What should the highest income tax rate be?

[eagle1462010]

I addressed the VAT already and how it's different than the Fair Tax, I'm not going to do it again. I'm not knocking you for asking and I don't expect you to read the whole conversation before posting, I'm just letting you know.

As for the income tax, when you say my examples are not affected by the income tax, of course they are, think about it.

- Your flat tax for example helps foreign companies over American

Employers have to pay employees enough to live and enough to pay their taxes. So if you tax all products equally, then you're agnostic as to where they are made. By taxing income, you are taxing American companies more than foreign companies in general because we have more employees here. That income is paid to the employee by their employer, and embedded in the price of the product.

- Companies that automate over those that hire employees

You automate, your employees salaries, and your employees taxes go away. That means you can charge less than companies that don't.

- Companies that offshore production over keep production in the US.

Same thing again, you move production off shore, your employee salary goes away, and their taxes.

It's undeniable. All taxes are taxes on economic activity. So clearly, the flattest tax of all is a flat tax on economic activity. That way we focus not on avoiding the tax man but just driving efficiency based on economics.

Corporate Taxes are a different entity to me. I understand where you are going, but

If I make $30 an hour at a company to work now, I still make $30 an Hour irregardless of the Tax Code.

So if it goes to a Flat tax, I'll still make $30 an hour but pay the Federal Tax at 15%.

I don't see through to your point.

I wasn't talking about corporate taxes. Your company has to pay you enough to pay your income taxes. Your salary is not calculated regardless of the taxes you pay.

Let's say you got a graduate degree, work experience and are reliable.

Joe didn't do any of that. You're worth three times what Joe is.

Your expected tax rate is 25%. Joe's is 0%.

Joe makes $10 an hour.

Well, you then have to make $40 an hour. You pay 25% tax, and you get the $30 an hour that is three times Joe.

If your company does not pay you $40 an hour, then you will not work for them. You're three times as valuable as Joe economically. You're not going to work for $30 and just give 25% of what you're worth to the government.

Your company collects that money from their customers, it's baked into the price of their product. If they can't, they go bust.

So, your company can do that, or they can go off shore or they can automate. Or an overseas competitor who doesn't have to pay $10 an hour to you to pay your taxes can beat them.

Money does not appear from nowhere and it doesn't go nowhere.

That's absurd. You are pulling numbers out of no where. If I'm making $30 now and pay taxes I'll make the same under the new law. Taxation rates don't set your pay scale.

You are also using prorated data. I said nothing about that. The 15% tax rate would hardly change my net income at all if it happened right now. Either way I pay taxes, it's just that one is simple and one requires some time filing my taxes.

I prefer the simple way. It's not going to affect my pay scale.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your argument is based on shallow assertions since you can't seem to think beyond CURRENT INCOME TAX RATES, trying looking below the surface for a change instead of just mindlessly chanting partisan propaganda in the hope that it will be a workable substitute for reason and research. The poor are getting crushed and wealth inequality is increasing and we already have a progressive income tax system, doesn't that raise any red flags in your mind? Maybe an opportunity to at least delve into the "why is that?" a bit deeper than what your self-serving, partisan politicians are telling you is the reason.

What do you imagine would be the effects on the living standards of the poor if all federal taxation took the form of a flat income tax and all other forms of hidden taxation that the poor are currently subject to were eliminated? What we be the effects on "the rich" if they couldn't benefit from tax favoritism, tax sheltering and the distribution effects of inflation?

We've actually been flattening the tax rates for decades, taking OUT the progressivity of the rate structure, concurrent over time with the 'crushing' of the poor and the rising wealth inequality,

That's a bald face LIE, the income tax system has been anything but flattening since we have nearly 50% of the wage earners paying no income taxes at all. You seem to have no clue that your beloved state is in fact one big economic exploitation machine and that the poor you claim to care about (and have made it obvious that you really don't) are the people that are it's hardest hit victims.

so it is wholly fallacious for you to attempt to blame this occurrence on the 'progressive tax system'.

It is wholly ignorant for you to make such claims when it is crystal clear that you have no interest in finding the truth and are (as usual) stuck in partisan reactionary mode, you know if you keep refusing to use your brain for anything besides engaging your fingers to parrot partisan rhetoric it's going to shrivel up on you. Continue to wallow in your ignorance if that is what you wish, it will only keep reality at bay for so long though.

How will raising taxes on the poor help them, specifically?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kaz, it's not about what GOVERNMENT can afford, it's about what WE (as in the tax payers) can afford to have government perform on our behalf. If we don't like the price tag for what we say we want government to do then we need to lower our expectations.

So how is that different than the question then?

It's a different question because until you know what the price tag actually is how do you know what it is you can afford and how best to pay for it? One of our problems as a people is that we have become completely disconnected from the price of what we say we want and what the government ends up really charging us for it. We seem to think that government can magically grant goodies at no cost to us personally.

So who is going to decide then?

In a world that's not completely upside down the people and the states would decide, after all we're the ones that granted the federal government it's authority in the first place. However we have a mechanism at hand that will begin the process if only the political courage exists to use it, namely a refusal to raise the debt ceiling (aka the mythical "government shut down"). You and I both know that forbidding further debt increase isn't really a "shut down" since government still has cash flow, the debt can be serviced, social security checks can still go out, etc.., but what it will do is FORCE Washington to begin jettisoning that which is unnecessary (i.e. setting priorities), give it a year and when the world doesn't come to an end I'm betting people will start to wake up to the fact that what we've been told is the price tag for what we want and the actual price we've been forced to pay are two different things.

It sounds like a lot of hand waiving that ends us up where we are now.

All of this is "a lot of hand waiving" since nothing discussed on this board is going to solve a damn thing in the real world, it's all entertainment.

At a trillion dollar deficit, the government is borrowing, let's say, 1/3 of what it's spending.

If you do not raise the debt ceiling when it's hit, that borrowing necessarily must come down to zero;

that means a third of what the government is currently spending has to stop.

Which third of the government do you plan to stop spending on?

 

[percysunshine]

For the richest, most evil bastard in the country, what should their maximum income tax rate be?

I say 10%, that's enough for God.

I favor the Fair Tax, but this question assumes we don't change tax systems.

EDIT: Per an excellent point from iamwhatiseem, my intent in the ranges is that your rate is somewhere in that range. I did not mean you are OK with the entire range. I didn't want to get carried away with the number of choices.

How much??

If you had been Barack Obama Jr. or Barack Obama Sr., you would want 100% of every one's income taxed and the government would dole back to you in goods and services, an amount based upon that income.

Actually, it would be doled back based on some arbitrary measure of 'fairness'.

 

[DiamondDave]

Conservative tax theory is easily summed up,

they believe that the rich pay too much and the poor don't pay enough.

Better put that all should pay an equal rate... that all should have a stake in the game... and that it should have NEVER got to the point where close to 1/2 the adult citizenry pays no federal income tax

 

[DiamondDave]

I think the lowest tax rate the libs would accept is way, way too high

Dunno.. they do state all over the place that it is 'right' that the lowest earners pay nothing

The rate on money most likely to be spent on necessities should be lower than the rate on money that is not so spent.

I don't care if you spend it 100% on porn.. or 100% on food.. it is still income.. your dollar is the same as anyone else's dollar..

But hey.. equality only matters to the likes of you when it benefits you.. and you keep with the unequal treatment of others when it also benefits you.. typical progressive

 

[DiamondDave]

Your argument is based on shallow assertions since you can't seem to think beyond CURRENT INCOME TAX RATES, trying looking below the surface for a change instead of just mindlessly chanting partisan propaganda in the hope that it will be a workable substitute for reason and research. The poor are getting crushed and wealth inequality is increasing and we already have a progressive income tax system, doesn't that raise any red flags in your mind? Maybe an opportunity to at least delve into the "why is that?" a bit deeper than what your self-serving, partisan politicians are telling you is the reason.

What do you imagine would be the effects on the living standards of the poor if all federal taxation took the form of a flat income tax and all other forms of hidden taxation that the poor are currently subject to were eliminated? What we be the effects on "the rich" if they couldn't benefit from tax favoritism, tax sheltering and the distribution effects of inflation?

We've actually been flattening the tax rates for decades, taking OUT the progressivity of the rate structure, concurrent over time with the 'crushing' of the poor and the rising wealth inequality,

That's a bald face LIE, the income tax system has been anything but flattening since we have nearly 50% of the wage earners paying no income taxes at all. You seem to have no clue that your beloved state is in fact one big economic exploitation machine and that the poor you claim to care about (and have made it obvious that you really don't) are the people that are it's hardest hit victims.

so it is wholly fallacious for you to attempt to blame this occurrence on the 'progressive tax system'.

It is wholly ignorant for you to make such claims when it is crystal clear that you have no interest in finding the truth and are (as usual) stuck in partisan reactionary mode, you know if you keep refusing to use your brain for anything besides engaging your fingers to parrot partisan rhetoric it's going to shrivel up on you. Continue to wallow in your ignorance if that is what you wish, it will only keep reality at bay for so long though.

Carby is a habitual liar.. you should know this

 

[DiamondDave]

So how is that different than the question then?

It's a different question because until you know what the price tag actually is how do you know what it is you can afford and how best to pay for it? One of our problems as a people is that we have become completely disconnected from the price of what we say we want and what the government ends up really charging us for it. We seem to think that government can magically grant goodies at no cost to us personally.




In a world that's not completely upside down the people and the states would decide, after all we're the ones that granted the federal government it's authority in the first place. However we have a mechanism at hand that will begin the process if only the political courage exists to use it, namely a refusal to raise the debt ceiling (aka the mythical "government shut down"). You and I both know that forbidding further debt increase isn't really a "shut down" since government still has cash flow, the debt can be serviced, social security checks can still go out, etc.., but what it will do is FORCE Washington to begin jettisoning that which is unnecessary (i.e. setting priorities), give it a year and when the world doesn't come to an end I'm betting people will start to wake up to the fact that what we've been told is the price tag for what we want and the actual price we've been forced to pay are two different things.

It sounds like a lot of hand waiving that ends us up where we are now.

All of this is "a lot of hand waiving" since nothing discussed on this board is going to solve a damn thing in the real world, it's all entertainment.

At a trillion dollar deficit, the government is borrowing, let's say, 1/3 of what it's spending.

If you do not raise the debt ceiling when it's hit, that borrowing necessarily must come down to zero;

that means a third of what the government is currently spending has to stop.

Which third of the government do you plan to stop spending on?

Start with welfare, federal education spending, corporate bailout and subsidy, etc... you know, those things not covered in the constitution and thus that the government is not empowered to do anyway

 

[eagle1462010]

United States foreign aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. Foreign aid at roughly 50 Billion a year. Money that we have to borrow to give away.

U.S. Auditors Say Duplicate Programs Cost Billions - Bloomberg

100 BILLION to duplicate Federal Programs. aka agencies doing the same job or giving money to dead people.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11318sp.pdf

GAO report on duplicate and wasteful spending.

15% Flat Tax on AGI. Increased Revenues by 275 BILLION on 2011 data.

Top 10 Examples of Wasteful Federal Spending in 2012 | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

Wasteful spending again would save 10's of Billions of Dollars.........

These posted would flip the scale 450 BILLION A YEAR right away. Given the yearly deficits we would have to find over double that figure to get back on track.

No bid contracts military. And the waste in the military. aka paying 7500 for a new circuit board that has a 25 buck component bad. I've seen this my self in person. Secondly, contracts building military equipment on HARD DOLLAR. aka no longer rewarding builders for being late or being charged 3 times for the same job. Again, I've seen this in person.

That could easily cut 50 plus billion a year.

 

[eagle1462010]

If you value your tax dollars, you’re sure to be outraged by these wasteful projects. Following are the top 10 examples, five from each report. Though not necessarily the biggest ticket items, they are no doubt wasteful and representative of Washington’s spending addiction that must end.
Federal Spending by the Numbers 2012:
A reality TV show in India. The Department of Agriculture’s Market Access Program spends $200 million a year to help U.S. agricultural trade associations and cooperatives advertise their products in foreign markets. In 2011, it funded a reality TV show in India that advertised U.S. cotton.
Studying pig poop. The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a $141,450 grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure and a $1.2 million grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion.
Amtrak snacks. Federally subsidized Amtrak lost $84.5 million on its food and beverage services in 2011 and $833.8 million over the past 10 years. It has never broken even on these services.
Using military exercises to boost biofuels. The U.S. Navy bought 450,000 gallons of biofuels for $12 million—or almost $27 per gallon—to conduct exercises to showcase the fuel and bring it closer toward commercialization. It is the largest biofuel purchase ever made by the government.
Conferences for government employees. In 2008 and 2009 alone, the Department of Justice spent $121 million to host or participate in 1,832 conferences.
Waste Book 2012:
“RoboSquirrel.” $325,000 was spent on a robotic squirrel named “RoboSquirrel.” This National Science Foundation grant was used to create a realistic-looking robotic squirrel for the purpose of studying how a rattlesnake would react to it.
Cupcakes. In Washington, D.C., and elsewhere across the country, cupcake shops are trending. The 10 cupcake shop owners who received $2 million in Small Business Administration loan guarantees, however, can only boast so much of their entrepreneurial ingenuity, since taxpayers are backing them up.
Food stamps for alcohol and junk food. Though they were intended to ensure hungry children received healthy meals, taxpayer-funded food stamps were instead spent on fast food at Taco Bell and Burger King; on non-nutritious foods such as candy, ice cream, and soft drinks; and on some 2,000 deceased persons in New York and Massachusetts. Food stamp recipients spent $2 billion on sugary drinks alone. Improper SNAP payments accounted for $2.5 billion in waste, including to one exotic dancer who was making $85,000 per year.
Beer brewing in New Hampshire. Despite Smuttynose brewery’s financial success and popularity, it is still getting a $750,970 Community Development Block Grant to build a new brewery and restaurant facilities.
A covered bridge to nowhere. What list of government waste would be complete without a notorious “bridge to nowhere”? In this case, it’s $520,000 to fix the Stevenson Road Covered Bridge in Green County, Ohio, which was last used in 2003.

COMMENT

I posted this link on my other post. I simply couldn't help but to cut and paste some of it. This is WHY WE ARE FING BROKE.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservative tax theory is easily summed up,

they believe that the rich pay too much and the poor don't pay enough.

Better put that all should pay an equal rate... that all should have a stake in the game... and that it should have NEVER got to the point where close to 1/2 the adult citizenry pays no federal income tax

OK, so you're in the rightwing's camp that wants to raise taxes on the poor. You should be arguing with the other rightwing camp that insists that conservatives don't want to raise taxes on the poor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dunno.. they do state all over the place that it is 'right' that the lowest earners pay nothing

The rate on money most likely to be spent on necessities should be lower than the rate on money that is not so spent.

I don't care if you spend it 100% on porn.. or 100% on food.. it is still income.. your dollar is the same as anyone else's dollar..

But hey.. equality only matters to the likes of you when it benefits you.. and you keep with the unequal treatment of others when it also benefits you.. typical progressive

Then you must support the tax on cigarettes being the same as the tax on a loaf of bread.

That's insane.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a different question because until you know what the price tag actually is how do you know what it is you can afford and how best to pay for it? One of our problems as a people is that we have become completely disconnected from the price of what we say we want and what the government ends up really charging us for it. We seem to think that government can magically grant goodies at no cost to us personally.




In a world that's not completely upside down the people and the states would decide, after all we're the ones that granted the federal government it's authority in the first place. However we have a mechanism at hand that will begin the process if only the political courage exists to use it, namely a refusal to raise the debt ceiling (aka the mythical "government shut down"). You and I both know that forbidding further debt increase isn't really a "shut down" since government still has cash flow, the debt can be serviced, social security checks can still go out, etc.., but what it will do is FORCE Washington to begin jettisoning that which is unnecessary (i.e. setting priorities), give it a year and when the world doesn't come to an end I'm betting people will start to wake up to the fact that what we've been told is the price tag for what we want and the actual price we've been forced to pay are two different things.


All of this is "a lot of hand waiving" since nothing discussed on this board is going to solve a damn thing in the real world, it's all entertainment.

At a trillion dollar deficit, the government is borrowing, let's say, 1/3 of what it's spending.

If you do not raise the debt ceiling when it's hit, that borrowing necessarily must come down to zero;

that means a third of what the government is currently spending has to stop.

Which third of the government do you plan to stop spending on?

Start with welfare, federal education spending, corporate bailout and subsidy, etc... you know, those things not covered in the constitution and thus that the government is not empowered to do anyway

Education is 2% of the federal budget. Working from my 33% borrowed number, which is reasonably accurate,

that leaves you with 31% more of the federal budget to cut in order to cope with a debt ceiling freeze.

 

[DiamondDave]

Conservative tax theory is easily summed up,

they believe that the rich pay too much and the poor don't pay enough.

Better put that all should pay an equal rate... that all should have a stake in the game... and that it should have NEVER got to the point where close to 1/2 the adult citizenry pays no federal income tax

OK, so you're in the rightwing's camp that wants to raise taxes on the poor. You should be arguing with the other rightwing camp that insists that conservatives don't want to raise taxes on the poor.

Again.. it is wrong in the first place that a huge number of people were exempted from income tax and even given SUBSIDY from the federal government

It is like having a grocery store wrongly give you milk for free at the checkout line and charging someone else double for theirs.. and when the mistake is finally corrected much later, the one who was getting it for free complains that their price is being raised... it is plain idiocy

~50% are paying ZERO income tax to the fed.. WRONGFULLY... and even $1 of tax would be an increase, and you and your ilk would complain about taxing them..

Go fuck yourself

 

[DiamondDave]

The rate on money most likely to be spent on necessities should be lower than the rate on money that is not so spent.

I don't care if you spend it 100% on porn.. or 100% on food.. it is still income.. your dollar is the same as anyone else's dollar..

But hey.. equality only matters to the likes of you when it benefits you.. and you keep with the unequal treatment of others when it also benefits you.. typical progressive

Then you must support the tax on cigarettes being the same as the tax on a loaf of bread.

That's insane.

Yep.. an equal sales tax... stupid subjective sin taxes and sin banning I do not believe in

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your argument is based on shallow assertions since you can't seem to think beyond CURRENT INCOME TAX RATES, trying looking below the surface for a change instead of just mindlessly chanting partisan propaganda in the hope that it will be a workable substitute for reason and research. The poor are getting crushed and wealth inequality is increasing and we already have a progressive income tax system, doesn't that raise any red flags in your mind? Maybe an opportunity to at least delve into the "why is that?" a bit deeper than what your self-serving, partisan politicians are telling you is the reason.

What do you imagine would be the effects on the living standards of the poor if all federal taxation took the form of a flat income tax and all other forms of hidden taxation that the poor are currently subject to were eliminated? What we be the effects on "the rich" if they couldn't benefit from tax favoritism, tax sheltering and the distribution effects of inflation?

We've actually been flattening the tax rates for decades, taking OUT the progressivity of the rate structure, concurrent over time with the 'crushing' of the poor and the rising wealth inequality,

That's a bald face LIE, the income tax system has been anything but flattening since we have nearly 50% of the wage earners paying no income taxes at all. You seem to have no clue that your beloved state is in fact one big economic exploitation machine and that the poor you claim to care about (and have made it obvious that you really don't) are the people that are it's hardest hit victims.

so it is wholly fallacious for you to attempt to blame this occurrence on the 'progressive tax system'.

It is wholly ignorant for you to make such claims when it is crystal clear that you have no interest in finding the truth and are (as usual) stuck in partisan reactionary mode, you know if you keep refusing to use your brain for anything besides engaging your fingers to parrot partisan rhetoric it's going to shrivel up on you. Continue to wallow in your ignorance if that is what you wish, it will only keep reality at bay for so long though.

I said the rates have been flattening. Do you wish to argue that rates are more progressive now than they were 20, or 30, or 40, or 50 years ago?

Or would you rather argue that raising taxes, overall, on lower income Americans while lowering them on higher income Americans is going to make things better? Since that is your position.

 

[percysunshine]

An axiom of taxation is that society gets less of something when it is taxed. Common sense. That is what makes the State Lotteries so useful. It is a voluntary tax, and thus a tax on stupid people. We could use fewer stupid people.

 

[DiamondDave]

We've actually been flattening the tax rates for decades, taking OUT the progressivity of the rate structure, concurrent over time with the 'crushing' of the poor and the rising wealth inequality,

That's a bald face LIE, the income tax system has been anything but flattening since we have nearly 50% of the wage earners paying no income taxes at all. You seem to have no clue that your beloved state is in fact one big economic exploitation machine and that the poor you claim to care about (and have made it obvious that you really don't) are the people that are it's hardest hit victims.

so it is wholly fallacious for you to attempt to blame this occurrence on the 'progressive tax system'.

It is wholly ignorant for you to make such claims when it is crystal clear that you have no interest in finding the truth and are (as usual) stuck in partisan reactionary mode, you know if you keep refusing to use your brain for anything besides engaging your fingers to parrot partisan rhetoric it's going to shrivel up on you. Continue to wallow in your ignorance if that is what you wish, it will only keep reality at bay for so long though.

I said the rates have been flattening. Do you wish to argue that rates are more progressive now than they were 20, or 30, or 40, or 50 years ago?

Or would you rather argue that raising taxes, overall, on lower income Americans while lowering them on higher income Americans is going to make things better? Since that is your position.

Rates are not flattening... a range of zero to 39% is not flat, especially when about 1/2 the populace is paying that zero or even deriving benefit back monetarily or otherwise...

And perhaps, as others have been told before NUMEROUS times, you should look at what was considered income, what was deductible, etc before when the phony "90%" rates were in effect

Funny that you and other fuckers like you complain that the rich pay less than 15%.. raising them and ensuring everyone pays a flat 15% or 20% should be something you cheer for.. as well as cheering for equality in treatment that you claim you want.. but we all know that you and your fucking ilk only want to scream for equality when it benefits you and your cause.. and you and your fucking ilk have ZERO problem treating others unequally when it benefits you and your cause

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's a bald face LIE, the income tax system has been anything but flattening since we have nearly 50% of the wage earners paying no income taxes at all. You seem to have no clue that your beloved state is in fact one big economic exploitation machine and that the poor you claim to care about (and have made it obvious that you really don't) are the people that are it's hardest hit victims.



It is wholly ignorant for you to make such claims when it is crystal clear that you have no interest in finding the truth and are (as usual) stuck in partisan reactionary mode, you know if you keep refusing to use your brain for anything besides engaging your fingers to parrot partisan rhetoric it's going to shrivel up on you. Continue to wallow in your ignorance if that is what you wish, it will only keep reality at bay for so long though.

I said the rates have been flattening. Do you wish to argue that rates are more progressive now than they were 20, or 30, or 40, or 50 years ago?

Or would you rather argue that raising taxes, overall, on lower income Americans while lowering them on higher income Americans is going to make things better? Since that is your position.

Rates are not flattening... a range of zero to 39% is not flat, especially when about 1/2 the populace is paying that zero or even deriving benefit back monetarily or otherwise...

And perhaps, as others have been told before NUMEROUS times, you should look at what was considered income, what was deductible, etc before when the phony "90%" rates were in effect

Funny that you and other fuckers like you complain that the rich pay less than 15%.. raising them and ensuring everyone pays a flat 15% or 20% should be something you cheer for.. as well as cheering for equality in treatment that you claim you want.. but we all know that you and your fucking ilk only want to scream for equality when it benefits you and your cause.. and you and your fucking ilk have ZERO problem treating others unequally when it benefits you and your cause

My federal income tax currently comes out to about 10% on an income around 50 grand. And I have the minimum amount of deductions, dependents, credits, etc...

you want to raise my tax to 15 or 20%? lol, good one.

 

[DiamondDave]

I said the rates have been flattening. Do you wish to argue that rates are more progressive now than they were 20, or 30, or 40, or 50 years ago?

Or would you rather argue that raising taxes, overall, on lower income Americans while lowering them on higher income Americans is going to make things better? Since that is your position.

Rates are not flattening... a range of zero to 39% is not flat, especially when about 1/2 the populace is paying that zero or even deriving benefit back monetarily or otherwise...

And perhaps, as others have been told before NUMEROUS times, you should look at what was considered income, what was deductible, etc before when the phony "90%" rates were in effect

Funny that you and other fuckers like you complain that the rich pay less than 15%.. raising them and ensuring everyone pays a flat 15% or 20% should be something you cheer for.. as well as cheering for equality in treatment that you claim you want.. but we all know that you and your fucking ilk only want to scream for equality when it benefits you and your cause.. and you and your fucking ilk have ZERO problem treating others unequally when it benefits you and your cause

My federal income tax currently comes out to about 10% on an income around 50 grand. And I have the minimum amount of deductions, dependents, credits, etc...

you want to raise my tax to 15 or 20%? lol, good one.

Yet you want others to pay a higher rate... and even raise their taxes while you reap the benefits...

There should never have been a time where some paid differently on every dollar than others..

As stated.. you want equality when it benefits you and your agenda, and inequality for others when it benefits you and your agenda...

I'll stick for a call to equality in treatment.. blind to situation, race, sex, creed, etc