Tax and Spending Proposal That Makes Sense

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yup, the "equality" and "fair" freaks are merely saying, "I don't want to pay taxes, so I want you to pay mine."

Kinda like you sheep who want so called rich people to pay their "fair" share?

The top 1% pay 42% of federal income tax and liberal Marxist parrots relentlessly chant about their fair share!

 

[GHook93]

Percents, deduction and levels are all negotiable.

But equality is not? We're supposed to have equal justice under the law. When it comes to income tax codes, the only way to have equality is a flat tax with no deductions.

Why are advocating inequality?

Because the harsh reality in life is there is no EQUALITY in life! A flat tax sounds 'fair' but it effects people at the lower end more more harshly.

 

[eflatminor]

Percents, deduction and levels are all negotiable.

But equality is not? We're supposed to have equal justice under the law. When it comes to income tax codes, the only way to have equality is a flat tax with no deductions.

Why are advocating inequality?

Because the harsh reality in life is there is no EQUALITY in life!

We're not talking about "life", where talking about the federal government's rule over the people, where there sure as shit is supposed to be equality.

Is this what you'd tell those that supported the CRA? Life isn't fair? I doubt it.

A flat tax sounds 'fair' but it effects people at the lower end more more harshly.

Should that be the measure by which we decide who has to pay taxes and who doesn't? That should fun to determine. Either way, if we exempt the first X dollars for everyone, you got NO bitch. Certainly you don't support the idea that nearly half the country pay no income tax while the rest of us shoulder the burden?

 

[GHook93]

Yup, the "equality" and "fair" freaks are merely saying, "I don't want to pay taxes, so I want you to pay mine."

Kinda like you sheep who want so called rich people to pay their "fair" share?

The top 1% pay 42% of federal income tax and liberal Marxist parrots relentlessly chant about their fair share!

There is a BIG different between 'fair' and adverse effect. Because of cost of living, inflation, food, utility, rent, mortgage, gas, parking, cloth, daycare expenses etc costs say 10% of a person making $50K is much different than to a person making $100K or $250K!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Kinda like you sheep who want so called rich people to pay their "fair" share?

The top 1% pay 42% of federal income tax and liberal Marxist parrots relentlessly chant about their fair share!

There is a BIG different between 'fair' and adverse effect. Because of cost of living, inflation, food, utility, rent, mortgage, gas, parking, cloth, daycare expenses etc costs say 10% of a person making $50K is much different than to a person making $100K or $250K!

That's a bullshit marginal utility argument. The first dollar earned is no different from the 1 millionth dollar earned.

If 10% of every dollar earned was taken as taxes people would very quickly either learn to live without that 10% or they would work more to make up the difference.

 

[Freemason9]

Is this a "tax relief" scheme? If so, who gets "relieved," and whose taxes go up? I think you need to answer this.

Also, none of these "flat tax" and "fair tax" schemes answer to the main problem of how net taxable income is defined. That's where most of the abuse takes place.

 

[pinqy]

That's a bullshit marginal utility argument. The first dollar earned is no different from the 1 millionth dollar earned.

If 10% of every dollar earned was taken as taxes people would very quickly either learn to live without that 10% or they would work more to make up the difference.

A 10% tax on a million dollars does not require any cut in consumption or standard of living. A 10% tax on $20 thousand dollars does. The marginal utility argument is not bullshit, it's a fact that the impact WILL be greater on lower income. You can't just handwave it away.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's a bullshit marginal utility argument. The first dollar earned is no different from the 1 millionth dollar earned.

If 10% of every dollar earned was taken as taxes people would very quickly either learn to live without that 10% or they would work more to make up the difference.

A 10% tax on a million dollars does not require any cut in consumption or standard of living. A 10% tax on $20 thousand dollars does. The marginal utility argument is not bullshit, it's a fact that the impact WILL be greater on lower income. You can't just handwave it away.

A person's first dollar is no different than their second dollar. It's your subjective argument that they are.

Tell me is your first gallon of gas different from your second? The whole idea of exempting some income from the income tax is ridiculous and not to mention the major cause of the complexity of our tax laws.

 

[Freemason9]

That's a bullshit marginal utility argument. The first dollar earned is no different from the 1 millionth dollar earned.

If 10% of every dollar earned was taken as taxes people would very quickly either learn to live without that 10% or they would work more to make up the difference.

A 10% tax on a million dollars does not require any cut in consumption or standard of living. A 10% tax on $20 thousand dollars does. The marginal utility argument is not bullshit, it's a fact that the impact WILL be greater on lower income. You can't just handwave it away.

Also, don't forget the "Bastille Factor!"

LOL

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A 10% tax on a million dollars does not require any cut in consumption or standard of living.

wrong wrong wrong libturds tried a luxury tax on yachts. People stopped buying yachts and 1000's in the industry were laid off!! With increasing marginal income people move up to bigger homes and boats etc. The tax had to be repealed. Why? Rich people don't like to be ripped off to create, support, and crippple welfare leeches.