Taxes: 101

[OohPooPahDoo]

Now let me ask you again (since you keep asking questions, but avoiding mine), why should everyone enjoy all of the perks of government (what few there are left - like freedom of religion, speech, etc.) but not have the equal burden of paying for those perks?

In your analogy - why doesn't the wealthy man purchase ALL of the coffee that the less wealthy want for them?

Freedom of religion isn't a perk of government, its a natural right.

If the primary purpose of government is to protect property then its obvious those with the most wealth benefit more from protection of property.

You are so desperate to make a point, you'll spin anything, no matter how pathetic an attempt it is.

Government PROTECTS are "natural right". If it didn't, you'd be praying to Allah right now under the rule of Osama Bin Laden, you stupid fuck.

Government's primary purpose is NOT "to protect property" and that is fact. See how desperate you are to blame the wealthy and pin everything on them? You just make shit up. The primary responsibility of the federal government, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, is DEFENSE. Defending your freedom jack-ass, not your material items.

Defense is needed to protect property rights.

 

[P@triot]

Defense is needed to protect property rights.

Property means nothing when compared to actual freedoms. Your material items (that mean so much to the greedy left) can be replaced. Once your freedom is lost, it's nearly (if not completely) impossible to get back.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Defense is needed to protect property rights.

Property means nothing when compared to actual freedoms. Your material items (that mean so much to the greedy left) can be replaced. Once your freedom is lost, it's nearly (if not completely) impossible to get back.

If property means nothing then you should have no trouble with tax hikes on the wealthy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Why is percentage of income 'fair'" Wow.... you seriously don't understand why that is fair? Let me ask you this:

Why is it 'fair' that everyone have to follow the same laws? Since the wealthy pay for the largest part of government, shouldn't they be exempt from speeding laws? Shouldn't they be exempt from lawsuits? Shouldn't they be allowed to rape your wife? I mean, what is 'fair' about everyone having to abide by the same law

If everyone lives in the U.S., enjoys the same freedom, enjoys the same protections, then everyone should carry the same burden of paying for it. A flat percentage (I say 10% and not a penny more) for everyone, from the wealthiest to the most destitute is FAIR (and let's be honest, you know it too - you're just desperate to hide your greed).

As far as coffee, products, goods, etc. again I ask, why should the wealthy be punished because they've been more successful than you? This is the exact same kind of profound stupidity that caused the former U.S.S.R. to collapse. If you're going to punish success and reward failure, everyone is going to avoid success and fail intentionally. That fact that you don't understand something this simple is scary

You missed the point. Paying a percentage of your income in taxes shouldn't be fair if paying a percentage of your income for a cup of coffee isn't fair.

But you think that it is fair that the Rich pay more in taxes, which they would do with a flat tax,

so you've accepted the fairness of the Rich paying more...

...from this point on, the only debate is how much more?

No, you couldn't be more wrong. What I've accepted is that EVERYONE should carry a 10% burden. If that means you happen to pay more because you make more, so be it. But everyone should be forced to carry the SAME burden.

That is FAIR.

Well then why is a sales tax fair when everyone pays the same amount? The sales tax on that cup of coffee is the same for the rich guy or the poor guy. Is that fair?

They both can't be fair.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Why is percentage of income 'fair'" Wow.... you seriously don't understand why that is fair? Let me ask you this:

Why is it 'fair' that everyone have to follow the same laws? Since the wealthy pay for the largest part of government, shouldn't they be exempt from speeding laws? Shouldn't they be exempt from lawsuits? Shouldn't they be allowed to rape your wife? I mean, what is 'fair' about everyone having to abide by the same law

If everyone lives in the U.S., enjoys the same freedom, enjoys the same protections, then everyone should carry the same burden of paying for it. A flat percentage (I say 10% and not a penny more) for everyone, from the wealthiest to the most destitute is FAIR (and let's be honest, you know it too - you're just desperate to hide your greed).

As far as coffee, products, goods, etc. again I ask, why should the wealthy be punished because they've been more successful than you? This is the exact same kind of profound stupidity that caused the former U.S.S.R. to collapse. If you're going to punish success and reward failure, everyone is going to avoid success and fail intentionally. That fact that you don't understand something this simple is scary

You missed the point. Paying a percentage of your income in taxes shouldn't be fair if paying a percentage of your income for a cup of coffee isn't fair.

But you think that it is fair that the Rich pay more in taxes, which they would do with a flat tax,

so you've accepted the fairness of the Rich paying more...

...from this point on, the only debate is how much more?

No, you couldn't be more wrong. What I've accepted is that EVERYONE should carry a 10% burden. If that means you happen to pay more because you make more, so be it. But everyone should be forced to carry the SAME burden.

That is FAIR.

Everyone pays 10% in the 10% bracket. Everyone pays 35% in the money that's in the 35% bracket.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

"Why is percentage of income 'fair'" Wow.... you seriously don't understand why that is fair? Let me ask you this:

Why is it 'fair' that everyone have to follow the same laws? Since the wealthy pay for the largest part of government, shouldn't they be exempt from speeding laws? Shouldn't they be exempt from lawsuits? Shouldn't they be allowed to rape your wife? I mean, what is 'fair' about everyone having to abide by the same law

If everyone lives in the U.S., enjoys the same freedom, enjoys the same protections, then everyone should carry the same burden of paying for it. A flat percentage (I say 10% and not a penny more) for everyone, from the wealthiest to the most destitute is FAIR (and let's be honest, you know it too - you're just desperate to hide your greed).

As far as coffee, products, goods, etc. again I ask, why should the wealthy be punished because they've been more successful than you? This is the exact same kind of profound stupidity that caused the former U.S.S.R. to collapse. If you're going to punish success and reward failure, everyone is going to avoid success and fail intentionally. That fact that you don't understand something this simple is scary

You missed the point. Paying a percentage of your income in taxes shouldn't be fair if paying a percentage of your income for a cup of coffee isn't fair.

But you think that it is fair that the Rich pay more in taxes, which they would do with a flat tax,

so you've accepted the fairness of the Rich paying more...

...from this point on, the only debate is how much more?

No, you couldn't be more wrong. What I've accepted is that EVERYONE should carry a 10% burden. If that means you happen to pay more because you make more, so be it. But everyone should be forced to carry the SAME burden.

That is FAIR.

Taxing the income of those with only a subsistence level of income is not only practically worthless in terms of revenue, its just not right.

 

[P@triot]

Well then why is a sales tax fair when everyone pays the same amount? The sales tax on that cup of coffee is the same for the rich guy or the poor guy. Is that fair?

They both can't be fair.

First of all, sales tax isn't fair. If you're going to tax my income, then I shouldn't get hit over and over again with every purchase I make using what is left of my income after it has been taxed already.

Second, why should the "rich guy" be punished? Do you have any idea what a fucking asshole you sound like constantly looking for an angle to "get" the rich guy? It's so repulsive how envious you losers are of those that have been successful.

Third, since buying a cup of coffee is optional, the level of sales tax (not the sales tax itself) is absolutely fair. The "poor guy" shouldn't be buying caffeine stimulants anyway. He doesn't have the money to waste on stuff like that. He should actually show some maturity and responsibility and not spend what limited money he has on trivial items.

Your desperate attempt to demonize the wealthy and convince people you are justified in attacking them for their success is weak and simply doesn't hold up. But thanks for playing!

 

[P@triot]

No, you couldn't be more wrong. What I've accepted is that EVERYONE should carry a 10% burden. If that means you happen to pay more because you make more, so be it. But everyone should be forced to carry the SAME burden.

That is FAIR.

Taxing the income of those with only a subsistence level of income is not only practically worthless in terms of revenue, its just not right.

You display a remarkable level of ignorance with a statement like that. 47% of the nation doesn't pay federal income tax. If you do the math (something I'm certain you are completely incapable of), you would realize that you're talking roughly 150,400,000 people. If you took $1 in taxes from then, it's $150 million.

Only an idiot liberal dumbocrat could deem $150 million "worthless". Furthermore, if you took even $10 in taxes from them, it would equal over $1.5 billion. Can you imagine what $1.5 billion every year could do for the men and women of our military? Fix up their hospitals, provide them with better benefits, better healthcare, etc. But why would you give a damn about them, right? You're happy to mooch off the protections and freedoms they provide you without giving anything back to them. Just like you do the rest of the hard working men and women of the U.S.

Finally, it's not even about the revenue (which I proved is not "worthless" as your ignorant, uneducated ass stated above). It's about equality. It's time to make these parasites carry some burden. It's time to end the free ride gravy train for you parasites.

 

[P@triot]

You missed the point. Paying a percentage of your income in taxes shouldn't be fair if paying a percentage of your income for a cup of coffee isn't fair.

But you think that it is fair that the Rich pay more in taxes, which they would do with a flat tax,

so you've accepted the fairness of the Rich paying more...

...from this point on, the only debate is how much more?

No, you couldn't be more wrong. What I've accepted is that EVERYONE should carry a 10% burden. If that means you happen to pay more because you make more, so be it. But everyone should be forced to carry the SAME burden.

That is FAIR.

Everyone pays 10% in the 10% bracket. Everyone pays 35% in the money that's in the 35% bracket.

Everyone pays 10% because then everyone has an equal burden, while the rich still pay way more (because 10% of a million dollars is a hell of a lot more than 10% of a hundred dollars).

You want "brackets" to punish those who are more successful than you because you have a sick (possibly psychotic) envy of their success.

 

[hazlnut]

Rott, you be dumber than dirt.

The wealthy have a disproportionately greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as security of property rights, defense and infrastructure, as they have much more to lose if these fail than do the poor. Public investments in defense and foreign aid support corporate interests abroad. Public investments in industry (agriculture, energy, entertainment) and infrastructure stimulate growth of consumer driven domestic economy.


How do the 1% earn their money? Hedge funds. Private equity. Investment banking.

In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities. Also, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Thus, due to both economic and political realities, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time.

In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, free market democracies support progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes.

Maintaining a standard of living for the poor and working poor is part of our national character. During the Great Depression, before we had the safety nets, there was rampant crime, poverty, and demoralization.

 

[P@triot]

Rott, you be dumber than dirt.

So what does it say that I'm exponentially brighter than you are or could ever be...?

The wealthy have a disproportionately greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as security of property rights, defense and infrastructure, as they have much more to lose if these fail than do the poor.

So we should punish the successful for doing well... You're extremely assinine statement has been tried worldwide and has been a spectacular failure. This was the same approach the former Soviet Union took. How did that work out? What parasites like you can't comprehend (because of your failure, helpless mindset) is that the successful need nothing from government. In fact, just the opposite, they over come government. Why do you think people like Warren Buffet support higher taxes? Because they store their money overseas where the U.S. government can't touch it. When you parasites demand higher minimum wages, the successful just circumvent those laws by outsourcing jobs overseas. They don't submit like people like you do - they consider government policy nothing more than a speed bump which creates a new challenge for them to overcome.

Public investments in defense and foreign aid support corporate interests abroad.

No conservative I am aware of has ever debated the need for strong defense. In fact, it's your side of the aisle that believes we need to disband our military, dispose of our nuclear weapons, and submit to our enemies.

As far as foreign aid, what an absurd statement. Foreign aid support federal government interest around the world (hence the reason you socialists love it). It does damn near nothing for corporate interests. Furthermore, even if it did support corporate interest, it doesn't make it right. Corporations are responsible for their own penetration into foreign markets.

Public investments in industry (agriculture, energy, entertainment) and infrastructure stimulate growth of consumer driven domestic economy.

Complete and total bullshit. You're literally taking the most nonsensical, absurd talking points from the socialist handbook in your desperation for a response to my previous posts that have buried your failed ideology with facts.

How do the 1% earn their money? Hedge funds. Private equity. Investment banking.

Really? The wealthiest man in the U.S. - Bill Gates - made his fortune by inventing Windows and the creating a company around it called Microsoft. The same with Steve Jobs (Apple), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Larry Page & Sergey Brin (Google), Phil Knight (Nike), Michael Dell (Dell). I could continue, but even a fuck'n moron like you gets the point. Each of these individual's did not buy stock and strike gold. What they did do was invent/develop a product, then build a company around that product. And it took an ungodly amount of work (another thing parasites like you will never do or understand).

Also, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Thus, due to both economic and political realities, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time.

Really? So how do you explain the demonization of the wealth by the dumbocrat party (now completely controlled by radical socialists/marxists/communists) and policy which is highly detrimental to the wealthy? Higher taxes, anti-capitalist policies like Dodd-Frank, and a whole lot more is glaring evidence of the exact opposite of your absurd claims.

Maintaining a standard of living for the poor and working poor is part of our national character. During the Great Depression, before we had the safety nets, there was rampant crime, poverty, and demoralization.

So what you're saying is the criminal element in our society should have the right to extort society by threatening criminal behavior unless they are given a slew of benefits (slush funds called welfare, unemployment, etc., free healthcare, subsidized housing, etc.)?

People are responsible for "maintaining" their own standard of living. A concept parasites like you just can't comprehend.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No, you couldn't be more wrong. What I've accepted is that EVERYONE should carry a 10% burden. If that means you happen to pay more because you make more, so be it. But everyone should be forced to carry the SAME burden.

That is FAIR.

Taxing the income of those with only a subsistence level of income is not only practically worthless in terms of revenue, its just not right.

You display a remarkable level of ignorance with a statement like that. 47% of the nation doesn't pay federal income tax.

No, 47% didn't pay any income tax in 2011. That doesn't mean they haven't paid income tax.

 

[Dutch]

According to the IRS - In 2007 the average Adjusted Gross Income over $10 million only paid 19% income tax while the average middle class AGI paid 24% income tax.

The rich don't pay federal Social Security tax, Unemployment Tax, Medicare Tax, Medicaid Tax, FICA tax, etc on amounts over $120k. That pushes the middle class tax rate even higher & the Rich's tax rates even lower. Then add in Federal use taxes, fuel taxes, State, County & City taxes that all smack the middle class even harder percentage wise.

Your chart is pure fiction & it also does not even add up to 100%.

Mitt Romney only paid 13% while the middle class paid 28%. How the hell can someone paying 28% compete with someone paying only 13%????? It is called subsidizing the rich!

Here is the real chart that squares with reality.

As I tried to explain to your ignorant ass once already, tax RATES mean NOTHING. The federal government does NOT pay debts with "rates" - they pay with money. And the wealthy are paying a fuck load of actual money.

You spin in not only typical of the dumbocrats, it's also weak and sad (also typiclal when it comes to their spin).

The CBO is widely regarded - by both sides - as the most reliable source for all things financial. So you can take your faulty IRS numbers and stick them up your dumbocrat ass.

If only dumbocrats could do basic math, they would understand the following:

13% of $10 million is $1.3 million

28% of $100,000 is $28,000

$1.3 million is a FUCK LOAD more of real actual money than $28,000 (again, since you dumbocrats are mathmatically challenged, it's more than 46x's the amount).

Guess your tax rate doesn't mean shit now when we talk real, actual money, uh?

If you think that a family paying 1.3 million out of 10 million is more of a financial burden than a family paying 28,000 out of 100,000, then there is no help for you.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

So the rich and powerful conspire to keep the middle class and the low income working class and the poor as poor as possible,

and THEN you want the rich and powerful to pass off their tax burden to the same people they've made as poor as possible?

What century do you think this is?

How do they conspire?

I'm genuinely interested in knowing.

 

[g5000]

According to the IRS - In 2007 the average Adjusted Gross Income over $10 million only paid 19% income tax while the average middle class AGI paid 24% income tax.

The rich don't pay federal Social Security tax, Unemployment Tax, Medicare Tax, Medicaid Tax, FICA tax, etc on amounts over $120k. That pushes the middle class tax rate even higher & the Rich's tax rates even lower. Then add in Federal use taxes, fuel taxes, State, County & City taxes that all smack the middle class even harder percentage wise.

Your chart is pure fiction & it also does not even add up to 100%.

Mitt Romney only paid 13% while the middle class paid 28%. How the hell can someone paying 28% compete with someone paying only 13%????? It is called subsidizing the rich!

Here is the real chart that squares with reality.

As I tried to explain to your ignorant ass once already, tax RATES mean NOTHING. The federal government does NOT pay debts with "rates" - they pay with money. And the wealthy are paying a fuck load of actual money.

You spin in not only typical of the dumbocrats, it's also weak and sad (also typiclal when it comes to their spin).

The CBO is widely regarded - by both sides - as the most reliable source for all things financial. So you can take your faulty IRS numbers and stick them up your dumbocrat ass.

If only dumbocrats could do basic math, they would understand the following:

13% of $10 million is $1.3 million

28% of $100,000 is $28,000

$1.3 million is a FUCK LOAD more of real actual money than $28,000 (again, since you dumbocrats are mathmatically challenged, it's more than 46x's the amount).

Guess your tax rate doesn't mean shit now when we talk real, actual money, uh?

It is going to be hard for someone to outdo the innumeracy of this post.

You also appear to have failed to see that KissMy's chart was also from the CBO.

 

[g5000]

Well then why is a sales tax fair when everyone pays the same amount? The sales tax on that cup of coffee is the same for the rich guy or the poor guy. Is that fair?

They both can't be fair.

First of all, sales tax isn't fair. If you're going to tax my income, then I shouldn't get hit over and over again with every purchase I make using what is left of my income after it has been taxed already.

Second, why should the "rich guy" be punished? Do you have any idea what a fucking asshole you sound like constantly looking for an angle to "get" the rich guy? It's so repulsive how envious you losers are of those that have been successful.

Third, since buying a cup of coffee is optional, the level of sales tax (not the sales tax itself) is absolutely fair. The "poor guy" shouldn't be buying caffeine stimulants anyway. He doesn't have the money to waste on stuff like that. He should actually show some maturity and responsibility and not spend what limited money he has on trivial items.

Your desperate attempt to demonize the wealthy and convince people you are justified in attacking them for their success is weak and simply doesn't hold up. But thanks for playing!

You are on the opposite side of conservatives if you are opposed to consumption taxes. Reading your posts is like watching a train wreck.

 

[g5000]

No, you couldn't be more wrong. What I've accepted is that EVERYONE should carry a 10% burden. If that means you happen to pay more because you make more, so be it. But everyone should be forced to carry the SAME burden.

That is FAIR.

Taxing the income of those with only a subsistence level of income is not only practically worthless in terms of revenue, its just not right.

You display a remarkable level of ignorance with a statement like that. 47% of the nation doesn't pay federal income tax. If you do the math (something I'm certain you are completely incapable of), you would realize that you're talking roughly 150,400,000 people. If you took $1 in taxes from then, it's $150 million.

Only an idiot liberal dumbocrat could deem $150 million "worthless". Furthermore, if you took even $10 in taxes from them, it would equal over $1.5 billion. Can you imagine what $1.5 billion every year could do for the men and women of our military? Fix up their hospitals, provide them with better benefits, better healthcare, etc. But why would you give a damn about them, right? You're happy to mooch off the protections and freedoms they provide you without giving anything back to them. Just like you do the rest of the hard working men and women of the U.S.

Finally, it's not even about the revenue (which I proved is not "worthless" as your ignorant, uneducated ass stated above). It's about equality. It's time to make these parasites carry some burden. It's time to end the free ride gravy train for you parasites.

$1.5 billion would run the military for about half a day.

Not kidding.

 

[g5000]

No, you couldn't be more wrong. What I've accepted is that EVERYONE should carry a 10% burden. If that means you happen to pay more because you make more, so be it. But everyone should be forced to carry the SAME burden.

That is FAIR.

Everyone pays 10% in the 10% bracket. Everyone pays 35% in the money that's in the 35% bracket.

Everyone pays 10% because then everyone has an equal burden, while the rich still pay way more (because 10% of a million dollars is a hell of a lot more than 10% of a hundred dollars).

You want "brackets" to punish those who are more successful than you because you have a sick (possibly psychotic) envy of their success.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison:

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

 

[g5000]

A consumption tax (or sales tax, if you prefer) is regressive, but its regressive nature can be reduced.

But for the moment, imagine to survive in a US that had no taxes, an individual needed $10,000. This would be just enough to buy the food, water, shelter, heat, and clothing to barely survive.

If a person then earned $10,000 in income, and was charged a 10 percent sales tax on every purchase of his goods, he would come up $1,000 short of the necessary amount to survive.

However, a person earning a $1 million income stands no risk of ever coming up short on the necessities to survive, even with a 10 percent sales tax.

This illustration serves to show a flat sales tax is a much heavier burden on the poor than on the wealthy, and that is why sales taxes are called "regressive", and why great men like Thomas Jefferson believed that lower income people should be entirely exempt from taxation, and that higher incomes should be progressively taxed. Thomas Paine believed such inequalities should be further mitigated by a guaranteed income from the federal government to every US citizen.

A $300 a month check from the federal government would be walking around money for a wealthy person, but for a poor person it could mean the difference between mere existence and a modicum of comfort.

At this point, UnConservative media outlets would deploy teams of "journalists" to find negroes with HDTVs and Furbies to prove the sheer waste such a government program incurs.

However, even the great hard-hearted libertarian Milton Friedman believed in a negative income tax system.

Over the years, I have come to believe the entire state and federal tax system should be entirely junked and replaced with the Fair Tax system.

This is basically a sales tax with prebates. Everyone gets a check from the government each month which would offset the sales tax. Walking around money for a millionaire, but a boon for the poor.

Advocates of the Fair Tax system often believe this would eliminate the IRS. But how could it? Who would manage the prebates? Prebates are dependent on the number of people in the household. You have to have an IRS to manage that.

But it would certainly be a much easier system to manage, and everyone would know exactly how much they are paying in taxes, and the government would not be able to hide any changes to the tax rate or prebate.

And it is a consumption tax, which is far superior to a production (income) tax.

 

[g5000]

So let's say everyone pays a Fair Tax of 22 percent on every purchase. Poor people recoup all their taxes when they get their prebate because they don't buy as much as wealthier people.

And then let's say the poor begin demanding free puppies from the government. The government could respond, "Sure, we can do that! We'll just increase the Fair Tax to 23 percent!"

Doing the math, the poor would realize that would bite into their real income.

"Okay. Let's forget about the free puppies."