http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/28/super-rich-tax-cheats-vid_n_115375.html
"...the top fifth of U.S. households (with incomes above $84,000) remain perennial targets of class-warfare enmity. These families, however, perform a third of all labor in the economy. They contain the best educated and most productive workers, and they provide a disproportionate share of the investment needed to create jobs and spur economic growth. Nearly all are married-couple families, many with two or more earners. Far from shirking the tax burden, these families pay 82.5 percent of total federal income taxes and two-thirds of federal taxes overall. By contrast, the bottom quintile pays 1.1 percent of total federal taxes.12"
Full article: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm)
European Levels of Taxation: Barack Obama's Tax Plan:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm)
The solution!
www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org)
Thank You Willy. I plan on sending the first paper to friends of mine to hopefully reverse some misconceptions.
Willy... thanks once again for the FairTax plug. If I remember correctly we already discussed this issue and it was determined that the FairTax is not a good solution to our current tax issues.
Here is the thread: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,1488.15.html
Quote from: willydenn on July 28, 2008, 04:07:41 PM
European Levels of Taxation: Barack Obama's Tax Plan:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm)
Why not post from Obama's website, if it is HIS plan, instead of the right-wing Heritage Foundation?
Just a few days ago the Wall Street Journal had this article, which is very relevant to this discussion...
QuoteRichest Americans See Their Income Share Grow
By JESSE DRUCKER
July 23, 2008; Page A3
In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.
Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income.
The figures are from the IRS's income-statistics division and were posted on the agency's Web site last week. The 2006 data are the most recent available.
The figures about the relative income and tax rates of the wealthiest Americans come as the presumptive presidential candidates are in a debate about taxes. Congress and the next president will have to decide whether to extend several Bush-era tax cuts, including the 2003 reduction in tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Experts said those tax cuts in particular are playing a major role in falling tax rates for the very wealthy.
Sen. John McCain has proposed extending the lower tax rates of 15% on long-term capital gains and dividends that apply to most taxpayers, while Sen. Barack Obama has said he will seek to raise them to at least 20%, the rate before the 2003 cut, and possibly higher.
According to the figures, the richest 1% reported 22% of the nation's total adjusted gross income in 2006. That is up from 21.2% a year earlier, and is the highest in the 19 years that the IRS has kept strictly comparable figures. The 1988 level was 15.2%. Earlier IRS data show the last year the share of income belonging to the top 1% was at such a high level as it was in 2006 was in 1929, but changes in measuring income make a precise comparison difficult.
The average tax rate in 2006 for the top 1%, based on adjusted gross income, was 22.8%, down slightly from 2005 and the fifth straight year of declines. The average tax rate of this group was 28.9% in 1996, and was 24% in 1988.
As the wealthiest Americans' share of income has risen, so has their share of the income-tax burden. The group paid 39.9% of all income taxes in 2006, compared with 27.6% in 1988. In the most recently reported five years, however, the share of income reported by the very wealthy has risen faster than the group's share of income taxes[/b].
The IRS data look only at so-called adjusted gross income, which is reported on tax returns, and focus only on income taxes. A report by the Congressional Budget Office late last year, which used wider definitions of both income and taxes, found similar trends.
Joel Slemrod, a tax economist at the University of Michigan's business school, said that some portion of the increase in income for the top 1% could stem from the increasing shift to entities such as partnerships, which means some income previously reported by businesses is now reported by individuals. Larger factors likely include changes in trade policy and other aspects of the increasingly global economy, he said.
Write to Jesse Drucker at jesse.drucker@wsj.com3
For some graphs, see the link..
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121677287690575589.html (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121677287690575589.html)
So according to the article, the top 1% are being taxed more, dollar-wise, than they have been. The top 1% of wage earners shoulder 40% of the tax burden in the country, according to the charts in the article.
Sucks to be uber-rich apparently, but for the rest of us 'little guys,' what's the problem here?
What percentage of the income do they make? If they make 40% of the income, then it sounds fair to me.
I am guessing that they don't make anywhere near 40% of the income.
The problem to me is the "uber-rich" earn $84,000 and shoulder over 80% of the federal taxes according to this article. I work over 50 hours a week and am on track to earn over 75K this year. With that siad I already feel the 25% I will pay in federal income tax is more than enough. But, Mr. Obama feels I shuld chip in another 6% because I am "wealthy". Ha.
And before anyone jumps on me about being fortunate to have such a well paying jon, I am an independent contractor in sales, working in a recession.
An income over 84K is considered "uber rich' WTF???!!!
Under Obama's plan, $250,000 is the level of income that would be required to pay the additional tax.
Stephen please define lower middle class
And at what income are you saying the lower class begins at?
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2008, 07:11:06 PM
People making less than 200k a year obviously. But the video does a much better job of explaining it.
That number seems VERY high to be considered "middle class", let alone "lower middle class". I will try to find some documentation, but from what I understand lower middle class would be from 35K-55K single, 45K-100K married/household.
i would say lower middle class would be 30K-40K single, 41K-70K married/household. all depends on the area of the country too.
middle class would be 41K-70K single, 71K-100K married/household IMO.
I try to avoid class warefare after lunch. Maybe I will watch it tomm.
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2008, 07:52:59 PM
Quote from: downtownparks on July 28, 2008, 07:51:43 PM
I try to avoid class warefare after lunch. Maybe I will watch it tomm.
Tax evasion is tax warfare?
well um. cool.
No, telling the 10% of the populace that pays 75% of the tax burden that they dont pay enough, or rather, are breaking the law by evading taxes, is class warfare.
According to the tax foundation, in 2004 the top 1% of income earners, including the super rich top .9% earned about 16% of the income, yet they paid almost 40% of the tax burden.
My question then becomes, who will use that money better, business owners who deliver goods and services and create jobs, or the government?
Of course this is based on the premise that they arent stuffing money in a silo somewhere and swimming in it like Scrooge McDuck...
Quote from: vicupstate on July 28, 2008, 04:39:56 PM
Quote from: willydenn on July 28, 2008, 04:07:41 PM
European Levels of Taxation: Barack Obama's Tax Plan:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm)
Why not post from Obama's website, if it is HIS plan, instead of the right-wing Heritage Foundation?
Vicup,
As always Obama is vague and there is no detailed plan on his site. The site basically says he'll raise taxes (through not extending the current tax cuts), releive certain elderly people from paying their taxes, and cutting taxes by $1000 for "working families." The Heritage Foundation provides excellent analysis of the plan that "progressives" don't want to discuss, because their plan won't hold up to scrutiny. The other reason is to counter the uber left-wing Huffington Post article. The Fair Tax IS a better alternative than the oppressive tax system we have now. Plus I love to instigate. ;)
Sorry I hijacked your thread Stephen.
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2008, 08:58:25 PM
QuoteNo, telling the 10% of the populace that pays 75% of the tax burden that they dont pay enough, or rather, are breaking the law by evading taxes, is class warfare.
are you seriously under the misapprehension that tax evasion is not a crime, but instead a political philosophy?
additionally since the top 10 percent owns 80 percent of the wealth, but only pays your alleged 75 percent of the tax burden *the actual number is much less----would you say that was proportionally fair?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
Oh, no, I agree, if someone is not paying thier legal amount of tax, it is a crime. I am not contesting that point. However, stating that "only the little people pay taxes" is egregiously inaccurate.
According to the Tax Foundation, in 2004 the bottom 80% of income earners made about 47% of the income, but they paid less than 15% of the tax burden. Would that 80% number include "the small people"? If so, it would seem to be that their tax burden is significantly less than their income percentage, and as such, are NOT the only ones paying taxes.
Quote from: downtownparks on July 28, 2008, 07:41:33 PM
That number seems VERY high to be considered "middle class", let alone "lower middle class". I will try to find some documentation, but from what I understand lower middle class would be from 35K-55K single, 45K-100K married/household.
Are you kidding me? If you truly believe this then you also must believe the majority in Springfield must be super rich.
Poor-have nothing
American poor- thinks they have nothing
lower middle class-just making
middle class- making it
upper middle class-making it and saving
rich- making it with no worries and saving
Super rich- doesn't matter because they have enough money to last forever
"Warren Buffett in fact found that his receptionist was taxed at a much higher rate than he was personally.
Its about fraud and stealing, while taking higher and higher tax cuts so that the only people paying taxes are the lower middle class."
Did Mr Buffett then write a check to the treasury to make up for his severe under taxation? If he feels hes not paying his fair share then he is more than able to freely pay more. Any bets to that question.
I don't agree, I am not lower middle class and I pay my fair share of taxes. I think what is missing here is ALL of the middle class is paying more than their fair share of the taxes. The only people getting away with paying less are the "American poor" (they actually get refunds for paying NOTHING in) and the super rich who can afford to "shelter" their money. To try and draw a distinction between the subclasses of middle class" is ridiculous as it pertains to this specific topic. The entire middle class is over burdened, and under appreciated. Is there really any reason to then pit the subclasses against each other?
Quote from: downtownparks on July 28, 2008, 08:38:30 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2008, 07:52:59 PM
Quote from: downtownparks on July 28, 2008, 07:51:43 PM
I try to avoid class warefare after lunch. Maybe I will watch it tomm.
Tax evasion is tax warfare?
well um. cool.
No, telling the 10% of the populace that pays 75% of the tax burden that they dont pay enough, or rather, are breaking the law by evading taxes, is class warfare.
And this is why we don't get anything done as far as equality in this country.
It is NOT class warfare to state that some people make much, much more than others and should therefore pay more in taxes. It seems like all the mega-rich who complain about taxes are the same ones flying American flags on their (foreign) SUVS: hey you like America? Fine, then pay your damn fair share and help it keep going. If you think it’s not fair to pay taxes that are then “wasted†on over-cumbersome govt, then I expect to see you protesting about the literally hundreds of millions, if not billions, LOSTâ€"as in, no one has any idea where it isâ€"on Iraq reconstruction, and/or overpaid to administration crony companies like KBR and Halliburton who are taking our tax dollars in Iraq and literally pissing them away on luxury trailers and SUVs in Iraq.
In short, it is AMERICA, the country, that has provided these people with the opportunity to live like kings, so if they appreciate the opportunities they have been given to live better than 99% of the rest of the world, then they can pay their fair share. I know when I am one day making the big bucks, you won’t hear me whining about, ‘ooooooh, my taxes! class warfare, whaaaa’.
That is one mighty broad brush your painting with there Easy.
Wait a minute, help me understand here. So are you stating that people who make more money use more government services and therefore should be required to pay more for the additional services they utilize? Can you prove they utilize more services, therefore needing to pay more for those services? Shouldn’t all people pay for what they utilize? Or are you stating this from a socialistic point of view? That if you work real hard to make more money for your family it is your duty to give any extra money beyond housing and food to those who don't work as hard? Do you really think everyone making any type of good living is responsible for the corruption in government? Don't you think anyone of voting age is responsible? How about we stop paying out refunds to people who don't pay in first, then go on and ask for more money? How can you state this isn’t class warfare when you want someone to turn over their hard earned cash so it can then be handed over to someone who doesn’t pay into the system? Why are the responsible working people of America being punished? Do you not think they under stress enough? What happens if they all throw their hands up in the air and say screw it? Tax increases only really hurt the working middle class, not the super rich. The rich can afford to find ways around increases. The fact that most liberals lump the middle class in with the rich is why you get class warfare comments. Perhaps the middle class is sick and tired of carrying the whole country? Ever think about that?
btw, I think most people would say it is THEIR hard work that has gotten them where they are. There are rich people in third world countries, so this argument doesn't fly.
Quote from: uptowngirl on July 29, 2008, 09:34:02 AM
Wait a minute, help me understand here. So are you stating that people who make more money use more government services and therefore should be required to pay more for the additional services they utilize? Can you prove they utilize more services, therefore needing to pay more for those services? Shouldn’t all people pay for what they utilize? Or are you stating this from a socialistic point of view? That if you work real hard to make more money for your family it is your duty to give any extra money beyond housing and food to those who don't work as hard? Do you really think everyone making any type of good living is responsible for the corruption in government? Don't you think anyone of voting age is responsible? How about we stop paying out refunds to people who don't pay in first, then go on and ask for more money? How can you state this isn’t class warfare when you want someone to turn over their hard earned cash so it can then be handed over to someone who doesn’t pay into the system? Why are the responsible working people of America being punished? Do you not think they under stress enough? What happens if they all throw their hands up in the air and say screw it? Tax increases only really hurt the working middle class, not the super rich. The rich can afford to find ways around increases. The fact that most liberals lump the middle class in with the rich is why you get class warfare comments. Perhaps the middle class is sick and tired of carrying the whole country? Ever think about that?
btw, I think most people would say it is THEIR hard work that has gotten them where they are. There are rich people in third world countries, so this argument doesn't fly.
1. Most of the rich people I know do not work as hard as the poorer people I know. In fact, they work much, much less and not nearly as hard.
2. Most of the rich people I know, if not all, got to where they are because they were born into that money or dad's connections got them the job that is making them big bucks.
In my book, it goes without saying that if you are making several times whata poor or average person is making, then you should be paying much in more taxes.
Also, for clarification, when I say rich, I am talking about people under 30 making well over 100K/yr, or 40+ making 200K or more.
I do get your point, but your "rich pay range" is what I don't get. That pay range could include someone graduating from college with lots of debt, could include doctors with high student loans and malpractice insurance, and could also include families, extended families. Most people who grew up rich and get jobs because of their parents are making a lot more than the income range you have given. You are in fact including middle class families in your "rich pay range". An average MBA grad can start out at 80K in the south, they aren't rich, yet they have worked hard and usually are just starting out on their career. You want to penalize them because they worked their butt off through school to get a higher paying job? Do you know 200K for a family in San Francisco is not much? Do you want only foreign doctors whose countries have paid for their schooling so they can afford to live and work here? The point being DTP is right; this is too wide a brush. Besides these aren’t the people skipping on their fair share of taxes, it is the RICH meaning people making WELL beyond their needs and believe me they are making a lot more than 200K a yr.
I am still waiting to hear why you want more form the middle class and think people who don’t pay in should get refunds.
Quote from: uptowngirl on July 29, 2008, 09:34:02 AM
Wait a minute, help me understand here. So are you stating that people who make more money use more government services and therefore should be required to pay more for the additional services they utilize?
No I am not
QuoteOr are you stating this from a socialistic point of view? That if you work real hard to make more money for your family it is your duty to give any extra money beyond housing and food to those who don't work as hard?
MMMMMM, don't think I said that all. I think wealthy people should pay more in taxes to pay for things that our country needs, like roads, police, health insurance, etc. I don't think I mentioned taking money from a wealthy person's pocket and "giving" it to individuals.
Quote
Do you really think everyone making any type of good living is responsible for the corruption in government? Don't you think anyone of voting age is responsible?
What? Where'd that come from? I never said anything like that at all.
Quote
How about we stop paying out refunds to people who don't pay in first, then go on and ask for more money?
Sounds great to me, in fact that is pretty much what I was saying.
Quote
How can you state this isn’t class warfare when you want someone to turn over their hard earned cash so it can then be handed over to someone who doesn’t pay into the system?
Um, so, the act of paying taxes is class warfare? If you’ll read, above, you will see that I am simply advocating that those who are rich should pay more taxes. Not that taxes should magically fly out of someone’s pocket and into the pockets of some “non-hardworking personâ€. I love that anytime taxes are mentioned, conservatives act like all taxes are spent on welfare and “giving money to poor peopleâ€. You know, the roads we drive on, the firemen who keep pour houses from burning down, the soldiers who drop bombs on Afghani and Iraqi civilians are all paid for with taxes. Taxes aren’t some magical pixie flying into your bank and taking your money and giving it to a crackhead with 7 kids.
QuoteWhy are the responsible working people of America being punished? Do you not think they under stress enough?
This is crazinessâ€"of course I think that, that is why I was saying the very rich should pay more in taxes.
Quote
What happens if they all throw their hands up in the air and say screw it?
Then I would say charge them with tax evasion and/or fraud.
Quote
Tax increases only really hurt the working middle class, not the super rich. The rich can afford to find ways around increases. The fact that most liberals lump the middle class in with the rich is why you get class warfare comments. Perhaps the middle class is sick and tired of carrying the whole country? Ever think about that?
Yes, I do think about that, and that is why I was actually arguing, if you would have read, that middle class taxes should be alleviated and the very wealthy should start paying their fair share.
Quote
btw, I think most people would say it is THEIR hard work that has gotten them where they are. There are rich people in third world countries, so this argument doesn't fly.
Yes, most people would say that, while not realizing that tons of poor people work just as hard, if not harder, than they do. Teachers, police, firemen, secretaries, social workers, child care providersâ€"I would say all these people work much, much harder than some of the wealthiest people I know.
Quote from: uptowngirl on July 29, 2008, 10:18:13 AM
I do get your point, but your "rich pay range" is what I don't get. That pay range could include someone graduating from college with lots of debt, could include doctors with high student loans and malpractice insurance, and could also include families, extended families. Most people who grew up rich and get jobs because of their parents are making a lot more than the income range you have given. You are in fact including middle class families in your "rich pay range". An average MBA grad can start out at 80K in the south, they aren't rich, yet they have worked hard and usually are just starting out on their career. You want to penalize them because they worked their butt off through school to get a higher paying job? Do you know 200K for a family in San Francisco is not much? Do you want only foreign doctors whose countries have paid for their schooling so they can afford to live and work here? The point being DTP is right; this is too wide a brush. Besides these aren’t the people skipping on their fair share of taxes, it is the RICH meaning people making WELL beyond their needs and believe me they are making a lot more than 200K a yr.
I am still waiting to hear why you want more form the middle class and think people who don’t pay in should get refunds.
If 80K a year for one person is middle class and 200K a year for a family is not upper class, I am sorry, I just don't see that. Look, maybe it's just because I have worked with truly poor people in Mexico and parts of the US that makes me see that I am truly wealthy and blessed compared to most of the world if i am making even 40K a year? Maybe it's because I don't seek out material possessions and don't care about them (NOT saying that you do) that I have a different perspective and am just thankful to be where I am-- better off than most in the world, though you would, apparently, consider me to be quite poor.
EasyE, I think we agree on everything with the exception of the classification of the rich. Does a combined income of 200K for a family of six make them rich? Maybe to someone who makes 40K for a family of six, but in reality it doesn't. It is all in perspective. Sometimes that firefighter making 60K a year has a stay at home wife taking care of the kids, where a family making 200K may have two working parents and pay for childcare, maybe a maid. Should they be punished because both decide to work? No way, that is the great thing about America you have a choice. Perhaps this wife would prefer to work than clean the house? Sometimes people work because they enjoy working (hard to believe I know!). Some people think if you can send your kids to college you are rich, others think they have scrimped and saved to send their kids to college and by no means are rich. I think if you raise the level of income to classify a "rich" person then you and I would be on the same page per your last comments. I know plenty of people who make 100K-200K, work very hard, didn't get help from their parents, support their families, pay their taxes, and in general are great law abiding people, but in no way should be considered "rich". They are making it, and may be able to save some monies too, that doesn't make them rich.
As to the standard of living in other countries, well yeah it is a lot lower in many countries. I guess I look at it differently; the “American poor†have no idea what it means to be poor. If they went to Mexico, India, Africa, or the Middle East they may actually no what it means to be truly poor? No SS, no healthcare, no welfare, no housing, no food, no education. We have a great many people in America claiming to be poor, which is causing them to not succeed in life. THIS is what is so frustrating. When given free housing, free food, free healthcare, free education, there is no excuse for not “making itâ€. Funny, you and I seem to be pulling form the same experiences but coming up with a different opinion. Guess that’s what makes this country so great!
Quote from: uptowngirl on July 29, 2008, 10:45:26 AM
EasyE, I think we agree on everything with the exception of the classification of the rich. Does a combined income of 200K for a family of six make them rich? Maybe to someone who makes 40K for a family of six, but in reality it doesn't. It is all in perspective. Sometimes that firefighter making 60K a year has a stay at home wife taking care of the kids, where a family making 200K may have two working parents and pay for childcare, maybe a maid. Should they be punished because both decide to work? No way, that is the great thing about America you have a choice. Perhaps this wife would prefer to work than clean the house? Sometimes people work because they enjoy working (hard to believe I know!). Some people think if you can send your kids to college you are rich, others think they have scrimped and saved to send their kids to college and by no means are rich. I think if you raise the level of income to classify a "rich" person then you and I would be on the same page per your last comments. I know plenty of people who make 100K-200K, work very hard, didn't get help from their parents, support their families, pay their taxes, and in general are great law abiding people, but in no way should be considered "rich". They are making it, and may be able to save some monies too, that doesn't make them rich.
As to the standard of living in other countries, well yeah it is a lot lower in many countries. I guess I look at it differently; the “American poor†have no idea what it means to be poor. If they went to Mexico, India, Africa, or the Middle East they may actually no what it means to be truly poor? No SS, no healthcare, no welfare, no housing, no food, no education. We have a great many people in America claiming to be poor, which is causing them to not succeed in life. THIS is what is so frustrating. When given free housing, free food, free healthcare, free education, there is no excuse for not “making itâ€. Funny, you and I seem to be pulling form the same experiences but coming up with a different opinion. Guess that’s what makes this country so great!
Well said, and I think I agree.
I mean look, I am by no means at all against wealth, I expect to be making what I consider very, very good money within 10 yearsâ€"which will then put me right in the wheelhouse of people I think should be paying more for taxes. As is, I try to be thankful and grateful for everything I have, even though I am by no means rich at all at this point. But, it is nice to have a rational discussion and debate where real ideas can be exchanged and perspectives altered, and respect shown for people who may feel differently, which is something this country is SORELY lacking over the past 7 years.
"1. Most of the rich people I know do not work as hard as the poorer people I know. In fact, they work much, much less and not nearly as hard."
How many rich people do you actually know? I myself don't bump into many of them myself. Have bumped into the poor quite often, and they are usually poor for a reason. When I say poor, I don't mean lower middle class I mean poor.
But in this country poor usually means a color tv, cable, and cell phone are included.
Quote from: civil42806 on July 29, 2008, 11:04:13 AM
How many rich people do you actually know? I myself don't bump into many of them myself. Have bumped into the poor quite often, and they are usually poor for a reason. When I say poor, I don't mean lower middle class I mean poor.
As a graduate of a prestigious local priavte school, it seems like all I know is rich people. Oh, and the mega-rich, too.
And that is not snide or anything, just the facts.
E.g. One kid who I grew up with (which i guess now makes him a "guy" not a "kid", but whatever) who, though now 28/29, is only now getting his first job (at his family company) because he has not had to work since graduating college due to his multi-million dollar trust fund.
Quote
But in this country poor usually means a color tv, cable, and cell phone are included.
I know, kind of dumb, isn't it?
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2008, 10:56:54 AM
still no one bothers to watch the video.
amazing.
I wish I was surprised.
While being on this board at work is easy and acceptable, videos are not. sorry.
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2008, 11:08:12 AM
We seem to be comparing ourselves to the poorest countries of the Third World, who arent citizens and don't pay taxes.
Why? Is the comparison between ourselves and the Rich in our own country too uncomfortable?
What else are we supposed to aspire to from the third world?
Crib deaths? Female Circumcision? Public hangings on the grounds of drought?
Come on guys, gimme a break.
Um, I don;t think anyone is "aspiring" to 3rd world poverty. I simply brought it up because, having seen it firsthand, it gives me a very real and grounded sense of appreciation for the life I have.
I mean, when you have seen people literally building "homes" out of duct tape and large cardboard boxes, it makes Springfield look like Palm Beach.
Quote from: Eazy E on July 29, 2008, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2008, 11:08:12 AM
We seem to be comparing ourselves to the poorest countries of the Third World, who arent citizens and don't pay taxes.
Why? Is the comparison between ourselves and the Rich in our own country too uncomfortable?
What else are we supposed to aspire to from the third world?
Crib deaths? Female Circumcision? Public hangings on the grounds of drought?
Come on guys, gimme a break.
Um, I don;t think anyone is "aspiring" to 3rd world poverty. I simply brought it up because, having seen it firsthand, it gives me a very real and grounded sense of appreciation for the life I have.
I mean, when you have seen people literally building "homes" out of duct tape and large cardboard boxes, it makes Springfield look like Palm Beach.
I agree EasyE, I also think it is fair to have a discussion around what is considered rich and poor in this country. There is a wide divide amongst people currently. I think any time you are going to ask any gorup of people to contribute more, you need to look at why. The people in your video obviously are not the 200K income earners. To that point you are right no further discussion needed, these people need to pay. On the flip side per the video: "Taxpayers need to be on a level playing field, or the people paying their fair share end up feeling like chumps." This includes not only the super rich paying their fair share but the poor getting refunds who don't pay in. Please don't respond with "well it is only 1 billion dollars, while these super rich are hiding 100 billion.
Quote from: uptowngirl on July 29, 2008, 11:53:32 AM
Quote from: Eazy E on July 29, 2008, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2008, 11:08:12 AM
We seem to be comparing ourselves to the poorest countries of the Third World, who arent citizens and don't pay taxes.
Why? Is the comparison between ourselves and the Rich in our own country too uncomfortable?
What else are we supposed to aspire to from the third world?
Crib deaths? Female Circumcision? Public hangings on the grounds of drought?
Come on guys, gimme a break.
Um, I don;t think anyone is "aspiring" to 3rd world poverty. I simply brought it up because, having seen it firsthand, it gives me a very real and grounded sense of appreciation for the life I have.
I mean, when you have seen people literally building "homes" out of duct tape and large cardboard boxes, it makes Springfield look like Palm Beach.
I agree EasyE, I also think it is fair to have a discussion around what is considered rich and poor in this country. There is a wide divide amongst people currently. I think any time you are going to ask any gorup of people to contribute more, you need to look at why. The people in your video obviously are not the 200K income earners. To that point you are right no further discussion needed, these people need to pay. On the flip side per the video: "Taxpayers need to be on a level playing field, or the people paying their fair share end up feeling like chumps." This includes not only the super rich paying their fair share but the poor getting refunds who don't pay in. Please don't respond with "well it is only 1 billion dollars, while these super rich are hiding 100 billion.
Sure, I am not a person who thinks "poor" automatically means no taxes-- if you live here, you should be paying, and it should be commensurate with what you make. If someone is truly making very litttle money, I am totally open to the idea of public service in lieu of taxes.
My philosophy is: if you love America, and love living here and all the freedoms and pleasures we enjoy because we live in a great country, then you shoul dbe willing to give back to that country in the form of taxes, public service, volunteering or a combination of all.
As it is questionable if income tax is even legal (yes, the government is powerful enough to enforce payment, that does not make it legal), I prefer EasyE's version of "giving back". Where in the constitution does it state we have to pay income tax to support anybody or anything? In fact income tax was a temporary measure, it was meant to be temporary when implemented to pay for war.
That being said, I took his comments to mean, even people who can't pay into the system can find ways to give back into the system "paying for the functioning of the government we elected and the responsibilities we assume in the process." This comment in and of itself is contradictory. What responsibilities are the citizens who pay nothing in and get refunds taking on? I remember in another thread arguing if this process was not income redistribution, I have no responsibility outside of my religious and personal beliefs to anyone other than my own family. Should religious beliefs around responsibilities to those less fortunate then I be made mandatory by the government? Everyone benefits, everyone should pay in in one shape or the other..
Income tax was declared unconstitutional in its first incarnation around the time of World War I. Then, in a bout of extreme shortsightedness, a Constitutional amendment was passed which now makes it constitutional. :(
BTW, I havent responded in this thread due to time constraints but it is laughable to suggest that the rich dont pay their "fair share" of taxes since (1) the bottom 50% of income earners pay almost no federal income taxes and many are indeed paid by the government through EITC and other subsidies, (2) the rich pay at higher rates than those who earn less and (3) the top earners pay an amazing portion of the total income tax revenues.
Oh and the experiences of the 20th century have taught us that collectivism does not work and if you strike down the rich you do not make the poor more wealthy, you just make everyone poor (except for a select few of the elite ruling class). See Cuba for a current day example.
The question is which government expenses are necessary, wise and constitutional. I would wager that no more than 1/2 of the expenditures and probably far less satisfy these criteria.
Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2008, 12:07:45 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on July 30, 2008, 07:56:05 AM
As it is questionable if income tax is even legal (yes, the government is powerful enough to enforce payment, that does not make it legal), I prefer EasyE's version of "giving back". Where in the constitution does it state we have to pay income tax to support anybody or anything? In fact income tax was a temporary measure, it was meant to be temporary when implemented to pay for war.
That being said, I took his comments to mean, even people who can't pay into the system can find ways to give back into the system "paying for the functioning of the government we elected and the responsibilities we assume in the process." This comment in and of itself is contradictory. What responsibilities are the citizens who pay nothing in and get refunds taking on? I remember in another thread arguing if this process was not income redistribution, I have no responsibility outside of my religious and personal beliefs to anyone other than my own family. Should religious beliefs around responsibilities to those less fortunate then I be made mandatory by the government? Everyone benefits, everyone should pay in in one shape or the other..
Are you 'giving back' to your family when you pay the electric bill?
Are you 'giving back' when you write a check for the marketting bill at the office?
We have to pay our expenses. This is the thing that kills me about the modern 'conservative' pretenders.
Under their system no one has to pay any bills at all. Just rack up the debt and let someone else figure it out. Its like having a drunk with a compulsive lying problem in charge of the family checkbook.
One need look no further than the Massive Deficit Spender in the white house to see the truth.
I am not a conservative and why should I pay when others get the same benefits and more for NOT paying their bills? Why are some to be held accountable and some not?
"Just rack up the debt and let someone else figure it out"
Isn't this what the liberals do now as part of their income redistribution program? Lets give out money we don’t really have to people who never paid a dime in and we will just figure out how to pay off our debt, or hey let's raid SS, because we can stick it to the worker yet again....but we can keep on getting those all important votes.
I don’t see a difference between liberals jerking the workers around to give to the poor for their votes and conservatives jerking around the workers to give the rich to get their votes.
In the end it is the middle class worker that gets screwed.
Liberal democrats are responsible for income redistribution under the guise of EIC, period.
Conservative republicans are responsible for allowing the ultra rich skip out on their fair share of taxes, period
Debating the semantics doesn't change the fact that the above two statements are true. In fact, I am going to refuse to debate factious requests in regard to semantics from here on out. If you want to discuss issues I am more than happy to share my opinions, but I am not going to get wrapped up in these silly games 'some" on this forum find entertaining. I respect everyone's opinion even if it doesn't mesh with my own, I just wish everyone else on this board did them same.
You stated everyone has to pay their bills, everyone pays in, everyone benefits so we really should not be debating at all it is a known fact the super rich do not pay their fair share and the poor don not only not pay their fair share they also take out when they do not pay in.
Thank you for a reasonable response.
"consider a couple of central ideas.
1. What is less expensive? Feeding the poor or dealing with the crime?
2. Providing nutrition to the poor or dealing with theircatastrophic illnesses?"
Do you believ EIC refunds go to either of these items? I don't. Also do we not already provide via tax dollars medical options, food stamps, WIC, and free hot lunches and breakfast? Not to mention all the private individuals and groups that do the same? If we stay on topic EIC does not pertain to any of this and in fact is a benefit on top of the benefits listed above.
"and who exactly benefits the most and most immediately by how our government spends money?"
I guess that depends on your perspective, all I know is I am stuck in the middle and am not benefitting the most.
"Who benefits directly as a result of a national highway system that allows trucking and transportation without having to pay thousands of separate private tolls the way we used to do it?"
The companies and individual trucking agents, and of course we the consumers in lower prices for goods.
"Who benefits from having a navy escort all of the oil shipments back and forth?"
I suppose that would be us, the government and the people. We provide a service which creates a closer realtionship with oil producing companies and we get cheaper gas. Although gas has been rising, it is still cheaper than in other countries. If we could drill our own oil, this wouldn't be an issue anyway. Which is the lesser of two evils in your opinion?
I can't argue with this. I think you are right on.
I feel sorry for the Roloffs.