Which income/tax bracket would you prefer?

[Soggy in NOLA]

Because they don't pay income taxes. I pay income taxes. Not fair. BWAAHHH!!! Wo is me, my wife and I make a decent living, and have to pay some taxes because of it - our lives are so horrible! Oh to be a poor person and live tax free! If only I could do it!

I don't recall anybody arguing that they should live tax free...

No, just that taxes should always be cut and never be raised. If taxes are 60%, they should be cut. If they are 1%, they should be cut. If they are 0.000000000000001% - they should be cut. So you're right, not zero.

I think the spirit of the Conservative movement, with regard to taxes, is that the tax code shouldn't be some giant transfer payment scheme designed to "get the evil rich"... which is what it has become to some.

It isn't designed to "get the evil rich", no more than the gas tax is designed to "get the evil users of gasoline".

Well, I don't recall anyone arguing that taxes should continually be cut. But, to follow your logic, eventually taxes will be 100%.

All I'm saying that taking even a quarter of one's income is ridiculous. But, the progressives, or whatever they are calling themselves today, are never satisfied.. 10% today.. 20% tomorrow.. 30%.. 40%...

It never ends.

Make sense?

Hardly.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Are you not at all upset that a portion of your tax dollars is going to Halliburton to do soldier's laundry at $100/a pop?

Yes, I am. Does that mean the 16th amendment was never ratified?

We live in a republic where our leaders are chosen democratically - I expect that my tax dollars will sometimes be spent on things I disagree with - that is inevitable in a democracy.

 

[KevinWestern]

My comment on the ratification of the 16th amendment was merely that - a comment - and I explicitly stated I don't know much on the subject.

If you'd like to learn more, I'd recommend finding a nice looking blog with the craziest things you've ever heard, and just go with what they say. It must be true. The 16th amendment was never ratified - "modern research" says so!

1.) Do you judge a person's intelligence based on their full understanding of the US tax code off the cuff?

You don't have to fully understand the tax code to understand that 39.6% is not applied to every dollar if you make over 400k. No one can FULLY understand the code - i was just surprised you evidently hadn't ever read the first page.

2.) Are you an angry person, and do you treat people outside of USMB with the same level of immaturity and disrespect?

No, I get all my anger out on you idiots.

3.) Are you capable of having an adult-level conversation with another individual who doesn't necessarily think like you without insulting/him her?

Perhaps if they didn't get so offended and whiny every time someone called them a name.

The 16th Amendment argument was based on a book, by the way, called "The Law that Never Was". You can hold off on your excessive "blog" comments.

Whining? I could care less, OohPah, but personally I'm shocked that there are middle aged Americans out there who still carry the same conversational skills as a 12 year old boy at recess. You should stick with your wife because I doubt you'd be impressing to many other adults in the singles communities with your overall character.

And finally, I'd like to sincerely apologize to you for making a tax calculation mistake. I realize that tax errors are only experienced by "total idiots". Really hope you can find the room to forgive me.


.

 

[DiamondDave]

Because they don't pay income taxes. I pay income taxes. Not fair. BWAAHHH!!! Wo is me, my wife and I make a decent living, and have to pay some taxes because of it - our lives are so horrible! Oh to be a poor person and live tax free! If only I could do it!

I don't recall anybody arguing that they should live tax free...

No, just that taxes should always be cut and never be raised. If taxes are 60%, they should be cut. If they are 1%, they should be cut. If they are 0.000000000000001% - they should be cut. So you're right, not zero.

I think the spirit of the Conservative movement, with regard to taxes, is that the tax code shouldn't be some giant transfer payment scheme designed to "get the evil rich"... which is what it has become to some.

It isn't designed to "get the evil rich", no more than the gas tax is designed to "get the evil users of gasoline".

No.. you should be paying enough in taxes, just like every other citizen, to pay for the constitutional tasks of the federal government.. not more, not less... not more because you earn more, not less because you earn less.. not less because you had a rough year, nor more because you had a good year... not more because you paid off all your loans and more of your income is disposable, not less because you still owe 100K in college loans while you are only making 30K a year...

As stated.. you would indeed get more of a call from the populace to reign in government spending and growth if all citizens were paying the same tax on all earnings regardless of source on every dollar earned without exception or exemption.. and that is what government is afraid of

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't recall anybody arguing that they should live tax free...

No, just that taxes should always be cut and never be raised. If taxes are 60%, they should be cut. If they are 1%, they should be cut. If they are 0.000000000000001% - they should be cut. So you're right, not zero.

I think the spirit of the Conservative movement, with regard to taxes, is that the tax code shouldn't be some giant transfer payment scheme designed to "get the evil rich"... which is what it has become to some.

It isn't designed to "get the evil rich", no more than the gas tax is designed to "get the evil users of gasoline".

Well, I don't recall anyone arguing that taxes should continually be cut.

I don't recall any Republican ever arguing they should be raised

But, to follow your logic, eventually taxes will be 100%.

That's not my logic.

All I'm saying that taking even a quarter of one's income is ridiculous.

Sure - it would be ridiculous if we took a quarter of someone's income and didn't provide them with the safest nation in the world and the nation with the best infrastructure in the world, I agree.


BTW - do you have any idea how much someone needs to make before they are actually paying >25% average on their income?

 

[KevinWestern]

Are you not at all upset that a portion of your tax dollars is going to Halliburton to do soldier's laundry at $100/a pop?

Yes, I am. Does that mean the 16th amendment was never ratified?

We live in a republic where our leaders are chosen democratically - I expect that my tax dollars will sometimes be spent on things I disagree with - that is inevitable in a democracy.

Again, Oohpah (what is this 3-4 times?) just a passing comment on a topic I don't know much about. Not sure why you're attaching yourself to this so heavily...

Question; do you like being taxed x percent, and then the gov't taking a significant portion of those dollars to start imperialistic advancements on countries that posed no immediate threat to the United States? What are your thoughts on the subject?

Obama didn't cut that defense budget too much...



.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No, just that taxes should always be cut and never be raised. If taxes are 60%, they should be cut. If they are 1%, they should be cut. If they are 0.000000000000001% - they should be cut. So you're right, not zero.



It isn't designed to "get the evil rich", no more than the gas tax is designed to "get the evil users of gasoline".

Well, I don't recall anyone arguing that taxes should continually be cut.

I don't recall any Republican ever arguing they should be raised

But, to follow your logic, eventually taxes will be 100%.

That's not my logic.

Actually, yes it is...

All I'm saying that taking even a quarter of one's income is ridiculous.

Sure - it would be ridiculous if we took a quarter of someone's income and didn't provide them with the safest nation in the world and the nation with the best infrastructure in the world, I agree.




BTW - do you have any idea how much someone needs to make before they are actually paying >25% average on their income?

Sit down one day and add up your true tax bill.. Fed, State, Local, excise, sales, real estate, etc.

You'll be surprised.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't recall anybody arguing that they should live tax free...

No, just that taxes should always be cut and never be raised. If taxes are 60%, they should be cut. If they are 1%, they should be cut. If they are 0.000000000000001% - they should be cut. So you're right, not zero.

I think the spirit of the Conservative movement, with regard to taxes, is that the tax code shouldn't be some giant transfer payment scheme designed to "get the evil rich"... which is what it has become to some.

It isn't designed to "get the evil rich", no more than the gas tax is designed to "get the evil users of gasoline".

No.. you should be paying enough in taxes, just like every other citizen, to pay for the constitutional tasks of the federal government..

You mean the constitutional tasks as determined by Dictator Dave, not the Courts, right?

As stated.. you would indeed get more of a call from the populace to reign in government spending and growth if all citizens were paying the same tax on all earnings regardless of source on every dollar earned without exception or exemption.. and that is what government is afraid of

The louder call would actually be from all the people starving in the streets after the economy is shattered by the sharp reduction in demand that would inevitably follow such a massive shift of the tax burden onto the backs of the poor. But hey - those are practical concerns and so government shouldn't be involved with it. Too subjective.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well, I don't recall anyone arguing that taxes should continually be cut.

I don't recall any Republican ever arguing they should be raised

That's not my logic.

Actually, yes it is...

All I'm saying that taking even a quarter of one's income is ridiculous.

Sure - it would be ridiculous if we took a quarter of someone's income and didn't provide them with the safest nation in the world and the nation with the best infrastructure in the world, I agree.




BTW - do you have any idea how much someone needs to make before they are actually paying >25% average on their income?

Sit down one day and add up your true tax bill.. Fed, State, Local, excise, sales, real estate, etc.

You'll be surprised.

Sit down one day and figure out how much it would cost you to personally pour the X miles of road and interstate between your home and work.

Let me know what you figure out.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Are you not at all upset that a portion of your tax dollars is going to Halliburton to do soldier's laundry at $100/a pop?

Yes, I am. Does that mean the 16th amendment was never ratified?

We live in a republic where our leaders are chosen democratically - I expect that my tax dollars will sometimes be spent on things I disagree with - that is inevitable in a democracy.

Again, Oohpah (what is this 3-4 times?) just a passing comment on a topic I don't know much about. Not sure why you're attaching yourself to this so heavily...

Question; do you like being taxed x percent, and then the gov't taking a significant portion of those dollars to start imperialistic advancements on countries that posed no immediate threat to the United States? What are your thoughts on the subject?

Obama didn't cut that defense budget too much...



.

I don't like being taxed at all. I don't like having to pay for milk. I don't like having to get up at 4 in the fucking morning to change a poopie diaper on a screaming baby. But I have an obligation to my son, and obligation to the grocer and his supply chain that bring me my milk, and an obligation to my fellow citizen to pay what we as a nation have decided I owe in taxes.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

My comment on the ratification of the 16th amendment was merely that - a comment - and I explicitly stated I don't know much on the subject.

If you'd like to learn more, I'd recommend finding a nice looking blog with the craziest things you've ever heard, and just go with what they say. It must be true. The 16th amendment was never ratified - "modern research" says so!


You don't have to fully understand the tax code to understand that 39.6% is not applied to every dollar if you make over 400k. No one can FULLY understand the code - i was just surprised you evidently hadn't ever read the first page.
No, I get all my anger out on you idiots.

3.) Are you capable of having an adult-level conversation with another individual who doesn't necessarily think like you without insulting/him her?

Perhaps if they didn't get so offended and whiny every time someone called them a name.

The 16th Amendment argument was based on a book, by the way, called "The Law that Never Was". You can hold off on your excessive "blog" comments.

"The Law That Never Was" is actually the name of a blog The Law That Never Was: The Fraud of Income & Social Security Tax ? Home

You should stick with your wife because I doubt you'd be impressing to many other adults in the singles communities with your overall character.

Thanks for the dating advice, junior.

And finally, I'd like to sincerely apologize to you for making a tax calculation mistake. I realize that tax errors are only experienced by "total idiots". Really hope you can find the room to forgive me.


.

Its OK. THere are actually plenty of idiots out there who think the U.S. tax code is structured so you can make more money but bring home less.

 

[KevinWestern]

Yes, I am. Does that mean the 16th amendment was never ratified?

We live in a republic where our leaders are chosen democratically - I expect that my tax dollars will sometimes be spent on things I disagree with - that is inevitable in a democracy.

Again, Oohpah (what is this 3-4 times?) just a passing comment on a topic I don't know much about. Not sure why you're attaching yourself to this so heavily...

Question; do you like being taxed x percent, and then the gov't taking a significant portion of those dollars to start imperialistic advancements on countries that posed no immediate threat to the United States? What are your thoughts on the subject?

Obama didn't cut that defense budget too much...



.

I don't like being taxed at all. I don't like having to pay for milk. I don't like having to get up at 4 in the fucking morning to change a poopie diaper on a screaming baby. But I have an obligation to my son, and obligation to the grocer and his supply chain that bring me my milk, and an obligation to my fellow citizen to pay what we as a nation have decided I owe in taxes.

Again, you dodged my question.

Do you like the fact your gov't has used 4 trillion of our tax dollars to go to war with a country that never posed a threat to our nation? Shouldn't that waste be adequately addressed?


.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Again, Oohpah (what is this 3-4 times?) just a passing comment on a topic I don't know much about. Not sure why you're attaching yourself to this so heavily...

Question; do you like being taxed x percent, and then the gov't taking a significant portion of those dollars to start imperialistic advancements on countries that posed no immediate threat to the United States? What are your thoughts on the subject?

Obama didn't cut that defense budget too much...



.

I don't like being taxed at all. I don't like having to pay for milk. I don't like having to get up at 4 in the fucking morning to change a poopie diaper on a screaming baby. But I have an obligation to my son, and obligation to the grocer and his supply chain that bring me my milk, and an obligation to my fellow citizen to pay what we as a nation have decided I owe in taxes.

Again, you dodged my question.

Do you like the fact your gov't has used 4 trillion of our tax dollars to go to war with a country that never posed a threat to our nation? Shouldn't that waste be adequately addressed?


.

No. Does that mean I should stop paying taxes?

 

[DiamondDave]

No, just that taxes should always be cut and never be raised. If taxes are 60%, they should be cut. If they are 1%, they should be cut. If they are 0.000000000000001% - they should be cut. So you're right, not zero.



It isn't designed to "get the evil rich", no more than the gas tax is designed to "get the evil users of gasoline".

No.. you should be paying enough in taxes, just like every other citizen, to pay for the constitutional tasks of the federal government..

You mean the constitutional tasks as determined by Dictator Dave, not the Courts, right?

As stated.. you would indeed get more of a call from the populace to reign in government spending and growth if all citizens were paying the same tax on all earnings regardless of source on every dollar earned without exception or exemption.. and that is what government is afraid of

The louder call would actually be from all the people starving in the streets after the economy is shattered by the sharp reduction in demand that would inevitably follow such a massive shift of the tax burden onto the backs of the poor. But hey - those are practical concerns and so government shouldn't be involved with it. Too subjective.

The courts do not exist to grant further powers that were not specifically laid out in the constitution.. idiot.. again, your support of other power grabs by the ever growing leviathan

There should never have been a time where some were not paying taxes.. period.. it is like you going to the grocery store for 2 years and somehow being charged $0.43 for a gallon of milk instead of $4.30... and then you complain about the fix the store put you in when they started charging your what you should have been charged all along... 'oh woe is me, it is not fair', 'look at how they are increasing my burden'

Hey.. why not add MORE subjectivity?? I am sure it will 'fair things up' even more for you.. and I am sure that government will not grow because of it

You are indeed an idiot.. blinded by your greed so much that you wish force to make others pay more of their income while you pay less or practically nothing

 

[KevinWestern]

No. Does that mean I should stop paying taxes?

No, but I think you need to be just a bit more questioning of where your dollars are going. You seem to not give much of a hoot whereas I do.

Here’s the problem with the way you conduct yourself; you piss off people vs. actually drive a meaningful discussion. At the end of the day, I’d like to have a nice down to earth conversation with folks of all political affiliations and possibly convince someone else of my views and maybe learn a thing or two in the process. You, on the other hand seem to want to accomplish absolutely nothing. You’re literally wasting your time, our time, and server space. Is that the mark you want to leave?

Are you striving for a meaningless existence here? Is that really what you're after?

How about we all bounce some ideas off one another? I hate the military industrial complex and excessive taxes that feeds that machine (and makes the owners of Halliburton, Boeing filthy rich), and it sounds like you do too. Perhaps we can cut out that waste and lower our overall taxation levels?

.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

What %? And why?

I'm sure this will be a well thought out response.

 

[RDD_1210]

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

TRUE or FALSE:
"Government should consider the practical concerns and needs of the People when it makes laws."

What does a progressive tax system that promotes class envy/warfare have to do with this?

Are you really jealous of poor people?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No.. you should be paying enough in taxes, just like every other citizen, to pay for the constitutional tasks of the federal government..

You mean the constitutional tasks as determined by Dictator Dave, not the Courts, right?

As stated.. you would indeed get more of a call from the populace to reign in government spending and growth if all citizens were paying the same tax on all earnings regardless of source on every dollar earned without exception or exemption.. and that is what government is afraid of

The louder call would actually be from all the people starving in the streets after the economy is shattered by the sharp reduction in demand that would inevitably follow such a massive shift of the tax burden onto the backs of the poor. But hey - those are practical concerns and so government shouldn't be involved with it. Too subjective.

The courts do not exist to grant further powers that were not specifically laid out in the constitution.. idiot..

I didn't say they did.

again, your support of other power grabs by the ever growing leviathan

There should never have been a time where some were not paying taxes.. period.. it is like you going to the grocery store for 2 years and somehow being charged $0.43 for a gallon of milk instead of $4.30... and then you complain about the fix the store put you in when they started charging your what you should have been charged all along... 'oh woe is me, it is not fair', 'look at how they are increasing my burden'

Hey.. why not add MORE subjectivity??

I've a better idea. How about we let Dictator Dave decide what constitutes an "objective tax system" and go with that?

I am sure it will 'fair things up' even more for you.. and I am sure that government will not grow because of it

You are indeed an idiot.. blinded by your greed so much that you wish force to make others pay more of their income while you pay less or practically nothing

I'm not at all greedy. I'm quite pleased with my lot. I don't find paying a higher rate than those who make less than me unfair.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No. Does that mean I should stop paying taxes?

No, but I think you need to be just a bit more questioning of where your dollars are going. You seem to not give much of a hoot whereas I do.

Well then you are in the wrong thread. This thread is about where the money comes from, not where it goes.

Here’s the problem with the way you conduct yourself; you piss off people vs. actually drive a meaningful discussion.

At least I don't try to psychoanalyze them.

 

[BillyV]

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?

The question is not properly phrased; you won’t get something for nothing. What additional effort and/or investment is required to earn the extra money? If you had to work 3 months of weekends to earn the extra amount, would it be worth it if the net amount was less than the effort required? Now, your example implies only a 4% difference in tax, however, there could also be an additional 4% Medicare (Obamacare) tax, in addition to state income taxes depending on your state of residence. So now, are you willing to work that extra 3 months of weekends when you know you will only keep 50% or less of that marginal effort?

Let’s say you invested $100,000 and expected a 10% return, or $10,000. The investment carries a level of risk. At what tax rate would you decide that investment was not worth making? Would it affect your decision if you were going to make $7,000 after tax or $5,000? Of course it would; the expected tax may make the net returns on that investment unattractive and hence it will not be made. When enough of those investments are not made, economic growth suffers.

Liberals think money grows on trees and raising taxes has no effect on people’s financial decisions. I’m not sure which individual rates would be optimal to balance revenue needs with incentive to work/invest, but to assume that taking more of someone’s last dollar earned doesn’t make them less likely to expend the extra effort or investment to earn it is simply wrong.