Which income/tax bracket would you prefer?

[OohPooPahDoo]

Whoops, I'm no tax accountant, but just realized this is likely a sliding scale where all income up to x is taxed at a 35% rate, ect (so my analysis was off a bit).

Thanks for the insult OohPah, you sound like a very respectful and open individual. Par for the course, I'd say from folks I've met with your views (unfortunately).

.

Its "likely a sliding scale" ?

No guess work required, its
"the tax that is being/will be levied in 2013, when the new tax rates are in effect"
as mentioned in the OP. And it isn't 35% on all income up to 400k, either.

It's not very clear; our tax system is notoriously complex.

When you say "35% tax bracket", does that mean the entire income will be taxed at 35%? How about you post the incomes + effective tax rates for each so that we can make a quick and easy decision.

.

Does the term "35% tax bracket" mean "the entire income will be taxed at 35%" by the 2013 tax rates? Has it EVER meant that?

Also, you never addressed my other question; why are you so angry and disrespectful to others all of the time?

.

Not all "others" just idiots.

 

[g5000]

"You make too much money. You do not deserve it, nor do you NEED it, so we are going to tax you more."

Roads-n-bridges, roads-n-bridges, rah-rah-rah!

Businesses don't need roads and bridges to survive.

No, you have that backwards. No one else ever uses any schools or roads or bridges or buses.

Just rich people use those things to survive.

 

[DiamondDave]

"You make too much money. You do not deserve it, nor do you NEED it, so we are going to tax you more."

Roads-n-bridges, roads-n-bridges, rah-rah-rah!

Businesses don't need roads and bridges to survive.

And roads and bridges not on federal land or on a federal interstate need to be funded by federal taxes WHY???

 

[KevinWestern]

Not all "others" just idiots.

Well thanks again, OohPah, for the insult. Why do you treat others with such hostility? You never answered my question. If you think of yourself as a representative for the left, I’d like to let you know that you’re setting a poor example for your camp. I don’t have much respect for assholes.

And why am I an idiot exactly? (please answer in detail, I’d love to hear)

I must have missed the memo that our intelligence levels are now judged (by those on the left) by how much we understand the US's complex taxation system... Can you forward?





.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Did not say they did.. but nice try

I said every dollar earned regardless of where in a person's income level should be taxed the same.. which is treating the citizens equally without subjective criteria...

So dollars are citizens?

Again you attempt to insert something that was not claimed, nor insinuated

You said

...every dollar earned regardless of where in a person's income level should be taxed the same.. which is treating the citizens equally without subjective criteria...

Is this a Bill Clinton "is" thing?

We are taxed on income.. income is dollars earned by citizens.. there is no difference between dollar #3 earned by person A and dollar #12630784 earned by person B..

Sure, except that person A probably needs his 3rd dollar to survive a lot more than person B needs his 12,630,784th dollar, but hey - why let practical concerns enter into a discussion of - anything?

yet you wish to treat person B differently on how they are taxed because of a subjective criteria on whether dollar 3 or dollar 12630784 means something different..

And Lord knows, we can't let anything subjective get into our decision making. When need to be 100% objective. For instance, X - 2% is clearly equal to or greater than X when Obama does it - because we feew it so.

the person is taxed ON the income, yet in your little world you get to determine whether that particular dollar is 'expendable' or 'necessary'... because you then get to interject your FEELINGS about the personal situation of the person based on your subjective criteria... hence you can then justify by FEELING that person B should foot more of the bill for services person A would use

Its 100% feewings, you're right. To suggest that someone 'needs' their third dollar of income is 100% subjective - we've no way whatsoever to determine how much it costs to live - that's all subjective - who really knows, anyway? The cost of living is just random and mysterious, no one has been able to even pin down a ballpark figure on that one.

And all I know is the 16th amendment guarantees dollars will be taxed as DiamondDave feews is right, the Congress should have nothing to do with it.

Why not progressive sales tax??

You mean a luxury tax? They already have those.

I know, progressive cigarette tax!! Or maybe even progressive gas tax!!! You get to throw in your subjective bullshit to deem person A is more WORTHY of a free ride, while person B gets to foot the bill..

Why tax at all? Doing so requires making decisions that aren't 100% objective. We can't have that.

Sorry.. I would rather have a system where NO citizen gets to subject to more governmental power in the pandering game... I would rather we have the equal treatment where government loses that power of playing the pandering game... I don't want a rich person getting an exemption that a poor person is not, just as I do not want a poor person getting a rate a rich person is not.. the parts of the SUBJECTIVE system that leads to the pandering have to go on ALL sides....

The system must be made 100% objective. 100% objective means it agrees with DiamondDave.

So Dictator Dave, what have you 100% objectively decreed our flat tax rate to be?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I prefer it to be the same as anyone else.. blind to which # dollar it is that is earned.. without exemption, exception, or deduction

Because no dollar earned by any person, regardless of income level, should be taxed any differently... But then again.. I prefer that equality in treatment by government under law thing

I had no idea that dollars had rights.

They don't, but I have a right to them when they are in my possession when legally obtained, they are my property.

Do try and keep up PooperDooper.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

"You make too much money. You do not deserve it, nor do you NEED it, so we are going to tax you more."

Roads-n-bridges, roads-n-bridges, rah-rah-rah!

Businesses don't need roads and bridges to survive.

And roads and bridges not on federal land or on a federal interstate need to be funded by federal taxes WHY???

They don't. They could just not exist, if you prefer.

 

[g5000]

Clearly the government NEEDS your money. You don't. So it's okay for the government to take it. If you have enough for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches after the government has taken its "fair share", all is good!

You don't NEED a Mercedes, you fucking pig!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Clearly the government NEEDS your money. You don't. So it's okay for the government to take it. If you have enough for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches after the government has taken its "fair share", all is good!

You don't NEED a Mercedes, you fucking pig!

I know you are being snarky, but sadly, that's how many on the left see it.. it is the government's money and anything they let you keep is a gift from heaven!!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I prefer it to be the same as anyone else.. blind to which # dollar it is that is earned.. without exemption, exception, or deduction

Because no dollar earned by any person, regardless of income level, should be taxed any differently... But then again.. I prefer that equality in treatment by government under law thing

I had no idea that dollars had rights.

They don't, but I have a right to them when they are in my possession as when legally obtained, they are my property.

Do try and keep up PooperDooper.

The 16th amendment allows Congress to levy a tax on your income, maybe you hadn't been made aware of that.

 

[g5000]

Clearly the government NEEDS your money. You don't. So it's okay for the government to take it. If you have enough for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches after the government has taken its "fair share", all is good!

You don't NEED a Mercedes, you fucking pig!

I know you are being snarky, but sadly, that's how many on the left see it.. it is the government's money and anything they let you keep is a gift from heaven!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10]www.WorldTV.in - Hillary Clinton on Oil Profits - YouTube[/ame]

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Clearly the government NEEDS your money. You don't. So it's okay for the government to take it. If you have enough for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches after the government has taken its "fair share", all is good!

You don't NEED a Mercedes, you fucking pig!

Its only OK for government to take your money when the People don't pass a 16th amendment making it Constitutional and when the government doesn't pass a law deciding what the tax will be. When they DO those things, its clearly not OK!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I had no idea that dollars had rights.

They don't, but I have a right to them when they are in my possession as when legally obtained, they are my property.

Do try and keep up PooperDooper.

The 16th amendment allows Congress to levy a tax on your income, maybe you hadn't been made aware of that.

I'm painfully aware... what does that have to do with your absurd question?

 

[syrenn]

Suppose your boss asked you which income you wanted and you got to pick. 390k or 410k. Suppose also the tax on that income is the tax that is being/will be levied in 2013, when the new tax rates are in effect.


Which would you pick?

I would prefer to be in the flat tax bracket

where everyone pays the same % of their income.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Clearly the government NEEDS your money. You don't. So it's okay for the government to take it. If you have enough for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches after the government has taken its "fair share", all is good!

You don't NEED a Mercedes, you fucking pig!

Its only OK for government to take your money when the People don't pass a 16th amendment making it Constitutional and when the government doesn't pass a law deciding what the tax will be. When they DO those things, its clearly not OK!

Are you high?

 

[DiamondDave]

So dollars are citizens?

Again you attempt to insert something that was not claimed, nor insinuated

You said

Is this a Bill Clinton "is" thing?

Sure, except that person A probably needs his 3rd dollar to survive a lot more than person B needs his 12,630,784th dollar, but hey - why let practical concerns enter into a discussion of - anything?

And Lord knows, we can't let anything subjective get into our decision making. When need to be 100% objective. For instance, X - 2% is clearly equal to or greater than X when Obama does it - because we feew it so.


Its 100% feewings, you're right. To suggest that someone 'needs' their third dollar of income is 100% subjective - we've no way whatsoever to determine how much it costs to live - that's all subjective - who really knows, anyway? The cost of living is just random and mysterious, no one has been able to even pin down a ballpark figure on that one.

And all I know is the 16th amendment guarantees dollars will be taxed as DiamondDave feews is right, the Congress should have nothing to do with it.


You mean a luxury tax? They already have those.

I know, progressive cigarette tax!! Or maybe even progressive gas tax!!! You get to throw in your subjective bullshit to deem person A is more WORTHY of a free ride, while person B gets to foot the bill..

Why tax at all? Doing so requires making decisions that aren't 100% objective. We can't have that.

Sorry.. I would rather have a system where NO citizen gets to subject to more governmental power in the pandering game... I would rather we have the equal treatment where government loses that power of playing the pandering game... I don't want a rich person getting an exemption that a poor person is not, just as I do not want a poor person getting a rate a rich person is not.. the parts of the SUBJECTIVE system that leads to the pandering have to go on ALL sides....

The system must be made 100% objective. 100% objective means it agrees with DiamondDave.

So Dictator Dave, what have you 100% objectively decreed our flat tax rate to be?

No.. the luxury tax is like the gas tax.. on a THING.. not whether the person buying the gas or the unnecessary entertainment object is making 10K or 100M...

And yes.. all taxation should be without the subjective BULLSHIT.. blind to the situation.. just as justice is to be blind regardless of income, etc.. it is not the government's job to determine if you NEED dollar 3 more than the next guy needs dollar 8476823... Hey.. you may earn 20K, have zero bills and a nest egg stashed away.. your need for dollar 3 may be different than person C who also earns 20K but has 40K in college loans, a car, and rent... lets get even MORE SUBJECTIVE to make it even more FAIR

What % do we need?? The % that pays for the governmental bills and keeps us from running a deficit... funny thing is.. suddenly if those who have been getting off while others pay for their services finally start seeing a bill for those services, chances are that they will also start calling for more fiscal responsibility, audits, and reduction of governmental actions... and that, my dear troll, is why government plays the pandering game and the class warfare game... to keep the system alive that gives them more power.. the power to expand.. the power to keep gaining more power and more control.. which is why it has grown into the leviathan we have that is unsustainable... all because of the pandering, greed, and warfare built into the system

 

[syrenn]

I prefer it to be the same as anyone else.. blind to which # dollar it is that is earned.. without exemption, exception, or deduction

Because no dollar earned by any person, regardless of income level, should be taxed any differently... But then again.. I prefer that equality in treatment by government under law thing

^

what he said

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Suppose your boss asked you which income you wanted and you got to pick. 390k or 410k. Suppose also the tax on that income is the tax that is being/will be levied in 2013, when the new tax rates are in effect.


Which would you pick?

I would prefer to be in the flat tax bracket

where everyone pays the same % of their income.

There isn't one.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Suppose your boss asked you which income you wanted and you got to pick. 390k or 410k. Suppose also the tax on that income is the tax that is being/will be levied in 2013, when the new tax rates are in effect.


Which would you pick?

I would prefer to be in the flat tax bracket

where everyone pays the same % of their income.

There isn't one.

Uhm, probably why they used the word prefer there Sparky.

 

[syrenn]

Suppose your boss asked you which income you wanted and you got to pick. 390k or 410k. Suppose also the tax on that income is the tax that is being/will be levied in 2013, when the new tax rates are in effect.


Which would you pick?

I would prefer to be in the flat tax bracket

where everyone pays the same % of their income.

There isn't one.

yeah i know... the low income, no income non federal tax paying leaches are very happy about that.