucking up progress.
See? I can be partisan, too. Now, how about keeping the partisan hackery out of this?
No joke at all. If you do not believe that this happens, you are being quite naive.
Contributing nothing and not paying taxes do not always equate. I think we have to identify what "contributing to society" means. The stay at home mom who doesn't pay taxes, but takes care of the kids, certainly contributes to society.
The one that got voted class President was the most popular kid. High schoolers know that class Presidents have no power to follow through with any promises.
there is no right to vote.
The Constitution says nothing about voting being a right. It says you can not deny voting because of race or gender.
Unproductive citizens are only going to vote for someone who will give them free stuff.
I'd rather have college kids vote...
See? I can be partisan, too. Now, how about keeping the partisan hackery out of this?
Can you cite an example of a wealthy person that paid no federal imcome tax due to loopholes?No joke at all. If you do not believe that this happens, you are being quite naive.
And yet, your state may, absolutely, not let you vote for President.From the language of both of those amendments its plainly construed that voting is a fundamental right of citizenship.
Sure, if you cheat on your taxes you should be barred from office.
Typical wealth envy, When the top 5% of achievers pay 60% of the taxes .. sounds to me like they are paying plenty.
What percent taxes should the richiest 1% pay? 30%? 50%? More?
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$388,806
39.89
Top 5%
$153,542
60.14
Top 10%
$108,904
70.79
Top 25%
$64,702
86.27
Top 50%
$31,987
97.01
Bottom 50%
<$31,987
2.99
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Or even more to the point, living on 98% of 32K ain't exactly the same as living on 50% of $388,806. Although both might have struggles, one's struggles are far more compelling than the other's.
This treads dangerously close to the idea that the government should decide who has 'enough' and who has 'too much' -- and then taxing those people accordingly.Or even more to the point, living on 98% of 32K ain't exactly the same as living on 50% of $388,806. Although both might have struggles, one's struggles are far more compelling than the other's.
I don't disagree at all, but the question revolves around whether tax policy should be based on how compelling people's struggles are.
The fact that Warren Buffet could live comfortably without making a single penny for the rest of his life doesn't mean we should tax 95 or 100% of his income.
This treads dangerously close to the idea that the government should decide who has 'enough' and who has 'too much' -- and then taxing those people accordingly.
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?