Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In other words, you got nothing. Just like the others that I posed this question to.
I'll let you do your own reading:
how the wealthy avoid taxes - Google Search
So simplify the system.. shrink that agency.. spend less on that agency... ensure everyone is at the same rate on every dollar earned.. eliminate loopholes and keep it simple.... problem solved
You cheat those 'evaders' out of equality in a complex system, and they will certainly take advantage of every loophole that is legal....
But since the vast majority on the far left really have no want for equality (only selective equality)... I don't really expect you to support such a thing
Under a Flat Tax, everyone's income is taxed at the same rate. (Forbes says 17 percent; Hall and Rabushka say 19 percent). And not only are there no tax brackets, there are generally no tax deductions other than personal and dependent allowances. Social Security and Medicare taxes would remain as they are now. The appeal of the Flat Tax is simplicity. You can do your taxes on a postcard-sized form says Forbes. Goodbye compliance costs.
The problem with the Flat Tax is a simple one: the Flat Tax is not flat. And furthermore, no one actually pays 17 or 19 percent. In fact, taxpayers don't even pay the same percentage. The Flat Tax is actually a highly progressive tax. It is more progressive than our current system, and effectively has more tax brackets. Who said progressivity requires graduated tax rates? Under the Forbes plan, a family of four would pay no federal income tax on its first $46,165 of income; a family of six would owe nothing until its income exceeded $65,930. And those figures are sure to have increased since they were first proposed back in 2005. But not only would many families pay no income tax, they still might get a refund anyway because the Forbes plan includes a refundable child credit and earned-income credit.
If you want an example of a real flat tax, look no further than the 2.9 percent Medicare tax. Everyone pays 2.9 percent (split between employer and employee), on every dollar earned, no matter one's marital status, number of dependents, or income level. I am in favor of neither the tax nor Medicare, but if you are looking for a genuine flat tax, then the Medicare tax is your tax.
The FairTax is a consumption tax. It is the most radical tax reform plan, bar none. It also has the most vocal and intolerant proponents. The FairTax is the brainchild of three businessmen concerned about the crippling effects on the economy of the current federal tax code... [Representative John] Linder (R-GA) first sponsored the "Fair Tax Act" in the House in July of 1999, and has reintroduced a FairTax bill at the beginning of every term of Congress since then, including the current one.
...
The FairTax is a national retail sales tax of 30 percent on the final sale of all new goods and services. All new goods from cars and houses to prescription drugs and food; and all services from operations and funerals to rent and haircuts. Because it would replace the personal income tax, there would also no longer be withholding tax, capital-gains tax, the alternative-minimum tax, or taxes on interest and dividends. Even your gambling winnings would no longer be taxed. Of course, there would be no tax deductions either. The FairTax would likewise eliminate corporate income tax, estate tax, gift tax, unemployment tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax. The appeal is obvious: no more complex tax code, no more taxes withheld from paychecks, no more 1040 forms, no more record keeping, no more compliance costs, no more IRS audits. And if that weren't enough, the FairTax also includes a monthly rebate to offset the taxes paid on basic necessities.
But for a plan that promises such a utopia, the problems with the FairTax are legion. The stated rate of the FairTax is too low to achieve the promised revenue neutrality. The amount by which it is claimed that prices would fall under a FairTax system has been grossly exaggerated. There is nothing to prevent an income tax from being reinstituted, giving us a two-headed hydra of an income tax and a consumption tax. And not only would state and local governments have to pay a national sales tax to the federal government, the federal government would have to pay sales taxes to itself on all its new purchases. Since I have already written extensively about the problems with the FairTax, I will stop with its problems here and focus on why the FairTax, like the Flat Tax, is not true to its name.
I didn't say require, I said taken into consideration.
And, something like that would be taken into consideration and could be very valuable if you were evenly matched but your opponent didn't have any military service.
Nobody on welfare should be allowed to vote
So you don't think the employees of the TARP recipients should be allowed to vote?.. mmmmm??? Interesting.... Walmart employees get as much welfare from every community they leach off of ....I see your point!
Can't speak for the Dude...
But I wil tell you, that TARP was UNCONSTITUTIONAL! There should be NO TARP or any POTENTIAL FOR TARP.
But where one fails to bear their responsibility as a Citizen and needs as a result of their failure to turn to the government for their survival... then they have in fact forfeited the rights which are sustained by those responsibilities... and the right to have a say in who represents their interests in government is not the least of those rights which one forfeits through such a failure.
Not to mention the oil corps ...they take a huge welfare check ...hundreds of billions a year.
Or is it really just the extremely poor with no one to turn to that you begrudge a stipend?
I suspect it isn't handouts that bother you..it is the opportunity to step on rather than give assistance to someone that is at an extreme disadvantage. No doubt there is a racist component to your motivation. Yup! You are clearly a fine american.
And thanks for playing "What was it that it says on the Statue of Liberty anyway"?
Name those "rich" people whose money is tax exempt.
You want "names"?? How about just accepting the fact that they find the loopholes, which isn't rocket science.
Loopholes?
What in the hell is a "LOOPHOLE"?
Sounds like you're trying to assign a nefarious intent, on people who do not pay taxes for which they are not obligated to pay.
What right do you have to demand that someone else pay taxes which you're not required to pay?
BE SPECIFIC!
If the country were being run the way it is supposed to be under the Constitution, we wouldn't have these issues to worry about to begin with, there would be no 'corporate welfare' or any other kind of welfare.
And you'd still be driving a horse and buggy on dirt roads, asking around town which poor house you can stick gramma and grampa in cuz they're too sick to contribute to your household by working in the fields.
So, let me get this straight, you think providing welfare caused this country to excel?
And you'd still be driving a horse and buggy on dirt roads, asking around town which poor house you can stick gramma and grampa in cuz they're too sick to contribute to your household by working in the fields.
So, let me get this straight, you think providing welfare caused this country to excel?
LOL... That imbecile, Maggie Mae, has absolutely no idea what America is, what she is founded upon, or the immutable principles which establish American exceptionalism.
She is absolutely CLUELESS! And as a result she has no business being found within 10 miles of a voting booth.
Point out what I said that was wrong. Congress did approve the funding for SDI and at that time the Democrats controlled the House. Before you try and correct me, be certain that I am wrong.
Without fact-checking your assertion that the Republicans controlled the Senate at the time, then I must assume the Republicans had the votes to get it passed. That's all.
Why then would you even make a comment not knowing whether I am wrong or right?
Typical lefty, spouting off shit that they know nothing about!
But it's not hard to fact check the year was 1983. Republicans controlled the Senate, Democrats controlled the House and as you pointed out it's the House that pays the bills. Therefore the Democrats approved funding for SDI.
In other words, you got nothing. Just like the others that I posed this question to.
I'll let you do your own reading:
how the wealthy avoid taxes - Google Search
The claim that was made was that the rich were "exempt" from paying taxes, finding loopholes in the tax code isnt the same. But thanks for playing!
I didn't say require, I said taken into consideration.
And, something like that would be taken into consideration and could be very valuable if you were evenly matched but your opponent didn't have any military service.
I don't know that I understand you.
Taken into consideration how?
The right to vote is a yes or no thing, there's no shades of gray here.
My father left my mother while my brother and I were both small children.
My mother was forced to go on welfare and food stamps in order to take care of us properly.
When my brother and I were old enough to take care of ourselves when she wasn't home, she went back to work.
Since that time, she has paid back to the system many times what she received. She, my brother and I have been faithful taxpayers for decades.
The problem with the right-wing philosophy of never wanting to help anyone through difficult situations is that sometimes people need a hand up to be able to succeed, and sometimes that involves welfare.
Of course, radical right-wingers really don't want to hear that, extremists of all shades just want the world to exist in black and white terms, rather than shades of gray.
I have always believed that Conservatives are eager to erode civil liberties and personal rights. This thread re-enforces that notion. Dis-enfranchise the poor! Capital idea!
Conservatives further would love it if the police did not have to follow so many damn rules! Crack some heads (or shoot some students) and the world will rest comfortably on its axis.
Conservatives think that giving tax breaks to the richest among us is fair. Tax breaks in the form of mortgage deductions, credits for dependant children, home improvements, tuition and the like are enjoyed by the middle class. But the Conservatives say that's not right. Everyone should pay taxes.
Conservatives rail against regulations which protect the environment. Too much government interfering in commerce. They rail against regulations protecting workers in the work place. Again, intrusive government making it impossible to profit.
And here they are wanting to take more rights away from American citizens.
And they call themselves "Patriots"
Why?
They clearly hate Americans.
I'm all for civil liberties, (the right of people to be free to say or do what they want while respecting others and staying within the law ). I'm also for making your own way in the world and not relying on cradle to grave entitlements.
Show me how civil liberties or personal freedoms (which is basically the same damn thing as civil liberty) are violated when entitlements are taken away?
The Constitution does not mention entitlements one time and Congress does not have the right to over ride the Constitution.
Of course the Radical leftwing philospophy is that no one ever got help with kids before the Left made it an entitlement.
Sadly, for those with such foolish notions, Dads left Moms with house fulls of kids since LONG before that and the kids and Mom's survived.
Of course, the fact is that Entitlements actually make it easier for Dads to leave Moms... because they know that the old lady is entitled to state assistance. I can't TELL you how many of you people I've debated who set Social Entitlements as a life saving instrument that freed woman from 'having to stay in bad marriages.'
So enough with how the entitlements saved your family... the odds are they provided the means to rationalize it's breakup.
My father left my mother while my brother and I were both small children.
My mother was forced to go on welfare and food stamps in order to take care of us properly.
When my brother and I were old enough to take care of ourselves when she wasn't home, she went back to work.
Since that time, she has paid back to the system many times what she received. She, my brother and I have been faithful taxpayers for decades.
The problem with the right-wing philosophy of never wanting to help anyone through difficult situations is that sometimes people need a hand up to be able to succeed, and sometimes that involves welfare.
Of course, radical right-wingers really don't want to hear that, extremists of all shades just want the world to exist in black and white terms, rather than shades of gray.
Of course the Radical leftwing philospophy is that no one ever got help with kids before the Left made it an entitlement.
Sadly, for those with such foolish notions, Dads left Moms with house fulls of kids since LONG before that and the kids and Mom's survived.
Of course, the fact is that Entitlements actually make it easier for Dads to leave Moms... because they know that the old lady is entitled to state assistance. I can't TELL you how many of you people I've debated who set Social Entitlements as a life saving instrument that freed woman from 'having to stay in bad marriages.'
So enough with how the entitlements saved your family... the odds are they provided the means to rationalize it's breakup.
I have always believed that Conservatives are eager to erode civil liberties and personal rights. This thread re-enforces that notion. Dis-enfranchise the poor! Capital idea!
Conservatives further would love it if the police did not have to follow so many damn rules! Crack some heads (or shoot some students) and the world will rest comfortably on its axis.
Conservatives think that giving tax breaks to the richest among us is fair. Tax breaks in the form of mortgage deductions, credits for dependant children, home improvements, tuition and the like are enjoyed by the middle class. But the Conservatives say that's not right. Everyone should pay taxes.
Conservatives rail against regulations which protect the environment. Too much government interfering in commerce. They rail against regulations protecting workers in the work place. Again, intrusive government making it impossible to profit.
And here they are wanting to take more rights away from American citizens.
And they call themselves "Patriots"
Why?
They clearly hate Americans.
I'm all for civil liberties, (the right of people to be free to say or do what they want while respecting others and staying within the law ). I'm also for making your own way in the world and not relying on cradle to grave entitlements.
Show me how civil liberties or personal freedoms (which is basically the same damn thing as civil liberty) are violated when entitlements are taken away?
The Constitution does not mention entitlements one time and Congress does not have the right to over ride the Constitution.
The United States Supreme Court rules and its decisions may trump anything written in the Constitution.
Can't speak for the Dude...
But I wil tell you, that TARP was UNCONSTITUTIONAL! There should be NO TARP or any POTENTIAL FOR TARP.
But where one fails to bear their responsibility as a Citizen and needs as a result of their failure to turn to the government for their survival... then they have in fact forfeited the rights which are sustained by those responsibilities... and the right to have a say in who represents their interests in government is not the least of those rights which one forfeits through such a failure.
OK..I'll try to walk you through some of this nicely but the desire to just call you a batshit crazy asshole is overwelming...I'll do the best I can.
You seem hung up on constitutionality. Bush's Supreme court decision to interfere in the Florida count was clearly unconstitutional ....
I'm all for civil liberties, (the right of people to be free to say or do what they want while respecting others and staying within the law ). I'm also for making your own way in the world and not relying on cradle to grave entitlements.
Show me how civil liberties or personal freedoms (which is basically the same damn thing as civil liberty) are violated when entitlements are taken away?
The Constitution does not mention entitlements one time and Congress does not have the right to over ride the Constitution.
The United States Supreme Court rules and its decisions may trump anything written in the Constitution.
ROFLMNAO...
Now the HILARITY is that she actually BELIEVES THAT...
Like I said; this idiot (Maggie Mae) has absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING of what America is, or the principles on which she rests.
And as such, she has NO BUSINESS being found within 10 miles of a voting booth.
We are NOT citizens because we pay taxes...sheesh, how silly is that notion....and as citizens we deserve representation, even if on welfare.....and i also believe, even when released from prison after serving your time....
I think YOU ALL have it wayyyyyyyy wrong....
It is suppose to be:
NO TAXATION, WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
instead you all are so back asswards and are trying to say:
NO REPRESENTATION, WITHOUT TAXATION....
that's JUST PLAIN LOONY in my book!!!!!
If you're not taxed, then why do you need represented?
