<< I think I'll start by forming a giant chain of people holding hans from one ocean to the other. We can then drink Coca-Cola and sing songs in perfect harmony. Maybe some people can be in charge of giving everyone flowers. >>
Count me in. I hearby renounce my authoritarian-derived name. From this day forward I want to be known as....LoveChild. I will bring lilacs to this event and lead everyone in singing "We are the World".
Count me in. I hearby renounce my authoritarian-derived name. From this day forward I want to be known as....LoveChild. I will bring lilacs to this event and lead everyone in singing "We are the World".
The idea that because I make more money means I don't need as much of it, so take more away makes me physically ill. Who is to determine how much money I need? The government? My neighbors? No. I have said it before... I have no qualms helping people VOLUNTARILY, but the thought that the federal government should be allowed to excercise powers not granted to it by the authoritative body of laws (Constitution) makes me wanna go Montana-militia on their asses.
Let's assume that I risk everything I have to build a business. I build a profitable business. I do quite well and manage to pull $100,000 out of the business per year as salary/capital distributions/dividends (if a corp). Since I worked my ass off building my dream, the government says, "Sorry, jsut because you worked hard doesn't meant you should have more. We are gonna take 40% in income tax alone just because we have to justify our existence." Then they say, "You got married. We will take MORE of your money now. And finally, I die and they say, "Well, you worked hard and built a nice estate to support your family, but we are gonna take half of it because we are the government, and we can do it. We know we already taxed you on ALL of this money and property, but what the hell, we want more taxes."
Do the death tax and marraige penalty make sense to ANYONE?!? I get married, so my effective tax rate goes up? I save and build an estate for my family for when I am dead, and I get taxed on that (for a second time) too? Why would you not eliminate these fiascos?
Who here thinks that you cannot earn a respecitable living through hard work? If you had to boil down the country's problems to one thing, it is a severe lack of work ethic and simple morality. Don't tell me "but I have kids," or "I'm not educated." Both of those are personal problems caused by decisions people make on their own (for the most part, there are some, albeit few, exceptions).
I hate Dr. Laura. I think she is a spiteful vendictive bitch. However, she is right. Too many people worry about what feels good and what is easier rather than what is right.
I know the spelling is shaky... I don't want to mess with corecting just now
Let's assume that I risk everything I have to build a business. I build a profitable business. I do quite well and manage to pull $100,000 out of the business per year as salary/capital distributions/dividends (if a corp). Since I worked my ass off building my dream, the government says, "Sorry, jsut because you worked hard doesn't meant you should have more. We are gonna take 40% in income tax alone just because we have to justify our existence." Then they say, "You got married. We will take MORE of your money now. And finally, I die and they say, "Well, you worked hard and built a nice estate to support your family, but we are gonna take half of it because we are the government, and we can do it. We know we already taxed you on ALL of this money and property, but what the hell, we want more taxes."
Do the death tax and marraige penalty make sense to ANYONE?!? I get married, so my effective tax rate goes up? I save and build an estate for my family for when I am dead, and I get taxed on that (for a second time) too? Why would you not eliminate these fiascos?
Who here thinks that you cannot earn a respecitable living through hard work? If you had to boil down the country's problems to one thing, it is a severe lack of work ethic and simple morality. Don't tell me "but I have kids," or "I'm not educated." Both of those are personal problems caused by decisions people make on their own (for the most part, there are some, albeit few, exceptions).
I hate Dr. Laura. I think she is a spiteful vendictive bitch. However, she is right. Too many people worry about what feels good and what is easier rather than what is right.
I know the spelling is shaky... I don't want to mess with corecting just now
It's basically like a few have said...I also used to think that a flat tax was the way to go; seems so much simpler, right? However, you have to think of it comparatively. If there exists a 10% flat tax, and a family has an income of $30,000. Now, that $3,000 in taxes they're paying means their daughter doesn't get to have braces that year. However, consider a family that makes $500,000 a year. The $50,000 in taxes they are paying means they'll only be able to hire 1 gardener instead of 2. That's why the tax brackets exist; it makes the whole system fairer.
<< Now, that $3,000 in taxes they're paying means their daughter doesn't get to have braces that year. However, consider a family that makes $500,000 a year. The $50,000 in taxes they are paying means they'll only be able to hire 1 gardener instead of 2. That's why the tax brackets exist; it makes the whole system fairer. >>
Wow! You mean its people that have a lot of money that "hire" other people? Is that like giving them a job or something so that they can have some money and buy things too? I guess what you're saying is its better that that family that pays $50,000 has to pay a lot more so that they can't hire even one gardner. Yeah, I'll go along with that. Seems fair to me cause if I can't have a gardner then by God neither should they!
But uh, wait a minute, I just thought of something. What if the gardner that they can't afford to hire now was Sally's Dad and they have to let him go? What if now instead of just no braces, she has to do without new clothes and shoes and food and a roof over her head cause Pop's employer (that guy that has more money than he is entitled to) can't afford him any more due to having to give the money that was his salary to the government as taxes? I'm not really sure but that's starting to not sound so fair somehow. But, not to worry I suppose. I'm sure that Sally's family will be well taken care of by The Government and that most if not all of her Dad's original salary will be handed back out to him through one Federal Agency or another, minus of course the 40 to 60 percent ate up by administration costs of the program. But, I suppose if you guys say so, then I'll have to go along with ya and agree that yeah, that's fair and just. Right? That IS after all what freedom and liberty is all about ain't it? God its great to live in a land with such fairness and justice for all! God bless America.
What I do not understand here, is why we have arguments over this. IMHO, we already have tax equity in this country. If the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country have gathered NINETY FIVE PERCENT of the money (wealth, assets, whatever) in this country, they should pay 95% of the taxes!!!!!
Sounds equitable to me!!
Sounds equitable to me!!
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Format C: Way to go, interjecting a little reality will only piss off the bleeding hearts though--prepare for a flurry of insults.
AvesPKS said:
<< That's why the tax brackets exist; it makes the whole system fairer. >>
No one ever promised life was fair. If everything was "fair" than what would be your incentive to achieve excellence? The Star Trek Universe is a novel idea that is, and will only be fiction. Greed is the driving force of all industry--take away the incentive for greed and you might as well kiss away advancements in technology, medicine, and service.
I'm a greedy but unapologetic bastard. I'm greedy because I want to insure that my family will be well provided for. What do you want for your families? Will you encourage your children to only get "average" grades because good grades may qualify your children for a better education which might ultimately lead to a higher paying job for themselves? Probably not.
Maybe it was my upbringing that caused me to become such an uncompassionate citizen. My pops (also a greedy bastard) must have been a terrible person to collect so much wealth that he was able to care for his mother-in-law personally instead of shipping her off to the old folks home. It's a terrible thing for me to want to care for my parents and my wife's mom in the same way--SHAME!!!!
AvesPKS said:
<< That's why the tax brackets exist; it makes the whole system fairer. >>
No one ever promised life was fair. If everything was "fair" than what would be your incentive to achieve excellence? The Star Trek Universe is a novel idea that is, and will only be fiction. Greed is the driving force of all industry--take away the incentive for greed and you might as well kiss away advancements in technology, medicine, and service.
I'm a greedy but unapologetic bastard. I'm greedy because I want to insure that my family will be well provided for. What do you want for your families? Will you encourage your children to only get "average" grades because good grades may qualify your children for a better education which might ultimately lead to a higher paying job for themselves? Probably not.
Maybe it was my upbringing that caused me to become such an uncompassionate citizen. My pops (also a greedy bastard) must have been a terrible person to collect so much wealth that he was able to care for his mother-in-law personally instead of shipping her off to the old folks home. It's a terrible thing for me to want to care for my parents and my wife's mom in the same way--SHAME!!!!
<< If the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country have gathered NINETY FIVE PERCENT of the money (wealth, assets, whatever) in this country, they should pay 95% of the taxes!!!!! >>
You're promoting a wealth tax? Ouch. And I thought our current system was convoluted.
Even with a flat tax, the wealthy will always pay the same percentage in tax as they make in income (if the wealthy earn 50% of income, they pay 50% of tax). The way that the government has it set up now, I get taxed MORE on every additional dollar I make. So in essence the harder I work, the less cash I get to keep.
A wealth tax... way to go I'm Typing. So if someone NEVER makes another dollar of income (say they win the lottery), they would just have their savings sucked away by tax. Good, real good. Crawl back into your hole please. You know damn well that you would not be spouting this drivel if you were the one with the bucks.
If the government would not try to socialize everything, there would not be a need for high taxes. Let private sector do some of it. If the government would stop sucking money away, there would be more for corporations and wealthy individuals to donate. Ask anyone who makes that much money... they would rather donate to a charity than give it to the government. I sure as hell would.
A wealth tax... way to go I'm Typing. So if someone NEVER makes another dollar of income (say they win the lottery), they would just have their savings sucked away by tax. Good, real good. Crawl back into your hole please. You know damn well that you would not be spouting this drivel if you were the one with the bucks.
If the government would not try to socialize everything, there would not be a need for high taxes. Let private sector do some of it. If the government would stop sucking money away, there would be more for corporations and wealthy individuals to donate. Ask anyone who makes that much money... they would rather donate to a charity than give it to the government. I sure as hell would.
thebestMAX
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2000
- 7,511
- 136
- 106
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Theoretically I understand why some poeple would want a flat tax, but lets be honest. The country rides, in great part, on the backs of the obscenly rich. Yes, many rich avoid taxes in different ways, but somebody making $25k year is contributing to the gov't money to spend on programs way less than somebody making $3million a year.
If you want to flat-tax it and keep the country running with the same amount of income you will have to up the tax that the average person pays. It may be fair, but most people won't benefit from it, and since the majority decides then it will never happen.
$25k year, 20% tax (just throwing out a figure): $5k to country
$500k year, 40% tax: $200k to country
I realize that far more people make $25k than $500k people but if there was a flat tax the lower and average income people in the country would feel it BADLY.
Anyway, although taxes increase with a higher income most people will still strive to make more. Afterall $50k/year and 30% tax is still less money than $200k/year and 45% tax right? Yes it is.
How about being a bit less bitter at the rich in their nice expensive cars (some people here seem to be) and thankful that they pay more taxes in a month than the average joe does in a year.
If you want to flat-tax it and keep the country running with the same amount of income you will have to up the tax that the average person pays. It may be fair, but most people won't benefit from it, and since the majority decides then it will never happen.
$25k year, 20% tax (just throwing out a figure): $5k to country
$500k year, 40% tax: $200k to country
I realize that far more people make $25k than $500k people but if there was a flat tax the lower and average income people in the country would feel it BADLY.
Anyway, although taxes increase with a higher income most people will still strive to make more. Afterall $50k/year and 30% tax is still less money than $200k/year and 45% tax right? Yes it is.
How about being a bit less bitter at the rich in their nice expensive cars (some people here seem to be) and thankful that they pay more taxes in a month than the average joe does in a year.
Skoorb- Your figures do not take into account personal deductions in the various flat tax plans that have been floated around. If I remember correctly most involve a deduction of 6-8 thousand a year for adults, and a bit less for children.
Skoorb - You are thinking ass-backwards.
If your $25k family pays 20% ($5k), and your $500k family pays 40% ($200k). If you go to a flat tax, and you stick the rate at 20%, then the $25k family is not hurt at all.
Attitudes toward taxation in this country are based (IMHO) not on a need to support the government, but on a mentality of "If I can't have it, neither should you." I hesitate to call it jealousy... it is more of a contempt for people who have worked hard to achieve their status/wealth/call it what you will.
Red Dawn-
I never meant to insinuate that only the rich work hard. I do however think that MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, those who achieve are those with the most desire and put forth the most effort. Many times this achievement leads to wealth. And, as you demostrated above, wealth breeds wealth.
If your $25k family pays 20% ($5k), and your $500k family pays 40% ($200k). If you go to a flat tax, and you stick the rate at 20%, then the $25k family is not hurt at all.
Attitudes toward taxation in this country are based (IMHO) not on a need to support the government, but on a mentality of "If I can't have it, neither should you." I hesitate to call it jealousy... it is more of a contempt for people who have worked hard to achieve their status/wealth/call it what you will.
Red Dawn-
I never meant to insinuate that only the rich work hard. I do however think that MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, those who achieve are those with the most desire and put forth the most effort. Many times this achievement leads to wealth. And, as you demostrated above, wealth breeds wealth.
taxes in the united states aren't near what they are in other countries that offer extended welfare and social benefits. i'm not complaining. i do miss the money they take out of my check every week, but its ok. in canada there are high taxes because they offer medical benefits to people like us who might visit and then get hurt skiing or something.
Visions-
So since the Ethiopians don't have food, we shouldn't eat either? Taxes are not an issue that can be globalized. In order to compare us to other countries, we would need to have the same economies, systems of government, laws, etc., etc.
I do not meant to be condescending (sp) to anyone here. I just want others to, if not accept at least understand, that many think taxes as they are used are more of a vehicle to penalize the rich rather than support a body of public servants (which is what politicians are SUPPOSED to be). Why is there such contempt for the wealthy anyway? I can think of no other reason than envy. Please enlighten me if htere is another reason.
So since the Ethiopians don't have food, we shouldn't eat either? Taxes are not an issue that can be globalized. In order to compare us to other countries, we would need to have the same economies, systems of government, laws, etc., etc.
I do not meant to be condescending (sp) to anyone here. I just want others to, if not accept at least understand, that many think taxes as they are used are more of a vehicle to penalize the rich rather than support a body of public servants (which is what politicians are SUPPOSED to be). Why is there such contempt for the wealthy anyway? I can think of no other reason than envy. Please enlighten me if htere is another reason.
Good thread. The clarity of the fact that "progressive taxation" is at it's core unfair has kept the Envy Merchants at bay for the most part. A few blips though:
tagej: You can't be aconservative when you wheeze out faulty logic like this:
"I disagree with a flat tax though, because in a flat tax system the people at the lower end of the scale end up paying a disproportionate amount of their incomes in taxes and fees etc. Even as a conservative, I'm for a progressive tax system -- but it needs to be made more simple, with fewer loopholes"
A flat tax IS PROPORTIONATE!!! A 10% flat tax would result in a person making $25,000 paying $2,500 in tax (1/10th) and a person making $100,000 paying $10,000 (1/10th). GET IT?!?!?
A flat tax WOULD be the simplest, fairest, loophole free method because you would just hand over a percentage off the top. The reason too many can't deal with it is because they've been so used to the escalating rate, "soak the rich", tax system that they've been convinced that leaving people with more money is somehow "unfair". You can't be a conservative with that kind of faulty logic. Free your mind!
This crap about any tax code change needing to be "revenue neutral" is another crock. All that means is will the government be able to steal enough money from the worker to buy the love of the selected constituancies according to this year's promises. (Xerox Man has it absolutely right in his sig's quote.) If you had to cut a check for every program that government comes up with, as opposed to having the money withheld, you'd start to wonder, "WTF is this about and why am I paying for it?!?" That's why they steal the money up front: So you CAN'T OPPOSE THEM!
Next!
{hands spoooon and AvesPKS dunce hats}
EVRY SINGLE THING YOU GUYS SAID WAS SOME OF THE MOST RETARDED CLASS-ENVY BULLSHIZNIT I'VE EVER READ!!!!! I hope you can't vote because you're clearly too stupid/ignorant/pointless to be allowed to affect the political process! Take the rest of your moron friends with you too, mmmkay?
Listen up: SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS HAVE MORE MONEY THAN YOU!!! (Unless you're Bill Gates or Larry Ellison or the Sultan of Brunnai.) How does taking away their money help you? It doesn't! It's not like Al Gore is gonna whip a pistol out on Gates and take his money and then drop it out of Air Force One over your house.
Are you familiar with the term "bracket creep"? It's when you start making LESS net money due to taxes hitting harder due the next higher rate kicking in. Unfortunately, I can't remember where the brackets are, but for this example, let's say that there are three rates (15%, 27% & 40%) that kick in at $35,000 and $75,000 respectively. Also, these examples are overly simplistic because they don't take into account all the other taxes (state, FICA) and deductions and just focus on Federal Income Tax.
If you made $34,000 at the 15% rate, you'd pay $5,100 in tax and have have $28,900 left over. Now, say you got a 3% cost-of-living increase. You didn't get a promotion, you just had your wage adjusted to keep pace with inflation (a hidden tax BTW). That $1,020 increase would just nudge you into the next bracket (27%) which would mean you'd earn $35,020, but pay $9,455 in tax(!) and net only $25,565!!!:Q Your 3% raise would result in a net LOSS of $3,335 or a 12% reduction.:Q
Someone was saying something about progressive taxes being more fair?
Another example: A manager who makes $50,000 gets a promotion and now make $75,000, a 50% raise.
Before: $50,000 - $13,500 (27%) = $36,500
After: $75,000 - $30,000 (40%) = $45,000
A net 23% raise after taxes. That's fair?
You llamas working at Beast Buy obviously don't imagine a better life for yourselves, do you? Why else would you be spewing such nonsense about the need to punish success? Get over yourselves and stay the hell out of other people's wallets!
The comment about the gardner not getting a job was spot on. I do PC tech support. If Gates didn't create such a buggy OS, so prone to crashing, I wouldn't have a job!
(Not to mention the economic benefits of the Information Age.)
tagej: You can't be aconservative when you wheeze out faulty logic like this:
"I disagree with a flat tax though, because in a flat tax system the people at the lower end of the scale end up paying a disproportionate amount of their incomes in taxes and fees etc. Even as a conservative, I'm for a progressive tax system -- but it needs to be made more simple, with fewer loopholes"
A flat tax IS PROPORTIONATE!!! A 10% flat tax would result in a person making $25,000 paying $2,500 in tax (1/10th) and a person making $100,000 paying $10,000 (1/10th). GET IT?!?!?
A flat tax WOULD be the simplest, fairest, loophole free method because you would just hand over a percentage off the top. The reason too many can't deal with it is because they've been so used to the escalating rate, "soak the rich", tax system that they've been convinced that leaving people with more money is somehow "unfair". You can't be a conservative with that kind of faulty logic. Free your mind!
This crap about any tax code change needing to be "revenue neutral" is another crock. All that means is will the government be able to steal enough money from the worker to buy the love of the selected constituancies according to this year's promises. (Xerox Man has it absolutely right in his sig's quote.) If you had to cut a check for every program that government comes up with, as opposed to having the money withheld, you'd start to wonder, "WTF is this about and why am I paying for it?!?" That's why they steal the money up front: So you CAN'T OPPOSE THEM!
Next!
{hands spoooon and AvesPKS dunce hats}
EVRY SINGLE THING YOU GUYS SAID WAS SOME OF THE MOST RETARDED CLASS-ENVY BULLSHIZNIT I'VE EVER READ!!!!! I hope you can't vote because you're clearly too stupid/ignorant/pointless to be allowed to affect the political process! Take the rest of your moron friends with you too, mmmkay?
Listen up: SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS HAVE MORE MONEY THAN YOU!!! (Unless you're Bill Gates or Larry Ellison or the Sultan of Brunnai.) How does taking away their money help you? It doesn't! It's not like Al Gore is gonna whip a pistol out on Gates and take his money and then drop it out of Air Force One over your house.
Are you familiar with the term "bracket creep"? It's when you start making LESS net money due to taxes hitting harder due the next higher rate kicking in. Unfortunately, I can't remember where the brackets are, but for this example, let's say that there are three rates (15%, 27% & 40%) that kick in at $35,000 and $75,000 respectively. Also, these examples are overly simplistic because they don't take into account all the other taxes (state, FICA) and deductions and just focus on Federal Income Tax.
If you made $34,000 at the 15% rate, you'd pay $5,100 in tax and have have $28,900 left over. Now, say you got a 3% cost-of-living increase. You didn't get a promotion, you just had your wage adjusted to keep pace with inflation (a hidden tax BTW). That $1,020 increase would just nudge you into the next bracket (27%) which would mean you'd earn $35,020, but pay $9,455 in tax(!) and net only $25,565!!!:Q Your 3% raise would result in a net LOSS of $3,335 or a 12% reduction.:Q
Someone was saying something about progressive taxes being more fair?
Another example: A manager who makes $50,000 gets a promotion and now make $75,000, a 50% raise.
Before: $50,000 - $13,500 (27%) = $36,500
After: $75,000 - $30,000 (40%) = $45,000
A net 23% raise after taxes. That's fair?
You llamas working at Beast Buy obviously don't imagine a better life for yourselves, do you? Why else would you be spewing such nonsense about the need to punish success? Get over yourselves and stay the hell out of other people's wallets!
The comment about the gardner not getting a job was spot on. I do PC tech support. If Gates didn't create such a buggy OS, so prone to crashing, I wouldn't have a job!
(Not to mention the economic benefits of the Information Age.)Dirk - Just calling people names makes you look foolish. Why be a smug SOB? People have good reasons to disagree with your opinions. You may not like their reasons, but they have some anyway. Agree to disagree, but stooping to the level of belittling people just causes most readers to dismiss you as pompous.
Nope. This isn't a simple disagreement about whether chocolate ice cream is "better" than vanilla. It wouldn't suffice to merely say, "Spoooon, dear chap, I must beg to disagree with your opinion as to the fairness of progressive taxation.", because it is obvious to anyone with a firing neuron that they are speaking out of their rectal orafices. Hell, even Red Dawn was temperate in his comments.
Everyone who receives a DIRK? Smackdown® has it coming.
Go play with your dolls...the menfolk are talking here.
Everyone who receives a DIRK? Smackdown® has it coming.
Go play with your dolls...the menfolk are talking here.
Where in hell did I say I wanted a tax on assets????
I am saying that the people who have "all" the money in this country should be paying "all" the taxes.
The reason why a flat tax will never get passed is the same reason why businessmen become millionaires in the first place: GREED. There is no way in hell that a flat tax will be passed as long as the wealthiest among us would have to pay more than they pay now. I can see congress trying to achieve a flat tax with "exceptions" i.e.; if you are rich, there will be ways to avoid the flat tax.
Another thought: How much money is enough? Is there any real difference in your life if you are worth 100 million dollars vs being worth 500 million????? If you make 10 million a year and pay 3.4 million a year in taxes, what does that do to your daily life??? What, you buy one less yacht? So if bushlite gets his way, you make 10 mil and pay only 2.7 mil in taxes...WHAT THE FSCK IS THE DIFFERENCE!!!!????
700k may seem like a lot to some of us, but what affect does it have, really, on the super-rich?
I am saying that the people who have "all" the money in this country should be paying "all" the taxes.
The reason why a flat tax will never get passed is the same reason why businessmen become millionaires in the first place: GREED. There is no way in hell that a flat tax will be passed as long as the wealthiest among us would have to pay more than they pay now. I can see congress trying to achieve a flat tax with "exceptions" i.e.; if you are rich, there will be ways to avoid the flat tax.
Another thought: How much money is enough? Is there any real difference in your life if you are worth 100 million dollars vs being worth 500 million????? If you make 10 million a year and pay 3.4 million a year in taxes, what does that do to your daily life??? What, you buy one less yacht? So if bushlite gets his way, you make 10 mil and pay only 2.7 mil in taxes...WHAT THE FSCK IS THE DIFFERENCE!!!!????
700k may seem like a lot to some of us, but what affect does it have, really, on the super-rich?
You said it right in your post above:
<< If the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country have gathered NINETY FIVE PERCENT of the money (wealth, assets, whatever) in this country, they should pay 95% of the taxes!!!!! >>
If that was not what you meant, choose your words more carefully next time. If you mean tax on income, say so. As I'm sure you are aware, income and wealth are NOT the same.
<< Another thought: How much money is enough? Is there any real difference in your life if you are worth 100 million dollars vs being worth 500 million????? If you make 10 million a year and pay 3.4 million a year in taxes, what does that do to your daily life??? What, you buy one less yacht? So if bushlite gets his way, you make 10 mil and pay only 2.7 mil in taxes...WHAT THE FSCK IS THE DIFFERENCE!!!!???? >>
No, it doesn't make a big difference in their daily life, I won't argue that. But where do you draw the line? What marginal tax rate is fairest? 40 percent? 50 percent? Higher? If nobody NEEDS that much money, then why not just have a 100 percent marginal tax rate on income above a certain amount? Because it reduces the incentive to make that much money. If you know the government is going to take away a significant proportion of your income, why bother to work hard enough to get that much? Having a very high marginal tax rate would probably have a NEGATIVE impact on tax revenue. If you think people try to evade income taxes now, imagine what it would be like at a higher tax rate.
<< If the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country have gathered NINETY FIVE PERCENT of the money (wealth, assets, whatever) in this country, they should pay 95% of the taxes!!!!! >>
If that was not what you meant, choose your words more carefully next time. If you mean tax on income, say so. As I'm sure you are aware, income and wealth are NOT the same.
<< Another thought: How much money is enough? Is there any real difference in your life if you are worth 100 million dollars vs being worth 500 million????? If you make 10 million a year and pay 3.4 million a year in taxes, what does that do to your daily life??? What, you buy one less yacht? So if bushlite gets his way, you make 10 mil and pay only 2.7 mil in taxes...WHAT THE FSCK IS THE DIFFERENCE!!!!???? >>
No, it doesn't make a big difference in their daily life, I won't argue that. But where do you draw the line? What marginal tax rate is fairest? 40 percent? 50 percent? Higher? If nobody NEEDS that much money, then why not just have a 100 percent marginal tax rate on income above a certain amount? Because it reduces the incentive to make that much money. If you know the government is going to take away a significant proportion of your income, why bother to work hard enough to get that much? Having a very high marginal tax rate would probably have a NEGATIVE impact on tax revenue. If you think people try to evade income taxes now, imagine what it would be like at a higher tax rate.
From Harry
>>>Bush's Tax Cut - No Big Deal.
George Bush protests too much when he complains that Al Gore uses 'fuzzy math' or 'invented the calculator'.
For Bush to pretend that his proposal provides real tax relief to millions of Americans is like pretending Republicans will actually reduce the size of government. Alas, they are pretending that they will provide smaller government.
But the facts speak for themselves. The Bush budget increases federal government spending, just like he did in Texas. It's all part of a GOP pattern. The Republican Congress increased spending for the past five years. So too did George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan before that.
Ask yourself some serious questions. Who is going to pay for the increased Republican spending? Will it be the Russians - the Martians perhaps? If there is no reduction in government spending, then where pray-tell will George Bush and the Republicans get the money to fund their do-nothing tax cut?
I am the only candidate in this race proposing a dramatic reduction in government spending. I'm the only candidate with a long list of unconstitutional agencies and programs that I will cut.
And I will do so to provide you with the most significant tax cut ever. I will end the Income Tax completely, and replace it with nothing. That's $1 trillion dollars that the federal government won't be stealing from the economy any longer - enough to create a job for everyone who can work and charity for those who can't.
So throw away the Bush calculator! With my plan the formula is simple {your income} X 0% = NO MORE INCOME TAX.
Do you want smaller government? When do you want it? You can't get it voting for a candidate who's not even proposing it. You won't get it by voting Republican. You must vote Libertarian. <<<
If Harry was electable,I would vote for him on this and many other issues. But,since he is not,I will take his advice and not vote for Bush.
Al Gore for 4 more!!!
>>>Bush's Tax Cut - No Big Deal.
George Bush protests too much when he complains that Al Gore uses 'fuzzy math' or 'invented the calculator'.
For Bush to pretend that his proposal provides real tax relief to millions of Americans is like pretending Republicans will actually reduce the size of government. Alas, they are pretending that they will provide smaller government.
But the facts speak for themselves. The Bush budget increases federal government spending, just like he did in Texas. It's all part of a GOP pattern. The Republican Congress increased spending for the past five years. So too did George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan before that.
Ask yourself some serious questions. Who is going to pay for the increased Republican spending? Will it be the Russians - the Martians perhaps? If there is no reduction in government spending, then where pray-tell will George Bush and the Republicans get the money to fund their do-nothing tax cut?
I am the only candidate in this race proposing a dramatic reduction in government spending. I'm the only candidate with a long list of unconstitutional agencies and programs that I will cut.
And I will do so to provide you with the most significant tax cut ever. I will end the Income Tax completely, and replace it with nothing. That's $1 trillion dollars that the federal government won't be stealing from the economy any longer - enough to create a job for everyone who can work and charity for those who can't.
So throw away the Bush calculator! With my plan the formula is simple {your income} X 0% = NO MORE INCOME TAX.
Do you want smaller government? When do you want it? You can't get it voting for a candidate who's not even proposing it. You won't get it by voting Republican. You must vote Libertarian. <<<
If Harry was electable,I would vote for him on this and many other issues. But,since he is not,I will take his advice and not vote for Bush.
Al Gore for 4 more!!!
The purest form of flat tax is a single rate with NO DEDUCTIONS FOR ANYTHING. That means mortgage interest and charitable giving, too.
Most flat tax plans keep those two deductions, though the mortgage one allows Bill Gates to deduct the mortage on his $100 million dollar house!
Is anyone gonna answer my question?
How is taking money from the "rich" going to help you? How will YOU benefit from the punishment of success?
Most flat tax plans keep those two deductions, though the mortgage one allows Bill Gates to deduct the mortage on his $100 million dollar house!
Is anyone gonna answer my question?
How is taking money from the "rich" going to help you? How will YOU benefit from the punishment of success?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter