Councilman
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2009
- Messages
- 4,454
- Reaction score
- 1,657
- Location
- Riverside, County, CA.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The richest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.
That's what Obama is asking them to do, yes...and by "ask" I mean "force".
OK, why all the misinformation?
Because you libs have to lie to get your way. I wish you folks could start being honest, and put down the racism also, but that's not likely to happen.
Put down the racism? It was Reagan that preached "state right's" at the Neshoba County Fair and attacked a black welfare Caddilac mother that turned out to be complete hogwash. Ever since then, Republicans have been trying to create a socio-economic class that only benefits the selects few, which happen to be white.
I'll take Goldwater over you charlatans anyday. He voted against the CRA, but was honest about it. He also did much to mitigate racism in his home state; more than any modern liberal could hope for.
Unfortunately, modern day Republicans love to attack the poor. They view them as a disease on society and that disease is mostly colored folk.
Put down the racism?
Nonsense. And modern day republicans don't push programs designed to keep people addicted to poverty.
The richest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.
Yes, your liberal social policies have don more to destroy the Black family then slavery ever did. Such social policies are food-stamps, HEAP and Title19; you reward people for having broken homes.
Whenever liberals are called to account for their damaging and anti-social programs, you harp on your intentions as though that justifies the consequences. Then, after undermining the family, you have the balls to turn to Conservatives and use the divorce rate YOU made to try and tell US that WE don't care about the sanctity of marriage.
Liberals are racists. No exceptions. I wish nothing but pain and suffering on each and every one of you, personally, until you convert or die.
The programs aren't perfect, I agree, and need to be heavily reformed, but you need to realize that Liberals (at least the ones I know) generally have good intentions when they want to help those less fortunate. And by less fortunate this includes people who are disabled, who have mental issues, who grew up with no education, ect.
Why don't you try to work with them towards a solution instead of attack, where does that get us? Also, with the issue of the CURRENT folks in heavy poverty in our country, would you rather do nothing than do something? And if your answer is what we're doing is not helping, then what would be your solution?
That's what Obama is asking them to do, yes...and by "ask" I mean "force".
Personally, I would allow all of the Bush tax cuts to expire, leading some members of this group to pay higher income taxes than currently. Obama, however, has called for keeping the cuts for the lower income tiers, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
The richest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.
Those figures seem accurate, but I don't consider that injustice. Nevermind that all taxation combined achieves equilibrium, despite the progressivity of the FIT. If I make $10K this year and $80K next, I'm taxed accordingly. Any American is welcome to take advantage of the tax benefits of relative poverty.
Bush was one of the biggest fiscal liberal around. He started TARP, so using him as an example doesn't do you any favors.
Eliminate the tax code in toto. 15-20% consumption tax across the board, no exemptions, no write-offs. Never make another tax law for as long as this country lives.
/problem
You can't support charging one economic class more than another while pretending to be for equality, and expect anyone to actually believe you have integrity.
Equality demands that the rich not be taxed a greater % then the poor.
What sort of equality are you after, exactly? Equality under the law exists in the progressive tax code -- people who make x income pay x rate, regardless of what they made in previous years. Equality of outcome is, essentially, the goal of communism. I doubt you're a communist. Equality of opportunity is the American ideal and one of the compelling reasons for a progressive tax code. We need people to be participants in society, so we lower their burden as they approach the fringe and raise it as they gain self-sufficiency.
No that's ok, I'm more then happy to let you use me to springboard yourself into a posture which seems more reasonable. I'll be the fat-friend, no problem, I'm here for you bro.
Compromising with a liberal is exactly, literally like compromising with a pedophile...oh, excuse me, the new liberal term for pedophile is "Minor-Attracted"...link....(thank you gays, we told you this was the next step but you accused us of a slippery slop..well now haha we told you so, so stfu no SSM)
Sure, the "minor-attracted" (aka liberal) would like to have ruff anal sex with your 7 year old. I would rather put a gun in his face and escort him to my incinerator downstairs.
According to you, I should compromise, however.
So, according to you, a 7 y/o giving said "minor-attracted" a blow job is an acceptable compromise.
***
There will be no compromise with Liberals from me. They are on the level of pedophiles, no exceptions. Liberals are wrong on every issue. Even when they pay lip-service to a policy their back-room deals betray their face. It takes more then mere 'intentions' to do right, so intentions mean dick.
I wonder, does your proposal include stock transactions?
Regardless, I'm no proponent of a flat tax. You sacrifice the mathematical leverage of progressivity for the perception of "fairness." But in practice, it truly would be crippling to the poor, considering the level of American debt. Unless, of course, you're also proposing a more robust welfare system to offset those extra costs.
I agree with you GhostlyJoe. What do you think about this:
How about 0% tax on everyone's first $20,000 of income, 20% on the next $40,000 (for everyone), and 30% on the next $60,000 (for everyone) and a rate of 35% on anything beyond that?
Everyone taxed in the same exact way. Total equality.
I agree with you GhostlyJoe. What do you think about this:
How about 0% tax on everyone's first $20,000 of income, 20% on the next $40,000 (for everyone), and 30% on the next $60,000 (for everyone) and a rate of 35% on anything beyond that?
Everyone taxed in the same exact way. Total equality.
Equality demands that we tax the poor as much as the rich, and the rich as little as the poor. Anything else is discrimination, thus unconstitutional.
There is no discrimination.
Your membership in a class is determined by your actions, not by immutable qualities, and those actions in turn determine how the law treats you.
For the tax code, your bracket status changes as soon as your income-level changes....
Except that which DavidD succinctly outlined in his post #268.
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?