Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[eagle1462010]

Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.

I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.

The simplified code ends the BS under the current system. It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already. The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............

Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................

Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.

Are you agreeing with the Flat tax then..................

Because it gets rid of most of the ridiculous code and ends the loop holes...............
And I've stated that it would have to be progressive or it would never pass anyway...........
Either way........I'd like to use a post card to pay my taxes...........

Like another poster early in the thread said.................Tell me what I owe and be done with it.

That doesn't sound like a flat tax if it's progressive.

A Flat tax can be progressive and or a flat set rate to all...............

A flat set rate to all would be fair but would never pass...............

My main goal is the simplification of the BS code we have now. The large code with the IRS we have now is for one purpose................to create loop holes to avoid paying. That is why it is so large..................

That needs to end, and simplify the system. So it is fair to all involved.

 

[2aguy]

You mean Gov't under GOP control? Like what happened in the 1920's and Ronnie's S&L crisis (he was warned in 1984) or Dubya's subprome ponzi scheme he cheered on AS he fought ALL 50 states that wanted to reign it in? Weird


Carter 20% of GDP in revenues
Ronnie 17%
Clinton 20%
Dubya 15%
Obama17%

HMM

Yeah link that moron. And Reagan doubled the revenue coming into the government and they spent every single penny and then more.....clinton had his boom because of Reagan, Carter because of nixon...and Bush tried to stop the mess in the banks and the democrats stopped him...moron.

You mean over 8 years Ronnie brought in 88% more revenues? Weird, that's WAY below previous year (inflation was HUGE and population growth)

You holding out that Reagan increased revenues when he gutted taxes foir the rich but increased it on the avg worker?

Your fantasy worlds is BS

Dems stopped Dubya? lol


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.



FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Clinton used the federal government to force banks to make bad loans, and then when it crashed when Bush was President you guys created the new big lie....

LOL, Keep up the big lie Bubba

WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST!!!

Name the law that required the 5 investment banks (ALL gone today )to get involved in housing??? lol

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Q Why is it commonly called the “subprime bubble” ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf



Q. Er uh, didn’t you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?

A. It did kinda say that didn’t it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis




Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown





How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter

thanks.....dealing with lying libs who want to give even more of their money.....and more importantly....our money, to these corrupt asshole politicians as if they use it wisely and efficiently is frustrating.

 

[eagle1462010]

First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.

Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and allow the other party to buy the elections. Even a bonehead understands that.

Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.

You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.

Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.

Fuck you back. You happy now.............
Both sides pander to the Lobbyist and both sides of the lobby pander to the rich.............The GOP doesn't own stock and barrel to the rich..............Your side has filthy rich types too you just try to avoid that side of the equation................When I hear the actors and other millionaires on your side yell tax the rich...............I simply laugh at them because many times they are much richer than the ones they are bitching about.

I will not discuss the high speed rail costs............as I addressed it on anther thread............Texas built one...........from Dallas to Houston for a fraction of the cost of the one from Los Angeles to San Fran Sicko...............and I'll top it off that only a NUT thinks that the Gov't does these projects cheaper................

To top it off you should have been using the money more wisely.................water is more important than the danged high speed rail.................You should have been building desalination plants and resevoirs instead.

Who funded the Houston to Dallas high speed rail?

A spur line will connect SF to LA, the main line is scheduled to go up the Central Valley from LA (later San Diego) to Sacramento. The air corridor between SF, SJ, OAK and LA is jam packed, rail will stimulate building of transit villages benefiting the economy of small towns and cities along the route and the movement of produce - which feeds much of the nation - will get to market without being trucked, saving fuel, tires going into the land fills and reducing grid lock on the highways.

Learn to think panoptically

The State built the rail on budget and on time in Texas..........how so in California..............

And again, I've worked around Gov't military contracts and they cost much much more than the private sector..................unless you live under a rock.

My point that your priorities are wrong is spot on..........unless you think the rail is more important than water...........

 

[Dad2three]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.

1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich

Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that. Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system. So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals. So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............

Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people. As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.

I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one. Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law. We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.

EITC “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,” Ronnie Reagan


Mark Everson, who served as IRS commissioner under President George W. Bush, called the EITC “one of the government’s most successful anti-poverty programs.”**


The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit Draws Praise Across the Political Spectrum - Jonathan Kantrowitz

And Bush pushed the TAX CREDITS FOR THE POOR AS WELL...........while your side yelled tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for the rich, the BRITISH ARE COMING................

When most of the credits were aimed at the poor and the middle class............

Face it.............you don't want to lose the 200 Billion a year Welfare checks under the current system.

0% isn't enough for you...............

And the Flat tax system would end the danged loop holes you bitch about all the time.

The richest Americans received the most benefit from the Bush tax cuts.

• $520,000: The average tax cut received by the top 0.1 percent of Americans, those making more than $3 million a year. That is over 450 times the tax cut received by an average middle-class family.
• The middle 20 percent of wage earners (making between $40,000 and $70,000) received less than 11 percent of the total Bush -era tax cuts.
• The bottom 20 percent (making less than $20,000) received only a 1 percent share of the Bush tax cuts; 75 percent of these low-income families saw no tax benefit at all.
  
  Ten Years of the Bush Tax Cuts Benefiting the Rich
  
  
  

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute

 

[2aguy]

First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.

Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and allow the other party to buy the elections. Even a bonehead understands that.

Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.

You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.

Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.

Fuck you back. You happy now.............
Both sides pander to the Lobbyist and both sides of the lobby pander to the rich.............The GOP doesn't own stock and barrel to the rich..............Your side has filthy rich types too you just try to avoid that side of the equation................When I hear the actors and other millionaires on your side yell tax the rich...............I simply laugh at them because many times they are much richer than the ones they are bitching about.

I will not discuss the high speed rail costs............as I addressed it on anther thread............Texas built one...........from Dallas to Houston for a fraction of the cost of the one from Los Angeles to San Fran Sicko...............and I'll top it off that only a NUT thinks that the Gov't does these projects cheaper................

To top it off you should have been using the money more wisely.................water is more important than the danged high speed rail.................You should have been building desalination plants and resevoirs instead.

Who funded the Houston to Dallas high speed rail?

A spur line will connect SF to LA, the main line is scheduled to go up the Central Valley from LA (later San Diego) to Sacramento. The air corridor between SF, SJ, OAK and LA is jam packed, rail will stimulate building of transit villages benefiting the economy of small towns and cities along the route and the movement of produce - which feeds much of the nation - will get to market without being trucked, saving fuel, tires going into the land fills and reducing grid lock on the highways.

Learn to think panoptically

The State built the rail on budget and on time in Texas..........how so in California..............

And again, I've worked around Gov't military contracts and they cost much much more than the private sector..................unless you live under a rock.

My point that your priorities are wrong is spot on..........unless you think the rail is more important than water...........

yes, the military is vital but it too is filed with theft, greed, waste and fraud........the left always thinks we want all those things in the military just showing how stupid they are...again.

 

[2aguy]

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.

1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich

Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that. Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system. So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals. So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............

Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people. As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.

I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one. Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law. We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.

EITC “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,” Ronnie Reagan


Mark Everson, who served as IRS commissioner under President George W. Bush, called the EITC “one of the government’s most successful anti-poverty programs.”**


The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit Draws Praise Across the Political Spectrum - Jonathan Kantrowitz

And Bush pushed the TAX CREDITS FOR THE POOR AS WELL...........while your side yelled tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for the rich, the BRITISH ARE COMING................

When most of the credits were aimed at the poor and the middle class............

Face it.............you don't want to lose the 200 Billion a year Welfare checks under the current system.

0% isn't enough for you...............

And the Flat tax system would end the danged loop holes you bitch about all the time.

The richest Americans received the most benefit from the Bush tax cuts.

• $520,000: The average tax cut received by the top 0.1 percent of Americans, those making more than $3 million a year. That is over 450 times the tax cut received by an average middle-class family.
• The middle 20 percent of wage earners (making between $40,000 and $70,000) received less than 11 percent of the total Bush -era tax cuts.
• The bottom 20 percent (making less than $20,000) received only a 1 percent share of the Bush tax cuts; 75 percent of these low-income families saw no tax benefit at all.
  
  Ten Years of the Bush Tax Cuts Benefiting the Rich
  
  

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute

Yeah twit and the rich still paid more money in taxes....what is it with you as holes and how much people have left....it doesn't fucking belong to you or the greedy politicians you want to give it to...


You didn't answer my question you twit.

 

[2aguy]

here is a direct example.....

Romney paid 14 effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21 2012

Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday.

Okay...Romney paid 1.94 million in taxes.....and you guys still bitch that he didn't pay enough...he paid more in one year, than some pay their entire tax lives and it isn't enough for you......and you want to give it to politicians who will use it to make themselves and their friends rich and powerful....how does that make any freaking sense...he earned it and you want to take it...you are the greedy fucks, not him

And if I remember correctly, he also gave 3-7 million to charity on top of those tax dollars....again...you lefties,are the greedy assholes, not him.

 

[eagle1462010]

Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.

1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich

Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that. Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system. So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals. So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............

Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people. As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.

I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one. Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law. We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.

EITC “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress,” Ronnie Reagan


Mark Everson, who served as IRS commissioner under President George W. Bush, called the EITC “one of the government’s most successful anti-poverty programs.”**


The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit Draws Praise Across the Political Spectrum - Jonathan Kantrowitz

And Bush pushed the TAX CREDITS FOR THE POOR AS WELL...........while your side yelled tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for the rich, the BRITISH ARE COMING................

When most of the credits were aimed at the poor and the middle class............

Face it.............you don't want to lose the 200 Billion a year Welfare checks under the current system.

0% isn't enough for you...............

And the Flat tax system would end the danged loop holes you bitch about all the time.

The richest Americans received the most benefit from the Bush tax cuts.

• $520,000: The average tax cut received by the top 0.1 percent of Americans, those making more than $3 million a year. That is over 450 times the tax cut received by an average middle-class family.
• The middle 20 percent of wage earners (making between $40,000 and $70,000) received less than 11 percent of the total Bush -era tax cuts.
• The bottom 20 percent (making less than $20,000) received only a 1 percent share of the Bush tax cuts; 75 percent of these low-income families saw no tax benefit at all.
  
  Ten Years of the Bush Tax Cuts Benefiting the Rich
  

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy Economic Policy Institute

Yeah twit and the rich still paid more money in taxes....what is it with you as holes and how much people have left....it doesn't fucking belong to you or the greedy politicians you want to give it to...


You didn't answer my question you twit.

He never will either..............they love showing the pictures of how the percentages are the same but not the ones where the volume of money flowing in from the higher brackets dwarf the percentage of the lower tiers............................Which is why most of the income in tax revenues comes from the upper ranges..........

The Bush tax cuts targeted all groups................which is against the leftist mindset.....................

Simplification of the code is the way to make the system fair for all...............but they don't want that.

 

[Dad2three]

My question is this, of the 5% who disagree, how many work for one or more of the foundations funded by the Koch Brothers?

By definition a flat tax is not regressive. It's flat. that's what "flat" means. Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.

Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."

Consequences of tax policy matter. Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit? Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.

By and for the people? You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?

I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.

• Most of the working poor would be deprived of the right to vote by the current iteration of conservatives
• Most of the non working poor are considered to be reprobates by the current iteration of conservatives
• Labor unions are under attack by the current iteration of conservatives
• The current iteration of conservatives want to give to the rich and take from the poor

Pick your poison, give to the few, or provide for the many. Which do you think will be

1. Consistent with Judeo-Christian Ethics
2. insure domestic Tranquility, and
3. Promote the general Welfare

You are a moron.....not one thing you posted is true. trying to get people to show the same id they use to drive or cash checks to vote is not denying people the right to vote......you know, like South Africa and Neslon Mandela made their people show id to vote and how they vote everywhere else in e world.......and if the poor in this modern age have somehow avoided cashing checks, or driving...then they get the voter id for free and it is driven to them by the state.....so sell your bull shot somewhere else.....

Labor unions have bankrupted state after state....they are crushing Illinois in debt we can never pay back and the pension system is going to collapse...fixing that problem is not attacking unions....

Please explain how making a flat tax or a sales tax is taking from the poor and giving to the rich, considering that the flat tax will have upwards of 30-50 grand tax free, and the sales tax will be voluntary and you get to keep everything you earn....


You left wingers are liars and vile people.....

Another right winger projecting. Sad

THE VOTER FRAUD FRAUD

Governor Chris Christie: Same-Day Voter Registration Is a “Trick” and GOP Needs to Win Gubernatorial Races So They Control “Voting Mechanisms”

Fran Millar: Georgia Senator Complains About Polling Place Being Too Convenient for Black Voters

Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair Says We Shouldn’t Accommodate the “Urban — Read African-American — Voter-Turnout Machine”

Greg Abbott: Texas AG Says Partisan Districting Decisions Are Legal, Even if There Are “Incidental Effects” on Minority Voters

NUMBER OF VOTER ID FRAUD (THE ONLY TYPE VOTER ID'S STOP) CASES THE BUSH ADMIN UNPRECEDENTED INVESTIGATION OVER 5 YEARS PROSECUTED? ZERO

Unbelievable GOP Statements on Voter Suppression BillMoyers.com



Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters

Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast


GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats, ‘Lazy Blacks’

GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats Lazy Blacks ThinkProgress


Myth of Voter Fraud
Myth of Voter Fraud Brennan Center for Justice



New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed

A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.

New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.

I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.

The simplified code ends the BS under the current system. It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already. The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............

Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................

Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.

No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue. anything else is based in hate and greed.

Except anyone who understands basic math knows how much revenue would be lost, social programs would be mercilessly gutted.

"Except anyone who understands basic math"

There goes the GOP base...

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.

I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.

The simplified code ends the BS under the current system. It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already. The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............

Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................

Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.

No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue. anything else is based in hate and greed.

lol, so under your scheme every household with less than the average income, which happens to be around 50,000,

would pay NO income tax?

Wasn't that what you 'nuts were just bitching about? The people who pay no tax?

As their plan can't add up mathematically, they'll use MORE voodoo economics on US!

 

[NYcarbineer]

With a flat tax, lower income people would have to pay more to make up for the less the rich would pay.

In addition, you lose, for example, your mortgage interest deduction, your IRA's, your college savings deductions, your child tax credits, and on and on and on.

 

[Dad2three]

Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....

And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.

......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit.

Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.

You do understand the debt ceiling is for laws already passed right? You know PAST spending under law? And no, it was GOPers who said "deficits don't matter Reagan proved it" AS the Liberals/Dems asked to get US back to where Clinton had US with his 4 straight surpluses (3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut!!!!)

Conservatives, for nearly 40 years, goal has been to destroy EFFECTIVE Gov't., And when they are in charge, did a pretty good job of it too!

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, and a "flat tax" would never work. For all of those bitching about the poor not paying taxes, they do, just not the specific federal tax, since they already have enough burden to worry about. You wonder why the rich pay most taxes? They hold most of the taxable income.

I've already stated that earlier in the thread..................They pay taxes on property, sales tax, and etc.............
Like the Gasoline tax to pay for our roads.................as another poster has already stated as well.

The simplified code ends the BS under the current system. It is too large for a reason............because the lobbies want the loop holes to avoid paying already. The flat tax would end those loop holes.............and make paying taxes simple...............

Exactly HOW IS THAT BAD.......Unless you think 0% isn't enough already under the Federal Tax rates.............and want to maintain a 200 BIllion a year Welfare system under the tax code without really calling it that..................

Progressive taxation and crack down on loop holes, like every other country.

No, a flat tax with a 50 thousand dollar exemption for all people or a national sales tax are the two fairest ways to generate tax revenue. anything else is based in hate and greed.

Except anyone who understands basic math knows how much revenue would be lost, social programs would be mercilessly gutted.

BS...........the effective rates under the current system are far lower than the percentages of tax rates...........The massive tax codes have ensured that.....................The massive code is for loop holes and twisting of tax law to keep people from paying the rates and nothing more.

Instead of repeating right wing talking points, how about a CREDIBLE link to ANY flat tax plan that would work, and run Gov't? lol

 

[2aguy]

By definition a flat tax is not regressive. It's flat. that's what "flat" means. Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.

Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."

Consequences of tax policy matter. Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit? Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.

By and for the people? You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?

I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.

• Most of the working poor would be deprived of the right to vote by the current iteration of conservatives
• Most of the non working poor are considered to be reprobates by the current iteration of conservatives
• Labor unions are under attack by the current iteration of conservatives
• The current iteration of conservatives want to give to the rich and take from the poor

Pick your poison, give to the few, or provide for the many. Which do you think will be

1. Consistent with Judeo-Christian Ethics
2. insure domestic Tranquility, and
3. Promote the general Welfare

You are a moron.....not one thing you posted is true. trying to get people to show the same id they use to drive or cash checks to vote is not denying people the right to vote......you know, like South Africa and Neslon Mandela made their people show id to vote and how they vote everywhere else in e world.......and if the poor in this modern age have somehow avoided cashing checks, or driving...then they get the voter id for free and it is driven to them by the state.....so sell your bull shot somewhere else.....

Labor unions have bankrupted state after state....they are crushing Illinois in debt we can never pay back and the pension system is going to collapse...fixing that problem is not attacking unions....

Please explain how making a flat tax or a sales tax is taking from the poor and giving to the rich, considering that the flat tax will have upwards of 30-50 grand tax free, and the sales tax will be voluntary and you get to keep everything you earn....


You left wingers are liars and vile people.....

Another right winger projecting. Sad

THE VOTER FRAUD FRAUD

Governor Chris Christie: Same-Day Voter Registration Is a “Trick” and GOP Needs to Win Gubernatorial Races So They Control “Voting Mechanisms”

Fran Millar: Georgia Senator Complains About Polling Place Being Too Convenient for Black Voters

Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair Says We Shouldn’t Accommodate the “Urban — Read African-American — Voter-Turnout Machine”

Greg Abbott: Texas AG Says Partisan Districting Decisions Are Legal, Even if There Are “Incidental Effects” on Minority Voters

NUMBER OF VOTER ID FRAUD (THE ONLY TYPE VOTER ID'S STOP) CASES THE BUSH ADMIN UNPRECEDENTED INVESTIGATION OVER 5 YEARS PROSECUTED? ZERO

Unbelievable GOP Statements on Voter Suppression BillMoyers.com



Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters

Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast


GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats, ‘Lazy Blacks’

GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats Lazy Blacks ThinkProgress


Myth of Voter Fraud
Myth of Voter Fraud Brennan Center for Justice



New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed

A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.

New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations

Yes, expecting people to prove who they are with the same I'd they drive with is not preventing people from voting.....and if they have no idea, giving them a free state I'd, and having a state worker come to their home to make sure they can get one is not preventing people from voting....

Democrats cheat...all the time...and using I'd like the rest of the world does when they vote just makes sense...you twit.

 

[Dad2three]

First, Fuck you, only an asshole starts a rebuttal with such a stupid comment.

Yes, both parties solicit money, seems to be stupid for one party to take the high road and allow the other party to buy the elections. Even a bonehead understands that.

Take it up with the five members of SCOTUS who repealed campaign finance reform.

You have no idea how much high speed rail should cost.

Private sector contractors are culpable for cost overruns; many times government's hands are tied, do to the requirement to accept the low bid.

Fuck you back. You happy now.............
Both sides pander to the Lobbyist and both sides of the lobby pander to the rich.............The GOP doesn't own stock and barrel to the rich..............Your side has filthy rich types too you just try to avoid that side of the equation................When I hear the actors and other millionaires on your side yell tax the rich...............I simply laugh at them because many times they are much richer than the ones they are bitching about.

I will not discuss the high speed rail costs............as I addressed it on anther thread............Texas built one...........from Dallas to Houston for a fraction of the cost of the one from Los Angeles to San Fran Sicko...............and I'll top it off that only a NUT thinks that the Gov't does these projects cheaper................

To top it off you should have been using the money more wisely.................water is more important than the danged high speed rail.................You should have been building desalination plants and resevoirs instead.

IF you are going to lie, be original. THERE IS NOT YET A HIGH SPIED TRAIN IN TEXAS, FUNDING HASN'T EVEN BEEN RECEIVED FOR THE STUDIES, LOL

 

[2aguy]

By definition a flat tax is not regressive. It's flat. that's what "flat" means. Regressive would be where the poor pay a higher percentage than the rich.

Liberals have so warped the English language that no one even agrees on the definition of common words like "flat."

Consequences of tax policy matter. Do you really want to live in an Oligarchy, where the very rich and power elite write laws and establish the regulations for their benefit? Or, do want to live in a nation of, by and for the people.

By and for the people? You mean like the system we have today where a non-working or working poor person can vote money out of the pockets of those more successful for their own advantage?

I don't know that I'm crazy about this system either.

• Most of the working poor would be deprived of the right to vote by the current iteration of conservatives
• Most of the non working poor are considered to be reprobates by the current iteration of conservatives
• Labor unions are under attack by the current iteration of conservatives
• The current iteration of conservatives want to give to the rich and take from the poor

Pick your poison, give to the few, or provide for the many. Which do you think will be

1. Consistent with Judeo-Christian Ethics
2. insure domestic Tranquility, and
3. Promote the general Welfare

You are a moron.....not one thing you posted is true. trying to get people to show the same id they use to drive or cash checks to vote is not denying people the right to vote......you know, like South Africa and Neslon Mandela made their people show id to vote and how they vote everywhere else in e world.......and if the poor in this modern age have somehow avoided cashing checks, or driving...then they get the voter id for free and it is driven to them by the state.....so sell your bull shot somewhere else.....

Labor unions have bankrupted state after state....they are crushing Illinois in debt we can never pay back and the pension system is going to collapse...fixing that problem is not attacking unions....

Please explain how making a flat tax or a sales tax is taking from the poor and giving to the rich, considering that the flat tax will have upwards of 30-50 grand tax free, and the sales tax will be voluntary and you get to keep everything you earn....


You left wingers are liars and vile people.....

Another right winger projecting. Sad

THE VOTER FRAUD FRAUD

Governor Chris Christie: Same-Day Voter Registration Is a “Trick” and GOP Needs to Win Gubernatorial Races So They Control “Voting Mechanisms”

Fran Millar: Georgia Senator Complains About Polling Place Being Too Convenient for Black Voters

Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair Says We Shouldn’t Accommodate the “Urban — Read African-American — Voter-Turnout Machine”

Greg Abbott: Texas AG Says Partisan Districting Decisions Are Legal, Even if There Are “Incidental Effects” on Minority Voters

NUMBER OF VOTER ID FRAUD (THE ONLY TYPE VOTER ID'S STOP) CASES THE BUSH ADMIN UNPRECEDENTED INVESTIGATION OVER 5 YEARS PROSECUTED? ZERO

Unbelievable GOP Statements on Voter Suppression BillMoyers.com



Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters

Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters - The Daily Beast


GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats, ‘Lazy Blacks’

GOP Official Resigns After Saying Purpose Of Voter ID Is To Suppress Votes Of Democrats Lazy Blacks ThinkProgress


Myth of Voter Fraud
Myth of Voter Fraud Brennan Center for Justice



New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed

A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.

New database of US voter fraud finds no evidence that photo ID laws are needed - Investigations

Yes...tell your lies to Nelson Mandela...he looks great in his "Get an ID to vote shirt"

Turns Out Nelson Mandela Supported Voter ID Common Sense Central on News Talk 1130 WISN

Remember when One Wisconsin Now embarrassingly tried to use Mandela's death to slam Governor Walker over Voter ID laws? Yeah, about that....

Think Progress, a liberal media outlet, praised the South African constitution while it eulogized Mandela, writing, “The truth, however, is that the United States could learn a great deal from South Africa’s constitution.”

That constitution allows for and supports a rigorous election integrity process far more stringent than anything GOP lawmakers have proposed in Wisconsin.

An October story from a South African news outlet explains in advance of the nation’s 2014 elections, “aspirant voters must produce a valid South African identity document when registering to vote and when voting.” That means procuring one of “three forms of official identification.”

MediaTrackers.org also brilliantly dug up this Yahoo! News picture of Nelson Mandela wearing a pro-Voter ID shirt:

Oh liberals, you just can't win for trying, can you?




Read more: Turns Out Nelson Mandela Supported Voter ID Common Sense Central on News Talk 1130 WISN

 

[Dad2three]

Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....

And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.

......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit.

Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.

Reagan tripled the debt.

No, the democrats broke their deal and spent every penny of the increased revenue from his tax cuts.

FUKKIN LIAR


The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts


on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the (REAGAN) administration did.

If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.

The historical myth that Reagan raised 1 of taxes in exchange for 3 of spending cuts - The Washington Post

 

[NYcarbineer]

Guys like you worship government, you believe it does no wrong and that government has first claim on anything you earn...and after that you can keep what they don't need right now........and there is never enough money for the government to spend.....

And you anti Gov't types do EVERYTHING to undermine effective Gov't AND US as a society.

......this coming from the side that believes tripling the deficit and increasing debt ceiling is effective government. That mindset definition of efficiency makes about as much sense as a financial advisor telling consumers in debt to triple their credit card debt levels and ask for more credit when they have hit their limit.

Most sound financial minds are all about limiting that level of "effectiveness" ; conservative and otherwise.

Reagan tripled the debt.

No, the democrats broke their deal and spent every penny of the increased revenue from his tax cuts.

lol. The myths abound.

 

[NYcarbineer]

From: 10 Tax Questions the Candidates Don t Want You to Ask - 2 What the Flat Tax Taxes

Question. Incidentally, many, and perhaps most, Americans believe that a single, flat tax rate would be fairer than our system of progressive rates. So, you might ask, who would pay more income taxes, and who would pay less, if the only change to our income tax system were the adoption of a single, flat tax rate today that would generate as much revenue as is generated by our progressive rates? The single tax rate would have to be about 19% in a typical year.

Answer: Middle-income taxpayers would, on average, pay considerably more, and high-income taxpayers would pay considerably less. For people with taxable income in the $50,000 -$75,000, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 13%. For people with between $2 million and $10 million of taxable income, the tax rate on that income is, on average, about 26%, nothwithstanding favorable tax rates on dividends and capital gains.

So if you’re in the solid middle class, your tax rate would be about 6 percentage points higher with a flat tax rate, while very high income households would enjoy a tax rate about 6 to 7 percentage points lower. Now what do you think?