Raise Retirement age and cut benefits or not?

[Davros]

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

I'm not following your calculations. Everybody pays the same percentage of income tax means everybody pays the same percentage. Payroll deduction is not income tax. Income tax is income tax which nearly half of the people in this country don't pay.

Now you're playing games. The pay roll deduction is a tax. A tax I know I'll never get back, as do you with your smug "sucks to be you" response earlier.

So if there is a 15% flat tax on everybody like you guys want and a 20% payroll deduction on the first 100,000, I pay a total of 35%.

Under the same system, the millionaire pays 35% on the first 100,000 and 15% on the rest. So that would mean if he makes 2,000,000 he'd pay about 16 or 17%.

Yes or no ... do you think that's fair?

I say that you and the millionaire both pay 15% income tax. Your payroll tax is another issue. This is not to mention that SS comes out of payroll taxes because most people that do work (not invest) are going to collect that SS money. I'm sure there are not many millionaires that file for SS once they get past the age of 65. It's simply not worth their time.

You can't play this kind of game and look credible to anybody but right wing dupes.

A payroll deduction is money out of my pocket. It has the same effect as a tax. I may never see a penny of it. It is there to give you your social security benefits. A Ponzi scheme.

If I only see 69% of what I make, that hurts me a lot more than a millionaire seeing only 69% of what he makes (and under your system he sees 84%). He's still richer than 99% of Americans. Poor guy I feel so sorry for him and I'm so glad you dumbasses have his back. The question is why are you so worried about him and then you don't give a damn about anybody else.

 

[Davros]

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

I'm not following your calculations. Everybody pays the same percentage of income tax means everybody pays the same percentage. Payroll deduction is not income tax. Income tax is income tax which nearly half of the people in this country don't pay.

Now you're playing games. The pay roll deduction is a tax. A tax I know I'll never get back, as do you with your smug "sucks to be you" response earlier.

So if there is a 15% flat tax on everybody like you guys want and a 20% payroll deduction on the first 100,000, I pay a total of 35%.

Under the same system, the millionaire pays 35% on the first 100,000 and 15% on the rest. So that would mean if he makes 2,000,000 he'd pay about 16 or 17%.

Yes or no ... do you think that's fair?

I say that you and the millionaire both pay 15% income tax. Your payroll tax is another issue. This is not to mention that SS comes out of payroll taxes because most people that do work (not invest) are going to collect that SS money. I'm sure there are not many millionaires that file for SS once they get past the age of 65. It's simply not worth their time.

If it's not worth their time, they sure as hell don't need it and I won't shed a tear. Why the hell do you think the rich need your help?

 

[Davros]

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

You can't punish the 'rich' with higher taxes its not possible. You can pretend to punish the rich by raising their taxes, they will just laugh at you and roll their eyes knowing ultimately they are just going to pass the increase right back down to you. Wait, who really just had their taxes raised? The politicians pitch this time and again and the poor and middle class just keep falling for it.

I'm just saying a flat tax plus an increase in social security to give Mr. Cleveland every penny he's owed while I'll get nothing back is a regressive tax and it's bullshit. It sure as hell won't help the American economy. Maybe Europe where the fat cats vacation.

Actually I think we need to convert our entire tax system to a progressive consumption tax. You pay based on what you buy. For necessary items, the tax is lower perhaps 1 to 3%. As you move up the ladder to non-necessary items, you pay a 5 to 15% tax. On luxury items, you pay a 25 to 40% tax.

There is nothing fair about a tax system where one pays and the other one gets. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

Who defines necessary? Perhaps in your mind unhealthy processed foods are necessary with a 1% tax and fresh fruits and vegetables are luxuries with a 10% tax.

Also discouraging spending sure as hell won't help the econony.

 

[Davros]

And then there's still the regressive 20% payroll tax to keep your ass living fat.

Also, a sales tax is always regressive, because the poor always spend a larger percentage of their income than the rich.

You're all in for helping people who are living high on the hog already. What a waste of your energy!

 

[Davros]

Oh and you still haven't said what my payroll tax should be increased to.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

I'm not following your calculations. Everybody pays the same percentage of income tax means everybody pays the same percentage. Payroll deduction is not income tax. Income tax is income tax which nearly half of the people in this country don't pay.

Now you're playing games. The pay roll deduction is a tax. A tax I know I'll never get back, as do you with your smug "sucks to be you" response earlier.

So if there is a 15% flat tax on everybody like you guys want and a 20% payroll deduction on the first 100,000, I pay a total of 35%.

Under the same system, the millionaire pays 35% on the first 100,000 and 15% on the rest. So that would mean if he makes 2,000,000 he'd pay about 16 or 17%.

Yes or no ... do you think that's fair?

I say that you and the millionaire both pay 15% income tax. Your payroll tax is another issue. This is not to mention that SS comes out of payroll taxes because most people that do work (not invest) are going to collect that SS money. I'm sure there are not many millionaires that file for SS once they get past the age of 65. It's simply not worth their time.

You can't play this kind of game and look credible to anybody but right wing dupes.

A payroll deduction is money out of my pocket. It has the same effect as a tax. I may never see a penny of it. It is there to give you your social security benefits. A Ponzi scheme.

If I only see 69% of what I make, that hurts me a lot more than a million are seeing only 69% of what he makes (and under your system he sees 84%). He's still richer than 99% of Americans. Poor guy I feel so sorry for him and I'm so glad you dumbasses have his back. The question is why are you so worried about him and then you don't give a damn about anybody else.

Because I'm for fairness no matter who we are talking about.

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

 

[BluesLegend]

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

You can't punish the 'rich' with higher taxes its not possible. You can pretend to punish the rich by raising their taxes, they will just laugh at you and roll their eyes knowing ultimately they are just going to pass the increase right back down to you. Wait, who really just had their taxes raised? The politicians pitch this time and again and the poor and middle class just keep falling for it.

I'm just saying a flat tax plus an increase in social security to give Mr. Cleveland every penny he's owed while I'll get nothing back is a regressive tax and it's bullshit. It sure as hell won't help the American economy. Maybe Europe where the fat cats vacation.

Younger generations, I thought it was bad when I was younger but goddamn 20 and 30 somethings today are just plain getting raped. I honestly don't know how the vast majority of them will get anywhere in life. They slave them out to student loan debt the size of a damn mortgage. They force them to purchase way more health insurance than they need to subsidize my healthcare. They are giving away the decent paying jobs to other countries. I don't know our young people may have to leave the country to get anywhere in life at this rate.

 

[SAYIT]

...I'm sure there are not many millionaires that file for SS once they get past the age of 65. It's simply not worth their time.

It takes little time and can be done online. Frankly, I didn't need it but having paid in for 40 years I thought it well-earned and would rather collect it and give it away (or burn it) than allow this gov't to piss it away.

Yeah ... I'm an ornery cuss.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And then there's still the regressive 20% payroll tax to keep your ass living fat.

Also, a sales tax is always regressive, because the poor always spend a larger percentage of their income than the rich.

You're all in for helping people who are living high on the hog already. What a waste of your energy!

Let me ask, was DumBama concerned about the poor when he first took office and instituted a sin tax; a tax that mostly effects the poor? When DumBama closed down all those coal fired power plants to save the planet, was he concerned about the poor who will have to pay higher energy prices?

The same thing is happening here where I live. We have a consumption tax of nearly 8% on all purchases. The rich pay this tax, the middle-class pay this tax, and the poor pay this tax. The liberals who instituted these taxes didn't question if the poor could pay them or not. They just put them there and tough crap.

 

[Davros]

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

I'm not following your calculations. Everybody pays the same percentage of income tax means everybody pays the same percentage. Payroll deduction is not income tax. Income tax is income tax which nearly half of the people in this country don't pay.

Now you're playing games. The pay roll deduction is a tax. A tax I know I'll never get back, as do you with your smug "sucks to be you" response earlier.

So if there is a 15% flat tax on everybody like you guys want and a 20% payroll deduction on the first 100,000, I pay a total of 35%.

Under the same system, the millionaire pays 35% on the first 100,000 and 15% on the rest. So that would mean if he makes 2,000,000 he'd pay about 16 or 17%.

Yes or no ... do you think that's fair?

I say that you and the millionaire both pay 15% income tax. Your payroll tax is another issue. This is not to mention that SS comes out of payroll taxes because most people that do work (not invest) are going to collect that SS money. I'm sure there are not many millionaires that file for SS once they get past the age of 65. It's simply not worth their time.

You can't play this kind of game and look credible to anybody but right wing dupes.

A payroll deduction is money out of my pocket. It has the same effect as a tax. I may never see a penny of it. It is there to give you your social security benefits. A Ponzi scheme.

If I only see 69% of what I make, that hurts me a lot more than a million are seeing only 69% of what he makes (and under your system he sees 84%). He's still richer than 99% of Americans. Poor guy I feel so sorry for him and I'm so glad you dumbasses have his back. The question is why are you so worried about him and then you don't give a damn about anybody else.

Because I'm for fairness no matter who we are talking about.

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

And then there's still the regressive 20% payroll tax to keep your ass living fat.

Also, a sales tax is always regressive, because the poor always spend a larger percentage of their income than the rich.

You're all in for helping people who are living high on the hog already. What a waste of your energy!

Let me ask, was DumBama concerned about the poor when he first took office and instituted a sin tax; a tax that mostly effects the poor? When DumBama closed down all those coal fired power plants to save the planet, was he concerned about the poor who will have to pay higher energy prices?

The same thing is happening here where I live. We have a consumption tax of nearly 8% on all purchases. The rich pay this tax, the middle-class pay this tax, and the poor pay this tax. The liberals who instituted these taxes didn't question if the poor could pay them or not. They just put them there and tough crap.

A consumption tax ... you said you support that. In my state food and clothes are exempt.

And no, I don't support everything Obama does. You still haven't said what you want my payroll tax increased to.

As for taking from the rich, yeah I'll take their money to an extent. I support a progressive income tax. Those who enjoy more of the bounty can share more of the burden. But I'll fight tooth and nail against 75%, 85%, 95% top marginal tax rates. That's asking too much and would harm the economy. 40% on anything beyond a million is fair.

 

[Care4all]

consumption taxes are primarily supported by conservatives...like, the Fair Tax, no?

Sales/consumption taxes are very regressive, I agree... so are flat taxes, they hurt the poor most.

and to balance taxes on a Totality Level, the State taxes hit the poor MORE....State taxes are known to be regressive,

and Federal taxes are progressive,

between the two gvt. tax entities, it balances out a tad better.

 

[BluesLegend]

So you want me to pay a larger percent of my income than the fat cats do just so your generation can live fat in retirement. How high should the payroll tax on the first 100,000 dollars be? How low should the income tax on millionaires be? What should happen to the people who depend on welfare to survive? Three simple questions.

Starting with the last: the solution to welfare is get a job. Plain and simple. I never was on welfare because I always worked. If I can, anybody can unless they are disabled which is another subject entirely.

How low should income tax be on millionaires? We should all pay the same percentage: rich, poor and middle-class. That's fair for everybody.

Yes, I want you to pay for SS as I paid my entire life. That's what really sucks about Ponzi schemes: somebody at the end is going to have to lose.

You didn't answer how high my payroll tax should be.

If you increase my payroll tax to 20% and I make less than 100,000 per year and then you pass a flat tax of 15%, guess what? I pay 35% of my salary to federal income tax plus payroll tax and someone who makes 2,000,000 per year pays about 16% of his salary to federal income tax and payroll tax. Is that fair in your mind?

You can't punish the 'rich' with higher taxes its not possible. You can pretend to punish the rich by raising their taxes, they will just laugh at you and roll their eyes knowing ultimately they are just going to pass the increase right back down to you. Wait, who really just had their taxes raised? The politicians pitch this time and again and the poor and middle class just keep falling for it.

I'm just saying a flat tax plus an increase in social security to give Mr. Cleveland every penny he's owed while I'll get nothing back is a regressive tax and it's bullshit. It sure as hell won't help the American economy. Maybe Europe where the fat cats vacation.

Actually I think we need to convert our entire tax system to a progressive consumption tax. You pay based on what you buy. For necessary items, the tax is lower perhaps 1 to 3%. As you move up the ladder to non-necessary items, you pay a 5 to 15% tax. On luxury items, you pay a 25 to 40% tax.

There is nothing fair about a tax system where one pays and the other one gets. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

All these tax proposals are nothing but whack-a-mole strategies that will fail in short order. Taxes are simply too high and people will continue to find creative ways to avoid paying the taxes. Especially people who feel they are being singled out for a larger than fair share of the taxes.

So why are taxes too high? Because government is way too damn big. It shouldn't take 50 cents of every dollar earned to govern a freaking country that's just ridiculous. Take New Hampshire as an example. They have no sales tax and no income tax. Yes their property taxes used to be higher than average but in the last 10 years basically other states have raised theirs to similar levels to keep their bloated government afloat.

So how in the hell is New Hampshire governing their state without a sales tax or income tax? They don't have a bloated ridiculous size state government to fund. If you need new license plates for your vehicle you don't go to some umpteen million dollar monument government building crafted of marble and the best materials taxpayer money can buy, you go down to your local county or town clerk's office and pick them up off a shelf. If you need to take a drivers test well, the office for that is a single wide trailer up on blocks and people wait in line outside. Now I'm not suggesting we all have to be as spend thrift as New Hampshire but its pretty damn odd that they govern their state for a fraction of what neighboring states spend. In fact they are surrounded by some of the highest tax burden states in the country.

 

[SAYIT]

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

Yeah ... the confiscation and redistribution of private wealth by our gov't so vociferously demanded by leftists seems to strike some of us as "unfair."
Weird, eh?

To the flat tax idea I would offer "SAYIT's Modified Flat Tax Plan."
The 1st $30,000/yr earned by every filer would federal income tax free.
The 1st $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 10%.
The next $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 15% and anything over $230,000/yr at 20%.

Everyone will be able to file and pay in minutes without the aid of accountants and tax attorneys. Bummer.

Furthermore I would require a 5% yearly buy-down of the national debt, necessitating a serious cut in gov't spending. Another bummer.

 

[Davros]

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

Yeah ... the confiscation and redistribution of private wealth by our gov't so vociferously demanded by leftists seems to strike some of us as "unfair."
Weird, eh?

To the flat tax idea I would offer "SAYIT's Modified Flat Tax Plan."
The 1st $30,000/yr earned by every filer would federal income tax free.
The 1st $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 10%.
The next $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 15% and anything over $230,000/yr at 20%.

Everyone will be able to file and pay without the aid of accountants and tax attorneys. Bummer.

Furthermore I would require a 5% yearly buy-down of the national debt, necessitating a serious cut in gov't spending. Another bummer.

I could support that tax plan. Seems very fair. And I do agree spending must be cut.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not following your calculations. Everybody pays the same percentage of income tax means everybody pays the same percentage. Payroll deduction is not income tax. Income tax is income tax which nearly half of the people in this country don't pay.

Now you're playing games. The pay roll deduction is a tax. A tax I know I'll never get back, as do you with your smug "sucks to be you" response earlier.

So if there is a 15% flat tax on everybody like you guys want and a 20% payroll deduction on the first 100,000, I pay a total of 35%.

Under the same system, the millionaire pays 35% on the first 100,000 and 15% on the rest. So that would mean if he makes 2,000,000 he'd pay about 16 or 17%.

Yes or no ... do you think that's fair?

I say that you and the millionaire both pay 15% income tax. Your payroll tax is another issue. This is not to mention that SS comes out of payroll taxes because most people that do work (not invest) are going to collect that SS money. I'm sure there are not many millionaires that file for SS once they get past the age of 65. It's simply not worth their time.

You can't play this kind of game and look credible to anybody but right wing dupes.

A payroll deduction is money out of my pocket. It has the same effect as a tax. I may never see a penny of it. It is there to give you your social security benefits. A Ponzi scheme.

If I only see 69% of what I make, that hurts me a lot more than a million are seeing only 69% of what he makes (and under your system he sees 84%). He's still richer than 99% of Americans. Poor guy I feel so sorry for him and I'm so glad you dumbasses have his back. The question is why are you so worried about him and then you don't give a damn about anybody else.

Because I'm for fairness no matter who we are talking about.

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

And then there's still the regressive 20% payroll tax to keep your ass living fat.

Also, a sales tax is always regressive, because the poor always spend a larger percentage of their income than the rich.

You're all in for helping people who are living high on the hog already. What a waste of your energy!

Let me ask, was DumBama concerned about the poor when he first took office and instituted a sin tax; a tax that mostly effects the poor? When DumBama closed down all those coal fired power plants to save the planet, was he concerned about the poor who will have to pay higher energy prices?

The same thing is happening here where I live. We have a consumption tax of nearly 8% on all purchases. The rich pay this tax, the middle-class pay this tax, and the poor pay this tax. The liberals who instituted these taxes didn't question if the poor could pay them or not. They just put them there and tough crap.

A consumption tax ... you said you support that. In my state food and clothes are exempt.

And no, I don't support everything Obama does. You still haven't said what you want my payroll tax increased to.

As for taking from the rich, yeah I'll take their money to an extent. I support a progressive income tax. Those who enjoy more of the bounty can share more of the burden. But I'll fight tooth and nail against 75%, 85%, 95% top marginal tax rates. That's asking too much and would harm the economy. 40% on anything beyond a million is fair.

So fair to you is taking the property of somebody else to give to you? That's fair?

I already said that if we want these social programs, we should pay for them. If you want Social Security, then we have to fund it--not the rich. So we increase SS contributions by 25% or whatever it takes to keep the program going.

Oh, but that's not fair. I shouldn't have to give my hard earned money to support a program I'm going to take advantage of. Tax the rich! Let them support the programs I depend on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

Yeah ... the confiscation and redistribution of private wealth by our gov't so vociferously demanded by leftists seems to strike some of us as "unfair."
Weird, eh?

To the flat tax idea I would offer "SAYIT's Modified Flat Tax Plan."
The 1st $30,000/yr earned by every filer would federal income tax free.
The 1st $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 10%.
The next $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 15% and anything over $230,000/yr at 20%.

Everyone will be able to file and pay in minutes without the aid of accountants and tax attorneys. Bummer.

Furthermore I would require a 5% yearly buy-down of the national debt, necessitating a serious cut in gov't spending. Another bummer.

Why should anybody get anything free? We all use the tax system for our advantage so we should all pay.

Currently, nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all. Yet when we need more money, we don't go to those people. We go to the people that are already paying most all of the taxes.

 

[Davros]

Now you're playing games. The pay roll deduction is a tax. A tax I know I'll never get back, as do you with your smug "sucks to be you" response earlier.

So if there is a 15% flat tax on everybody like you guys want and a 20% payroll deduction on the first 100,000, I pay a total of 35%.

Under the same system, the millionaire pays 35% on the first 100,000 and 15% on the rest. So that would mean if he makes 2,000,000 he'd pay about 16 or 17%.

Yes or no ... do you think that's fair?

I say that you and the millionaire both pay 15% income tax. Your payroll tax is another issue. This is not to mention that SS comes out of payroll taxes because most people that do work (not invest) are going to collect that SS money. I'm sure there are not many millionaires that file for SS once they get past the age of 65. It's simply not worth their time.

You can't play this kind of game and look credible to anybody but right wing dupes.

A payroll deduction is money out of my pocket. It has the same effect as a tax. I may never see a penny of it. It is there to give you your social security benefits. A Ponzi scheme.

If I only see 69% of what I make, that hurts me a lot more than a million are seeing only 69% of what he makes (and under your system he sees 84%). He's still richer than 99% of Americans. Poor guy I feel so sorry for him and I'm so glad you dumbasses have his back. The question is why are you so worried about him and then you don't give a damn about anybody else.

Because I'm for fairness no matter who we are talking about.

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

And then there's still the regressive 20% payroll tax to keep your ass living fat.

Also, a sales tax is always regressive, because the poor always spend a larger percentage of their income than the rich.

You're all in for helping people who are living high on the hog already. What a waste of your energy!

Let me ask, was DumBama concerned about the poor when he first took office and instituted a sin tax; a tax that mostly effects the poor? When DumBama closed down all those coal fired power plants to save the planet, was he concerned about the poor who will have to pay higher energy prices?

The same thing is happening here where I live. We have a consumption tax of nearly 8% on all purchases. The rich pay this tax, the middle-class pay this tax, and the poor pay this tax. The liberals who instituted these taxes didn't question if the poor could pay them or not. They just put them there and tough crap.

A consumption tax ... you said you support that. In my state food and clothes are exempt.

And no, I don't support everything Obama does. You still haven't said what you want my payroll tax increased to.

As for taking from the rich, yeah I'll take their money to an extent. I support a progressive income tax. Those who enjoy more of the bounty can share more of the burden. But I'll fight tooth and nail against 75%, 85%, 95% top marginal tax rates. That's asking too much and would harm the economy. 40% on anything beyond a million is fair.

So fair to you is taking the property of somebody else to give to you? That's fair?

I already said that if we want these social programs, we should pay for them. If you want Social Security, then we have to fund it--not the rich. So we increase SS contributions by 25% or whatever it takes to keep the program going.

Oh, but that's not fair. I shouldn't have to give my hard earned money to support a program I'm going to take advantage of. Tax the rich! Let them support the programs I depend on.

So, yeah, my 20% figure was right, then.

So you're okay with me paying 31% of my salary in flat tax plus payroll deduction, while the fat cat making 2 million pays only 16%. That's fair to you.

If you tax anybody it's taking away their money. So let's mark you down as supporting eliminating tax and shutting down all government functions. Let the corporations raise their armies and we revert to feudal Europe.

I support progressive tax because the rich enjoy more of the bounty of America, so yeah, they can pay more of the burden. And don't worry. A man who makes 2,000,000 is going to be okay taking home 1.4 million instead of 1.8 million. He won't even notice it.

 

[Davros]

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

Yeah ... the confiscation and redistribution of private wealth by our gov't so vociferously demanded by leftists seems to strike some of us as "unfair."
Weird, eh?

To the flat tax idea I would offer "SAYIT's Modified Flat Tax Plan."
The 1st $30,000/yr earned by every filer would federal income tax free.
The 1st $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 10%.
The next $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 15% and anything over $230,000/yr at 20%.

Everyone will be able to file and pay in minutes without the aid of accountants and tax attorneys. Bummer.

Furthermore I would require a 5% yearly buy-down of the national debt, necessitating a serious cut in gov't spending. Another bummer.

Why should anybody get anything free? We all use the tax system for our advantage so we should all pay.

Currently, nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all. Yet when we need more money, we don't go to those people. We go to the people that are already paying most all of the taxes.

Why don't we go to them for money? Because they don't have any money and taking what they have would cause them to freeze, starve, etc. You're okay with that because you want to punish them for being born stupid and for being lazy when they were 15. You bleeding heart! Yeah those poor rich people making 9 million a year would suffer so much paying 20% on their last 8 million dollars instead of paying 0 in your system because they invest it instead of spending it. You freak!

 

[Care4all]

I'm not obsessed with how much money somebody else has. That's a liberal position. I'm more worried about what I have, and what somebody else has doesn't affect what I have.

Taxation should not matter based on how much you have or earned. Taxation should be about everybody paying their fair share as you liberals like to call it. A fair share is everybody paying the same. But since that's not possible, everybody paying the same percentage.

But if you think that we should steal property from others because they have more than we'd like, why don't we apply that to everything?

For instance, if you have 12 beautiful hedges in your front yard, would it not be right for government to come along and take 6 of your beautiful hedges and give them to the person on the next street that has none?

If you love entertainment and have 3 big screen televisions in your home, would it not be right for government to take two of your big screens and give them to your two neighbors that have small or no televisions?

If you fancy video game systems and have five, would it not be proper for government to come along and take two of your video game systems and give them to a family that has none?

Well if your answer is no to any of these questions, why then is it okay when government does the exact same thing with money?

Yeah ... the confiscation and redistribution of private wealth by our gov't so vociferously demanded by leftists seems to strike some of us as "unfair."
Weird, eh?

To the flat tax idea I would offer "SAYIT's Modified Flat Tax Plan."
The 1st $30,000/yr earned by every filer would federal income tax free.
The 1st $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 10%.
The next $100,000/yr over that to be taxed at 15% and anything over $230,000/yr at 20%.

Everyone will be able to file and pay in minutes without the aid of accountants and tax attorneys. Bummer.

Furthermore I would require a 5% yearly buy-down of the national debt, necessitating a serious cut in gov't spending. Another bummer.

Why should anybody get anything free? We all use the tax system for our advantage so we should all pay.

Currently, nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all. Yet when we need more money, we don't go to those people. We go to the people that are already paying most all of the taxes.

they pay with federal gas taxes, gvt fees, federal tobacco taxes, and pay the corporation's income taxes through their higher priced purchases to cover the corp's income tax bill etc etc etc....

they also pay the bulk of federal payroll taxes, and all of their surplus social security taxes have been used to pay for the federal budget....sure the gvt borrowed the money from them, but the gvt doesn't want to and can't afford to pay it back....

so, the idea that people who pay little to no federal income tax are not being taxed by the federal gvt, or are not paying for our federal gvt and don't have a stake in the game, is ludicrous.

 

[Political Junky]

Single payer with government negotiating the costs with the suppliers.

Medicare already is single payer. How would expanding single payer to everybody cut healthcare costs? It would allow the government to dictate what it will pay, but that would cause all kinds of healthcare availability problems. Now, it's available but expensive. Under single payer, there are long wait lists for critical care.

Link?