$100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

[DiamondDave]

And funny how that happens even with a flat tax....

Nobody is saying that if you earn more, your total tax bill should be less.. but the RATE should be identical to everyone else's on each and every dollar...

Funny how people don't care how government spends, hands shit out, or anything else, when they do not have a stake in the game

There is no way that a flat tax does not cut taxes on the wealthy and increase taxes on the poor

That is what you call "Fair"

I don't favor a flat tax for that very reason. I believe everyone - and I mean everyone - should pay something. But taking 10% from a single parent who makes $31,000 a year cuts way deeper than taking 20% from someone who makes $400,000 a year.

It just makes no sense to take 10% from EVERYONE.

It makes perfect sense.. when you believe in blind taxation and equality in treatment by government under law...

The minute you get this subjective bullshit 'fairness' put into it, you have the pandering we see that is running rampant... there is always someone that wants an advantage, an exception, or a favor.. brought forth by government... and that leads us to the abuse of power.. when the premium is the same in burden, on every dollar, for every citizen, without exception.. you do not play favorites... you also have everyone with a stake in the game, putting more scrutiny on our government which basically has no current scrutiny focused upon it

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Conservative view of "Equality"

How about the short little fuck go find another box on his own?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yup. Taxes should be the same for everyone, no deductions.

I agree with the elimination or drastic reduction of deductions. But to say all tax rates should be the same doesn't make any sense.
That's like - when your cutting a birthday cake - saying a three year old girl should get the same size piece as an NFL offensive lineman .....

 

[DiamondDave]

There is no way that a flat tax does not cut taxes on the wealthy and increase taxes on the poor

That is what you call "Fair"

Funny how you were not worried about 'FAIR' when a growing number were excluded from income taxes to begin with

The example shown every time, for the likes of you.. is at the grocery store, you have no charge for your milk while the guy behind you gets charged for both you and him... and when the CORRECTION is finally made, you complain about it being unfair that you get a raise in price for the good, and that the other guy is getting a cut

When have you ever paid for someone elses milk at the grocery store?

When have i paid for groceries for another?? Many times... I have had freinds and family in trouble... and have given of myself

But that is of no consequence,, as the example shows the CORRECTION needed in our tax system.. and the ludicrous whining of ones like you who consider themselves being punished by equality in treatment...

Problem is, the system of unequal treatment in taxation should have never started to begin with....

Yet you will scream til you are blue in the face, when you FEEL you are being treated unequally, when that equality in treatment gives you an advantage or a benefit.... and ONLY when it gives you or your cause a benefit.... you fully believe in unequal treatment of others when THAT gives you and your cause a benefit

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

There is no way that a flat tax does not cut taxes on the wealthy and increase taxes on the poor

That is what you call "Fair"

Funny how you were not worried about 'FAIR' when a growing number were excluded from income taxes to begin with

The example shown every time, for the likes of you.. is at the grocery store, you have no charge for your milk while the guy behind you gets charged for both you and him... and when the CORRECTION is finally made, you complain about it being unfair that you get a raise in price for the good, and that the other guy is getting a cut

When have you ever paid for someone elses milk at the grocery store?

Every time an EBT card gets used. Why so dimwitted?

 

[Avorysuds]

There is no way that a flat tax does not cut taxes on the wealthy and increase taxes on the poor

That is what you call "Fair"

Funny how you were not worried about 'FAIR' when a growing number were excluded from income taxes to begin with

The example shown every time, for the likes of you.. is at the grocery store, you have no charge for your milk while the guy behind you gets charged for both you and him... and when the CORRECTION is finally made, you complain about it being unfair that you get a raise in price for the good, and that the other guy is getting a cut

When have you ever paid for someone elses milk at the grocery store?

You can't be this stupid... Oh wait, I'm quoting RW, yes he can be this stupid.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yup. Taxes should be the same for everyone, no deductions.

I agree with the elimination or drastic reduction of deductions. But to say all tax rates should be the same doesn't make any sense.
That's like - when your cutting a birthday cake - saying a three year old girl should get the same size piece as an NFL offensive lineman .....

Or when you pay $5 for a gallon of milk that someone else is paying $0.50 for??

You see... you can voluntarily give of yourself... and that is honorable.. forcing the burden upon someone else for your benefit is not honorable...

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yup. Taxes should be the same for everyone, no deductions.

I agree with the elimination or drastic reduction of deductions. But to say all tax rates should be the same doesn't make any sense.
That's like - when your cutting a birthday cake - saying a three year old girl should get the same size piece as an NFL offensive lineman .....

Or when you pay $5 for a gallon of milk that someone else is paying $0.50 for??

You see... you can voluntarily give of yourself... and that is honorable.. forcing the burden upon someone else for your benefit is not honorable...

I have no problem helping someone who is in need. And I have no problem with that being the policy of our nation.

What I object to is showering down money with the hopes that enough of it will eventually reach the hands of those who truly need it. My personal opinion is that aid is fine - but it should be targeted a heck of a lot better and it should be administered in a way that encourages and helps the able-bodied and able-minded become self sufficient.

 

[DiamondDave]

I agree with the elimination or drastic reduction of deductions. But to say all tax rates should be the same doesn't make any sense.
That's like - when your cutting a birthday cake - saying a three year old girl should get the same size piece as an NFL offensive lineman .....

Or when you pay $5 for a gallon of milk that someone else is paying $0.50 for??

You see... you can voluntarily give of yourself... and that is honorable.. forcing the burden upon someone else for your benefit is not honorable...

I have no problem helping someone who is in need. And I have no problem with that being the policy of our nation.

What I object to is showering down money with the hopes that enough of it will eventually reach the hands of those who truly need it. My personal opinion is that aid is fine - but it should be targeted a heck of a lot better and it should be administered in a way that encourages and helps the able-bodied and able-minded become self sufficient.

I have a HUGE problem with it being the forced policy of a nation with threats of prosecution if you do not give to meet the responsibilities of others...

While I may believe in personal charity and giving.. I do not force that upon others with the threat of prosecution...

Charity is of the self... and government treatment of EVERYTHING should be the same across the board.. blind to situation, affiliation, or anything else... and keeping subjectivity out of it

 

[nodoginnafight]

Or when you pay $5 for a gallon of milk that someone else is paying $0.50 for??

You see... you can voluntarily give of yourself... and that is honorable.. forcing the burden upon someone else for your benefit is not honorable...

I have no problem helping someone who is in need. And I have no problem with that being the policy of our nation.

What I object to is showering down money with the hopes that enough of it will eventually reach the hands of those who truly need it. My personal opinion is that aid is fine - but it should be targeted a heck of a lot better and it should be administered in a way that encourages and helps the able-bodied and able-minded become self sufficient.

I have a HUGE problem with it being the forced policy of a nation with threats of prosecution if you do not give to meet the responsibilities of others...

While I may believe in personal charity and giving.. I do not force that upon others with the threat of prosecution...

Charity is of the self... and government treatment of EVERYTHING should be the same across the board.. blind to situation, affiliation, or anything else... and keeping subjectivity out of it

Well, I disagree. "Let them eat cake" has never been a very effective public policy.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But if you were ever to convince enough people that it is the correct way to conduct policy, then I think the United States of American would fall.

 

[martybegan]

I agree with the elimination or drastic reduction of deductions. But to say all tax rates should be the same doesn't make any sense.
That's like - when your cutting a birthday cake - saying a three year old girl should get the same size piece as an NFL offensive lineman .....

Or when you pay $5 for a gallon of milk that someone else is paying $0.50 for??

You see... you can voluntarily give of yourself... and that is honorable.. forcing the burden upon someone else for your benefit is not honorable...

I have no problem helping someone who is in need. And I have no problem with that being the policy of our nation.

What I object to is showering down money with the hopes that enough of it will eventually reach the hands of those who truly need it. My personal opinion is that aid is fine - but it should be targeted a heck of a lot better and it should be administered in a way that encourages and helps the able-bodied and able-minded become self sufficient.

But that would put all the people administering said programs out of their cushy public service jobs from the fed down to the state/local level.

It is not the role of federal government to run charity. States can do it all they want within the bounds of their constitutions, and localities can do it within the chartered powers devolved to them by the states, but the federal government was never designed to be this gigantic and powerful.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

The one percent needs to pay more, progressive dependents have wants ...

 

[DiamondDave]

I have no problem helping someone who is in need. And I have no problem with that being the policy of our nation.

What I object to is showering down money with the hopes that enough of it will eventually reach the hands of those who truly need it. My personal opinion is that aid is fine - but it should be targeted a heck of a lot better and it should be administered in a way that encourages and helps the able-bodied and able-minded become self sufficient.

I have a HUGE problem with it being the forced policy of a nation with threats of prosecution if you do not give to meet the responsibilities of others...

While I may believe in personal charity and giving.. I do not force that upon others with the threat of prosecution...

Charity is of the self... and government treatment of EVERYTHING should be the same across the board.. blind to situation, affiliation, or anything else... and keeping subjectivity out of it

Well, I disagree. "Let them eat cake" has never been a very effective public policy.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But if you were ever to convince enough people that it is the correct way to conduct policy, then I think the United States of American would fall.

Yeah.. that evil true equality

 

[rightwinger]

Yup. Taxes should be the same for everyone, no deductions.

I agree with the elimination or drastic reduction of deductions. But to say all tax rates should be the same doesn't make any sense.
That's like - when your cutting a birthday cake - saying a three year old girl should get the same size piece as an NFL offensive lineman .....

Or when you pay $5 for a gallon of milk that someone else is paying $0.50 for??

You see... you can voluntarily give of yourself... and that is honorable.. forcing the burden upon someone else for your benefit is not honorable...

You are paying $5 a gallon for milk because without government subsidies, you would be paying $7 a gallon

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...rm-bill-impasse-could-send-US-off-dairy-cliff.

 

[martybegan]

I agree with the elimination or drastic reduction of deductions. But to say all tax rates should be the same doesn't make any sense.
That's like - when your cutting a birthday cake - saying a three year old girl should get the same size piece as an NFL offensive lineman .....

Or when you pay $5 for a gallon of milk that someone else is paying $0.50 for??

You see... you can voluntarily give of yourself... and that is honorable.. forcing the burden upon someone else for your benefit is not honorable...

You are paying $5 a gallon for milk because without government subsidies, you would be paying $7 a gallon

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...rm-bill-impasse-could-send-US-off-dairy-cliff.

Actually without governmental manipulation of the market we would be paying far less. Prices are propped up to make sure farmers do not go out of business. If you read the article $7 a gallon milk is a POSSIBLE outcome of this. The other is more farmers actually farm again, leading to a glut on the market and price coming DOWN.

 

[DiamondDave]

I agree with the elimination or drastic reduction of deductions. But to say all tax rates should be the same doesn't make any sense.
That's like - when your cutting a birthday cake - saying a three year old girl should get the same size piece as an NFL offensive lineman .....

Or when you pay $5 for a gallon of milk that someone else is paying $0.50 for??

You see... you can voluntarily give of yourself... and that is honorable.. forcing the burden upon someone else for your benefit is not honorable...

You are paying $5 a gallon for milk because without government subsidies, you would be paying $7 a gallon

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...rm-bill-impasse-could-send-US-off-dairy-cliff.

You think I agree with the subsidies??

Nice try to deflect though...

Maybe no need for subsidies if the government also gives out free gallons of milk in a pandering attempt

 

[Jarhead]

Damn RW why did you have to kill his thread in the first post? Why are you so mean?

Wow...so you DO have a reading comprehension issue.

Now I get it.

Not at all I comprehend that RW shoved a foot in the OP's ass. I comprehend you have nothing but "comprehension" complaints. I also comprehend that when someone goes for the "comprehension dodge" without elaborating its because they cannot elaborate and have nothing

I elaborated in the post right after RW's silly deflecting asinine post....and 2 before your post.

You are becoming more and more childish with every post you write.
Shoo child.

 

[Jarhead]

Or when you pay $5 for a gallon of milk that someone else is paying $0.50 for??

You see... you can voluntarily give of yourself... and that is honorable.. forcing the burden upon someone else for your benefit is not honorable...

You are paying $5 a gallon for milk because without government subsidies, you would be paying $7 a gallon

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...rm-bill-impasse-could-send-US-off-dairy-cliff.

Actually without governmental manipulation of the market we would be paying far less. Prices are propped up to make sure farmers do not go out of business. If you read the article $7 a gallon milk is a POSSIBLE outcome of this. The other is more farmers actually farm again, leading to a glut on the market and price coming DOWN.

now you lost him. The whole supply demand thing doesn't make sense to him.

It is all about the 1%ers, the evil greedy business owners and the fact that the GOP hate poor people babies and women.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Or when you pay $5 for a gallon of milk that someone else is paying $0.50 for??

You see... you can voluntarily give of yourself... and that is honorable.. forcing the burden upon someone else for your benefit is not honorable...

You are paying $5 a gallon for milk because without government subsidies, you would be paying $7 a gallon

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...rm-bill-impasse-could-send-US-off-dairy-cliff.

Actually without governmental manipulation of the market we would be paying far less. Prices are propped up to make sure farmers do not go out of business. If you read the article $7 a gallon milk is a POSSIBLE outcome of this. The other is more farmers actually farm again, leading to a glut on the market and price coming DOWN.

Ok, so let's say the prices are not propped up and 75% of dairy farmers go out of business. NOW milk is $14 a gallon.

 

[DiamondDave]

You are paying $5 a gallon for milk because without government subsidies, you would be paying $7 a gallon

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...rm-bill-impasse-could-send-US-off-dairy-cliff.

Actually without governmental manipulation of the market we would be paying far less. Prices are propped up to make sure farmers do not go out of business. If you read the article $7 a gallon milk is a POSSIBLE outcome of this. The other is more farmers actually farm again, leading to a glut on the market and price coming DOWN.

Ok, so let's say the prices are not propped up and 75% of dairy farmers go out of business. NOW milk is $14 a gallon.

Is there a need to prop up because of the handouts?? A self created dilemma thanks to government