Who Pays the Taxes? Who Should?

[Foxfyre]

No one said anything about guaranteed outcome or ease of outcome.

However when discussing national policy, you can't just discuss things in a vacuum. We have some of the worst upward mobility compared to other industrialized nations, if you're born poor in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada you have a better shot of raising above your socioeconomic class than the US.

You can't just say "poor people shouldn't be having families".

You want the tax rate of Sweden?? It is wealth redistribution, something a free society should never stand for

Your upward mobility is not the government's responsibility nor anyone else's

I don't say they should be forbidden from having families.. I do say that they have to support them themselves, regardless if it takes working 2 or 3 or whatever # of jobs... you deciding to have kids is not on anyone else's responsibility list

Exactly. Back when hubby and I started out, we both came from financially challenged families who gave us no help, and we knew we were on our own. More than once we had five jobs between us just to make ends meet, and yes we got behind in our payments sometimes and there were many weeks with more week than the paycheck could cover. But we managed. And we were dutiful tax payers and we didn't cost any of the rest of you a single dime of what you earned.

And our children never missed a meal, were reasonably well dressed, were very well educated, were provided with enough advantages to try for pretty much what they wanted to do whether in sports or music or other pursuits--if we we couldn't afford it we encouraged them to earn it themselves--and whether they would or would not go to college was never an option for them. They would go. And they would graduate. (They did.)

But that was in the days when people expected to support their families, there were essentially no government services to help out, and if we had routinely sent our kids to school without breakfast or lunch money or neglected them in any other way, social services would have been on our doorstep inquiring, and if we were unable to take care of our kids, those kids would have been taken and placed with people whod would take care of them until such time as we got our act together and could do it.

Rewarding people, at other people's expense, for making shitty choices, for having kids they can't support, for failing to equip themselves to support themselves, is a certain prescription to have more and more people making shitty choices, for having more and more kids they can't support, and taking away all incentive for equipping themselves to take care of themselves.

 

[syrenn]

No one said anything about guaranteed outcome or ease of outcome.

However when discussing national policy, you can't just discuss things in a vacuum. We have some of the worst upward mobility compared to other industrialized nations, if you're born poor in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada you have a better shot of raising above your socioeconomic class than the US.

You can't just say "poor people shouldn't be having families".

Tell me something...

Where is upward mobility a guarantee in life or this country?

As to poor people not having families. I have no problem with poor people having families.

i do have a problem when said family is produced on the taxpayers back. I am not saying people don't fall on hard times and deserve a lift up. That's fine. But if you enter the system with one kid... that ONE kid is ALL you will ever get entitlements for. If you have more... KNOWING you cannot afford the one you already have. Its on the parent to provide support for any additional children.

 

[syrenn]

If the fucking government is going to institute a tax then no one should be exempt.

Can you buy gas and not pay state and federal gas taxes? No.

Therefore if there is going to be an income tax then everyone with an income should pay it. Period.

I agree....

flat tax is the way to go....


no one is exempt...and everyone pays the same..... no deductions, exemptions or credits.

 

[syrenn]

No one said anything about guaranteed outcome or ease of outcome.

However when discussing national policy, you can't just discuss things in a vacuum. We have some of the worst upward mobility compared to other industrialized nations, if you're born poor in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada you have a better shot of raising above your socioeconomic class than the US.

You can't just say "poor people shouldn't be having families".

You want the tax rate of Sweden?? It is wealth redistribution, something a free society should never stand for

Your upward mobility is not the government's responsibility nor anyone else's

I don't say they should be forbidden from having families.. I do say that they have to support them themselves, regardless if it takes working 2 or 3 or whatever # of jobs... you deciding to have kids is not on anyone else's responsibility list

Exactly. Back when hubby and I started out, we both came from financially challenged families who gave us no help, and we knew we were on our own. More than once we had five jobs between us just to make ends meet, and yes we got behind in our payments sometimes and there were many weeks with more week than the paycheck could cover. But we managed. And we were dutiful tax payers and we didn't cost any of the rest of you a single dime of what you earned.

And our children never missed a meal, were reasonably well dressed, were very well educated, were provided with enough advantages to try for pretty much what they wanted to do whether in sports or music or other pursuits--if we we couldn't afford it we encouraged them to earn it themselves--and whether they would or would not go to college was never an option for them. They would go. And they would graduate. (They did.)

But that was in the days when people expected to support their families, there were essentially no government services to help out, and if we had routinely sent our kids to school without breakfast or lunch money or neglected them in any other way, social services would have been on our doorstep inquiring, and if we were unable to take care of our kids, those kids would have been taken and placed with people whod would take care of them until such time as we got our act together and could do it.

Rewarding people, at other people's expense, for making shitty choices, for having kids they can't support, for failing to equip themselves to support themselves, is a certain prescription to have more and more people making shitty choices, for having more and more kids they can't support, and taking away all incentive for equipping themselves to take care of themselves.

There it is in a nut shell. Institutional entitlement mentality.....

 

[AmyNation]

No one said anything about guaranteed outcome or ease of outcome.

However when discussing national policy, you can't just discuss things in a vacuum. We have some of the worst upward mobility compared to other industrialized nations, if you're born poor in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada you have a better shot of raising above your socioeconomic class than the US.

You can't just say "poor people shouldn't be having families".

You want the tax rate of Sweden?? It is wealth redistribution, something a free society should never stand for

Your upward mobility is not the government's responsibility nor anyone else's

I don't say they should be forbidden from having families.. I do say that they have to support them themselves, regardless if it takes working 2 or 3 or whatever # of jobs... you deciding to have kids is not on anyone else's responsibility list

Look, I'm not really sure who you think you're arguing with, but I'd appriciated it you'd stop assigning me positions I haven't taken. I don't want to redistribute wealth, and I don't want Swedens tax rate.

Creating an environment that doesn't hinder success is part of governments responsibly. Hence why taxes, regulation, and education are part of government. Currently we are 10th in upward mobility. It's great to say hard work is the key to success, but that hard work is more likely to lead to success if you live in Germany.

I started off in favor of a flat tax, however after having don't some research, it doesn't seem to work well in real life.

I'd say eliminate federal taxes altogether, and have the fed assess a yearly fee to each state, then allow the state to tax how they see fit. That way we can eliminate the power that comes with giving the rich loopholes, and the poor credits, and each state can decide what type of tax structure they want.

 

[Foxfyre]

If the fucking government is going to institute a tax then no one should be exempt.

Can you buy gas and not pay state and federal gas taxes? No.

Therefore if there is going to be an income tax then everyone with an income should pay it. Period.

Eliminating all credits and loopholes from the current tax code would only be a band-aid on the real issue. In 10 years, most of those deductions would be back, because both parties use them to bargin with.

The real issue is that our elected leaders and others in power in government are able to use the tax code and unrestricted spending to buy themselves power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. A flat tax would take some of that away from them at least for a time which would give themselves more incentive to practice good government instead of self-serving government. The ultimate fix is to take away all power at the federal level to benefit any individual or group or demographic in any way that does not benefit all whether rich or poor or whatever group they identify with.

 

[RDD_1210]

If the fucking government is going to institute a tax then no one should be exempt.

Can you buy gas and not pay state and federal gas taxes? No.

Therefore if there is going to be an income tax then everyone with an income should pay it. Period.

So I assume you are adamantly against extending the bush tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year?

 

[syrenn]

No one said anything about guaranteed outcome or ease of outcome.

However when discussing national policy, you can't just discuss things in a vacuum. We have some of the worst upward mobility compared to other industrialized nations, if you're born poor in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada you have a better shot of raising above your socioeconomic class than the US.

You can't just say "poor people shouldn't be having families".

You want the tax rate of Sweden?? It is wealth redistribution, something a free society should never stand for

Your upward mobility is not the government's responsibility nor anyone else's

I don't say they should be forbidden from having families.. I do say that they have to support them themselves, regardless if it takes working 2 or 3 or whatever # of jobs... you deciding to have kids is not on anyone else's responsibility list

Look, I'm not really sure who you think you're arguing with, but I'd appriciated it you'd stop assigning me positions I haven't taken. I don't want to redistribute wealth, and I don't want Swedens tax rate.

Creating an environment that doesn't hinder success is part of governments responsibly. Hence why taxes, regulation, and education are part of government. Currently we are 10th in upward mobility. It's great to say hard work is the key to success, but that hard work is more likely to lead to success if you live in Germany.

I started off in favor of a flat tax, however after having don't some research, it doesn't seem to work well in real life.

I'd say eliminate federal taxes altogether, and have the fed assess a yearly fee to each state, then allow the state to tax how they see fit. That way we can eliminate the power that comes with giving the rich loopholes, and the poor credits, and each state can decide what type of tax structure they want.

higher taxes will hinder my success....so were does that fit into your logic? Paying for someone else health insurance and education.... will hinder my success... again..where does that fit into your logic?


Flat tax works for me..... If the "poor" think its fair to take say...20% from anyone "richer" then themselves.... why isnt it fair to take the same 20% off of them?

20% is 20%...and hurts everyone the same regardless if you are rich or poor. Or are you saying its alright to hurt some..and not others?

 

[RDD_1210]

i voted flat tax

everyone has skin in the game...and everyone bleeds the same.

False. Not the same.

 

[syrenn]

i voted flat tax

everyone has skin in the game...and everyone bleeds the same.

False. Not the same.

of course you would think that...


yes it is the same. No one likes having 20% of their income stolen from them....

 

[G.T.]

You want the tax rate of Sweden?? It is wealth redistribution, something a free society should never stand for

Your upward mobility is not the government's responsibility nor anyone else's

I don't say they should be forbidden from having families.. I do say that they have to support them themselves, regardless if it takes working 2 or 3 or whatever # of jobs... you deciding to have kids is not on anyone else's responsibility list

Look, I'm not really sure who you think you're arguing with, but I'd appriciated it you'd stop assigning me positions I haven't taken. I don't want to redistribute wealth, and I don't want Swedens tax rate.

Creating an environment that doesn't hinder success is part of governments responsibly. Hence why taxes, regulation, and education are part of government. Currently we are 10th in upward mobility. It's great to say hard work is the key to success, but that hard work is more likely to lead to success if you live in Germany.

I started off in favor of a flat tax, however after having don't some research, it doesn't seem to work well in real life.

I'd say eliminate federal taxes altogether, and have the fed assess a yearly fee to each state, then allow the state to tax how they see fit. That way we can eliminate the power that comes with giving the rich loopholes, and the poor credits, and each state can decide what type of tax structure they want.

higher taxes will hinder my success....so were does that fit into your logic? Paying for someone else health insurance and education.... will hinder my success... again..where does that fit into your logic?


Flat tax works for me..... If the "poor" think its fair to take say...20% from anyone "richer" then themselves.... why isnt it fair to take the same 20% off of them?

20% is 20%...and hurts everyone the same regardless if you are rich or poor. Or are you saying its alright to hurt some..and not others?

20% doesn't hurt everyone the same.

It's the same number, not the same hurt.

 

[Foxfyre]

You want the tax rate of Sweden?? It is wealth redistribution, something a free society should never stand for

Your upward mobility is not the government's responsibility nor anyone else's

I don't say they should be forbidden from having families.. I do say that they have to support them themselves, regardless if it takes working 2 or 3 or whatever # of jobs... you deciding to have kids is not on anyone else's responsibility list

Look, I'm not really sure who you think you're arguing with, but I'd appriciated it you'd stop assigning me positions I haven't taken. I don't want to redistribute wealth, and I don't want Swedens tax rate.

Creating an environment that doesn't hinder success is part of governments responsibly. Hence why taxes, regulation, and education are part of government. Currently we are 10th in upward mobility. It's great to say hard work is the key to success, but that hard work is more likely to lead to success if you live in Germany.

I started off in favor of a flat tax, however after having don't some research, it doesn't seem to work well in real life.

I'd say eliminate federal taxes altogether, and have the fed assess a yearly fee to each state, then allow the state to tax how they see fit. That way we can eliminate the power that comes with giving the rich loopholes, and the poor credits, and each state can decide what type of tax structure they want.

higher taxes will hinder my success....so were does that fit into your logic? Paying for someone else health insurance and education.... will hinder my success... again..where does that fit into your logic?


Flat tax works for me..... If the "poor" think its fair to take say...20% from anyone "richer" then themselves.... why isnt it fair to take the same 20% off of them?

20% is 20%...and hurts everyone the same regardless if you are rich or poor. Or are you saying its alright to hurt some..and not others?

Amy isnt the first on this thread to suggest that the federal income tax should be abolished and the states should be assessed a yearly fee to support the federal government. And at face value it is a reasonable suggestion that merits consideration. And I have considered it. My conclusion:

It would be a different kind of flat tax, but so long as the federal government had the power to spend as much as it wants, it wouldn't help. And it would be disproportionately assessed on low income producing states--those with larger numbers of retirees, children, and others who are don't produce income. I see more downside and problems with this than I do with a federal flat tax uniformly applied as that would apply only to those who are actually producing income.

 

[AmyNation]

You want the tax rate of Sweden?? It is wealth redistribution, something a free society should never stand for

Your upward mobility is not the government's responsibility nor anyone else's

I don't say they should be forbidden from having families.. I do say that they have to support them themselves, regardless if it takes working 2 or 3 or whatever # of jobs... you deciding to have kids is not on anyone else's responsibility list

Look, I'm not really sure who you think you're arguing with, but I'd appriciated it you'd stop assigning me positions I haven't taken. I don't want to redistribute wealth, and I don't want Swedens tax rate.

Creating an environment that doesn't hinder success is part of governments responsibly. Hence why taxes, regulation, and education are part of government. Currently we are 10th in upward mobility. It's great to say hard work is the key to success, but that hard work is more likely to lead to success if you live in Germany.

I started off in favor of a flat tax, however after having don't some research, it doesn't seem to work well in real life.

I'd say eliminate federal taxes altogether, and have the fed assess a yearly fee to each state, then allow the state to tax how they see fit. That way we can eliminate the power that comes with giving the rich loopholes, and the poor credits, and each state can decide what type of tax structure they want.

higher taxes will hinder my success....so were does that fit into your logic? Paying for someone else health insurance and education.... will hinder my success... again..where does that fit into your logic?


Flat tax works for me..... If the "poor" think its fair to take say...20% from anyone "richer" then themselves.... why isnt it fair to take the same 20% off of them?

20% is 20%...and hurts everyone the same regardless if you are rich or poor. Or are you saying its alright to hurt some..and not others?

Can no one argue with me without assigning me positions I haven't taken?

Who said I was in favor of tax increases on the wealthy?

Taxes are the price you pay for living in America. You pay taxes, I pay taxes. The state and fed take and I'm sorry if you don't like how they spend it. I dont get the option to pay for only the things I want or use, and neither do you.

You like the flat tax. Ok.

Like I said, I was forthe flat tax, but it doesn't seem like it actually works well when put into practice. So why not let the states decide, take the fed out of it completely.

 

[Foxfyre]

Look, I'm not really sure who you think you're arguing with, but I'd appriciated it you'd stop assigning me positions I haven't taken. I don't want to redistribute wealth, and I don't want Swedens tax rate.

Creating an environment that doesn't hinder success is part of governments responsibly. Hence why taxes, regulation, and education are part of government. Currently we are 10th in upward mobility. It's great to say hard work is the key to success, but that hard work is more likely to lead to success if you live in Germany.

I started off in favor of a flat tax, however after having don't some research, it doesn't seem to work well in real life.

I'd say eliminate federal taxes altogether, and have the fed assess a yearly fee to each state, then allow the state to tax how they see fit. That way we can eliminate the power that comes with giving the rich loopholes, and the poor credits, and each state can decide what type of tax structure they want.

higher taxes will hinder my success....so were does that fit into your logic? Paying for someone else health insurance and education.... will hinder my success... again..where does that fit into your logic?


Flat tax works for me..... If the "poor" think its fair to take say...20% from anyone "richer" then themselves.... why isnt it fair to take the same 20% off of them?

20% is 20%...and hurts everyone the same regardless if you are rich or poor. Or are you saying its alright to hurt some..and not others?

Can no one argue with me without assigning me positions I haven't taken?

Who said I was in favor of tax increases on the wealthy?

Taxes are the price you pay for living in America. You pay taxes, I pay taxes. The state and fed take and I'm sorry if you don't like how they spend it. I dont get the option to pay for only the things I want or use, and neither do you.

You like the flat tax. Ok.

Like I said, I was forthe flat tax, but it doesn't seem like it actually works well when put into practice. So why not let the states decide, take the fed out of it completely.

I don't see a problem with the flat tax. It has worked very well in every place it has been tried except in Iceland as we previously discussed. Iceland, the quintessential socialist state, went in with a flat tax so high it could not help but choke all productivity and be impossible for lower income earners. It is an anomaly. In all the other nations with a low and reasonable flat tax have seen that yield very good things.

 

[Wry Catcher]

According to some polls, most Americans think the rich—several among the top 5% and all in the top 1%-- should be required to pay more.
Most Americans say rich should pay more taxes, according to new survey - CBS News

So what do you think?

Here’s the problem as I see it:

Who is paying the federal income taxes in the USA? Among all Americans:

Top 1%
AGI earnings: $343,927 and over
% of all income taxes paid: 36.73

Top 5%
AGI earnings: $154,643
% of all income taxes paid: 58.66

Top 10%
AGI earnings: $112,124
% of income taxes paid: 70.47

Top 25%
AGI earnings: $66,193
% of income taxes paid: 87.30

Top 50%
AGI earnings: $32,396
% of income taxes paid: 97.75

Bottom 50%
AGI earnings: below $32,396
% of income taxes paid: 2.25

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

President Obama wants the rich to pay more. Challenger Romney wants lower taxes for at least the middle class.

Are they both right? One more right than the other? Both wrong?

Please read the following explanation:

Economics of Beer Drinking​

Ten guys who were friends met at the local neighborhood bar to have a beer or two every Friday. They agree to pay the $100 bill in the same way they paid their income taxes.

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.00
The sixth would pay $3.00
The seventh would pay $7.00
The eighth would pay $12.00
The ninth would pay $18.00
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.00
Using this system, the men drank in the bar every Friday with no complaints until the owner threw them a curve..

"Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to give you a discount and your bill will be $80.00 instead of $100.”

They couldn’t divide the discount equally as that would be $3.33 each which would mean six of them would get paid to drink beer. So the bar owner, something of a mathematician figured it out roughly by percentages according to what each had been paying.

Now the fifth man joined the first four and paid nothing. A 100% savings for the fifth man.
The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3. (33% savings)
The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
The eight man now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
The tenth man now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)

Each of the bottom four still enjoyed the benefit of paying nothing and every one of the other six was better off than before.

But the fifth man began to compare savings and complained that he only got $1 of the $20 discount while the tenth man got $10. That wasn’t fair. And the others also noticed that they got less of a discount than the tenth man and began to angry. Why should the richest guy get the biggest break? And the bottom four joined in the protest: “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor.”

And they ganged up on the richest guy and accused him of all sorts of privilege and excess and greed and plotted how to get him to pay more of the bill.

The next Friday the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

(teaching attributed to) David R. Kamerschen, PH. D
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

Very cute but I wonder how instructive?

Today, your side of the aisle complains that some of our citizens pay too little or no income tax. Your side also argues that via collective bargaining workers are paid too much and receive too much in the way of benefits.

So, the public decides - as did the bartender - to cut their wages and benefits, take away their ability to bargain collectively and fire some of them so the remaining work longer and harder. Low and behold at the next (hurricane, earthquake, tornado, flood) the first responders don't respond, operating engineers and sanitation workers can't be found, grocery clerks and plumbers, electricians and pipefitters, mechanics and bus drivers walk off their jobs.

Be careful what you wish for, reality has a way of bitting you in the ass.

 

[AmyNation]

higher taxes will hinder my success....so were does that fit into your logic? Paying for someone else health insurance and education.... will hinder my success... again..where does that fit into your logic?


Flat tax works for me..... If the "poor" think its fair to take say...20% from anyone "richer" then themselves.... why isnt it fair to take the same 20% off of them?

20% is 20%...and hurts everyone the same regardless if you are rich or poor. Or are you saying its alright to hurt some..and not others?

Can no one argue with me without assigning me positions I haven't taken?

Who said I was in favor of tax increases on the wealthy?

Taxes are the price you pay for living in America. You pay taxes, I pay taxes. The state and fed take and I'm sorry if you don't like how they spend it. I dont get the option to pay for only the things I want or use, and neither do you.

You like the flat tax. Ok.

Like I said, I was forthe flat tax, but it doesn't seem like it actually works well when put into practice. So why not let the states decide, take the fed out of it completely.

I don't see a problem with the flat tax. It has worked very well in every place it has been tried except in Iceland as we previously discussed. Iceland, the quintessential socialist state, went in with a flat tax so high it could not help but choke all productivity and be impossible for lower income earners. It is an anomaly. In all the other nations with a low and reasonable flat tax have seen that yield very good things.

What countries are you holding up as a success? Because there are half a dozen eastern European countries that are calling it a failure.

 

[RDD_1210]

i voted flat tax

everyone has skin in the game...and everyone bleeds the same.

False. Not the same.

of course you would think that...


yes it is the same. No one likes having 20% of their income stolen from them....

Never said anyone likes it. Thanks for addressing something I didn't say.

Flat tax is not "bleeding the same". It's a simple idea for simple minded people.

 

[DiamondDave]

i voted flat tax

everyone has skin in the game...and everyone bleeds the same.

False. Not the same.

Not FEELING the same does not mean it is not the same...

10% of your dollar is the same as 10% of my dollar and 10% of Joe Crackhead's dollar

 

[DiamondDave]

No one said anything about guaranteed outcome or ease of outcome.

However when discussing national policy, you can't just discuss things in a vacuum. We have some of the worst upward mobility compared to other industrialized nations, if you're born poor in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada you have a better shot of raising above your socioeconomic class than the US.

You can't just say "poor people shouldn't be having families".

You want the tax rate of Sweden?? It is wealth redistribution, something a free society should never stand for

Your upward mobility is not the government's responsibility nor anyone else's

I don't say they should be forbidden from having families.. I do say that they have to support them themselves, regardless if it takes working 2 or 3 or whatever # of jobs... you deciding to have kids is not on anyone else's responsibility list

Look, I'm not really sure who you think you're arguing with, but I'd appriciated it you'd stop assigning me positions I haven't taken. I don't want to redistribute wealth, and I don't want Swedens tax rate.

Creating an environment that doesn't hinder success is part of governments responsibly. Hence why taxes, regulation, and education are part of government. Currently we are 10th in upward mobility. It's great to say hard work is the key to success, but that hard work is more likely to lead to success if you live in Germany.

I started off in favor of a flat tax, however after having don't some research, it doesn't seem to work well in real life.

I'd say eliminate federal taxes altogether, and have the fed assess a yearly fee to each state, then allow the state to tax how they see fit. That way we can eliminate the power that comes with giving the rich loopholes, and the poor credits, and each state can decide what type of tax structure they want.

It is NOT part of government's job to not hinder success for person A because they earn 25K and hinder it for person B because they earn 125K.... Upward mobility of the INDIVIDUAL is not a responsibility of government.. PERIOD...

And if you support a progressive system and a system with entitlements for some (most of which pay nothing into the federal income tax system) then you indeed support redistribution thru government and taxation... do not fool yourself that you do not

The only reason people say a flat tax does not work in real life is because of how they FEEL about the impact on this person who they sympathize with, and how they don't FEEL about person B who they FEEL has enough already

Taxes will never be eliminated... but they should be assessed and collected in a matter that is based on equality in treatment

 

[RDD_1210]

i voted flat tax

everyone has skin in the game...and everyone bleeds the same.

False. Not the same.

Not FEELING the same does not mean it is not the same...

10% of your dollar is the same as 10% of my dollar and 10% of Joe Crackhead's dollar

False. Feeling has nothing to do with it. We've been through this before and you lose everytime.