Hey!! Who's pulling the Bandwagon????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Yep thinking back over the last 32+ years of working I have never caught a Tax break... In fact the only deduction I ever claimed was the interest on my Home Mortgage when I had one...

---

Same here. We've been standard deduction for the last 20 years or so. Even with that my highest federal income tax was about 15% and Texas has no state income tax.

On a related note:
The GAO or Government Accountability Office, determined that the vast majority (66%) of 1.3 million corporations of all sizes, pay no federal income taxes. The largest corporations are more likely to pay taxes, but still, 25% of the 1000 largest U.S. corporations, those with over $250 million in assets or $50 million in sales, still failed to pay any taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...mated_payments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Another way to look at this:

The 47% that don't aren't required to pay simply don't earn enough to be able to pay, and still subsist.
Whenever I see the stats about how the "top 2 %" of earners pay "___%" of all taxes, that to me is evidence of how concentrated the wealth has become in this country. And for the record--no, I'm not advocating the abandonment of the free market/capitalist economic system. But if a family of 4 is earning, say, $45K per year, imposing income taxes at that level of earning translates into not eating, or not paying rent--folks in that income range have very little disposable income. Plus, even though they may not pay income tax, they pay every other tax the rest of us pay-sales tax, etc..

The fact of the matter is, folks who earn more have more disposable income, and are more able to shoulder the impact of their income being taxed. If I have to pay an extra 5%, it's not going to take any food off my family's plate and I'll still be able to pay my mortgage and travel to Europe for a vacation if I want. Those who are barely getting by would be devastated if they had to pay 28% of what little they earn towards income taxes on top of all the other taxes they are still required to pay. Do I like this situation? of course not. But until someone comes up with a better, more equitable way to raise money to fund the government, laying off those at the lower end of the income scale is necessary. And if something like 47% of the country is earning such low wages, what does that tell us?

---

WOW !!!!

Math just doesn't work the same in your world as it does in the real one huh????
But I guess you just explained what you really think, dude you scare me...
That isn't liberal thinking you just went straight to socialist thinking...I guess there is no sense in even a conversation of a solution between my thinking and yours...To you there is no "Work harder and do something positive" it is "I can't, so you give me some of yours"
Never in all of recorded history has this ever worked, how can you possibly think it will now???

However I am beginning to see your side, Hmmmm I should just quit paying and get in line........
"Please Sir, can I have some more Sir" Said in my best Oliver imitation voice... But then again what happens when there is no more???

Boy, responding here is against my better judgement because I know the flack I'm about to take, but...

From time imortal, the have nots have hired a group of thugs to take from the haves and give it to them. The problem with this model is that eventually the thugs become the new haves - and they like it that way. People trade what they believe is a greedy private sector (and in some caes they are correct) for a really greedy government. All the while the beast they created grows and grows and must be fed.

There is no human being that has pure enough motives to be put into a place of such authority over others that they themselves will not become corrupted. Even the purest is corruptable. By the time the have nots figure out what they built is worse than what they had, it is too late.

These are laws of nature my friends, it is a story that always ends the same way because it must end the same way. Neither evolution nor God has changed the nature of men. So with all of the pieces in place and with the law of causality in place - the story begins. It will be slow. It will look like the have nots will win - for a while. But after the beast they created guts from the haves and confiscates it for themselves, all the while dolling out little pieces now and again to keep the little people happy, there will only be one group to complain - and it will not be them.

I understand why people try this over and over again. Somehow they think they missed something. Somehow they think it will work this time. But it won't. It will fail. It will fail because men are involved. And not just any men. Politicians. Producers of nothing. People that aspire to tell others what to do and all the while take for themselves the fruits of someone else labor off of the top. These are rich men also. As rich as or richer than the greedy people they say we need protecting from.

Don't you wonder how this will end? Don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alembic

Don't you wonder how this will end? Don't you?

---

'In the end'? Nothing ends, Adrian. 'Nothing ever ends.' ...Jon Osterman, aka, Dr. Manhattan

I understand the capitalism versus socialism thing. I read Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman 20 years ago. However, isn't it naive to think in only those terms. There is also facism. Ask yourself, who has the most power to control and steal? Who is reaping the most benefit? Who is in charge? I'm not sure any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matt321

On a related note:
The GAO or Government Accountability Office, determined that the vast majority (66%) of 1.3 million corporations of all sizes, pay no federal income taxes. The largest corporations are more likely to pay taxes, but still, 25% of the 1000 largest U.S. corporations, those with over $250 million in assets or $50 million in sales, still failed to pay any taxes.
Corporate tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Even if we taxed every buisiness 100%, buisinesses still would'nt pay any taxes. Every increase in the cost of production, gets included in the price of the product and the consumer pays for it, no ifs, ands, or buts. Since most of the rich, were/are buisiness owners, it works the same, we the consumer still pay their taxes and why imo it is so illogical to believe we can punish the rich by making them pay more taxes. Two other problems I see is that if it is easier to hold on to their riches than it is to put those riches to work, they will choose the easy route, as does most anyone, and our job market will suffer, they wont. The second is that we have laws against grandfathering, since the already rich, already have their wealth the new laws only punish those coming next, which might be me and might be you or any one of the millions of us with a work ethic.

IMO,money is not what seperates the rich from the poor, it is education(in my view education starts at birth, not when we go to school or if we ever do). If we instituted a 100% grandfathered tax on the wealthy and then gave that money to the poor, within a small amount of time, the previously wealthy, will again be wealthy and the poor will return to their chosen station in life(yes chosen). Money is a tool, not an ends, and those that are rich and those that will become rich definitely know how to use that tool to their advantage and how to keep it from acting against them. When the poor learn that it is more to their advantage to learn to use money, than just to take more through the government when they feel they need it, the poor class will shrink and the rich will grow, until then we will continue down the opposite path which we are already speeding down, and it seems to be a 12% downgrade, we have no brakes, and our gas pedal is stuck wide open, unless something gets fixed we will reach the bottom, which seems to be coming up faster and faster, if we want it to or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

WOW !!!!

Math just doesn't work the same in your world as it does in the real one huh????
But I guess you just explained what you really think, dude you scare me...
That isn't liberal thinking you just went straight to socialist thinking...I guess there is no sense in even a conversation of a solution between my thinking and yours...To you there is no "Work harder and do something positive" it is "I can't, so you give me some of yours"
Never in all of recorded history has this ever worked, how can you possibly think it will now???

However I am beginning to see your side, Hmmmm I should just quit paying and get in line........
"Please Sir, can I have some more Sir" Said in my best Oliver imitation voice... But then again what happens when there is no more???

---

So now I'm a socialist. Who knew?
Actually, I think you are missing my point. Let me try another approach.
Let's agree that it takes "X" amount of money to cover the government's operating expenses in any given year (and let's put aside for the moment arguments about how we should be cutting the fat, etc). So, how is this done? Well, we could tax everyone at the same flat rate-that has a certain appeal since it treats everyone equally in a sense-everyone pays the same % of their income. But there's a problem with that idea--we've grown very accustomed to our tax deductions-mortgage interest; charitable contributions; education costs, etc. Another problem is this---there are a lot of people who barely get by, financially-speaking. they live paycheck to paycheck; they carry debt month to month; they don't have the ability to save to any meaningful extent. They struggle to put food on the table. They don't have retirement accounts. If they own a car, it's old and expensive to maintain. They often have no health insurance. You get the idea. If they were to be taxed at an "equal" rate, it would seriously threaten what little financial stability they have. So, being a rather equitable society, he have taken a different approach-the graduated income tax. This concept reflects the idea that as one's wealth increase beyond a certain point, so does that person's ability to absorb higher tax rates, since the higher rates apply to discretionary rather than essential income. To put it in rather extremes terms, a tax of 10% on someone who only earns $100 per week is far more financially devastating than that same tax on someone earning $10,000 per week. (i.e. not eating versus not eating Kobe beef). Hence, we don't tax (or more precisely, we give tax credits to) those who can least afford to be taxed lest they go hungry)
Now here's where you and I part ways: I don't agree that the people who live below, at, or just above the poverty level are just a bunch of lazy leeches. Especially in the present economic circumstances, there are tons of folks who are out of work; or who are working at low paying, menial jobs through no fault of their own. And truth be told--in modern history there has always been a sizable percentage of our society that lives in or near the poverty level. The fact of the matter is our economic system (the best in the world) has never been able to produce enough jobs, at sufficiently high wages, to eliminate, or come close to eliminating, significant levels of lower income citizens. And if our economy hasn't been able to make that happen so far, chances are we ain't never gonna see a time when the vast majority of people who are ready, willing and able to work will be able to obtain well paying jobs. Not in our lifetimes, anyway.
So while you seem to want to blame those who don't earn a lot of money for not being more---motivated, my contention is that until a better economic system is invented, even the best system we have won't be able to create enough jobs, and enough well paying jobs, to neutralize the equitable reasons why we tax those who are wealthy/wealthier more than we tax those at the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
Please excuse my rant...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

So now I'm a socialist. Who knew?
Actually, I think you are missing my point. Let me try another approach.
Let's agree that it takes "X" amount of money to cover the government's operating expenses in any given year (and let's put aside for the moment arguments about how we should be cutting the fat, etc). So, how is this done? Well, we could tax everyone at the same flat rate-that has a certain appeal since it treats everyone equally in a sense-everyone pays the same % of their income. But there's a problem with that idea--we've grown very accustomed to our tax deductions-mortgage interest; charitable contributions; education costs, etc. Another problem is this---there are a lot of people who barely get by, financially-speaking. they live paycheck to paycheck; they carry debt month to month; they don't have the ability to save to any meaningful extent. They struggle to put food on the table. They don't have retirement accounts. If they own a car, it's old and expensive to maintain. They often have no health insurance. You get the idea. If they were to be taxed at an "equal" rate, it would seriously threaten what little financial stability they have. So, being a rather equitable society, he have taken a different approach-the graduated income tax. This concept reflects the idea that as one's wealth increase beyond a certain point, so does that person's ability to absorb higher tax rates, since the higher rates apply to discretionary rather than essential income. To put it in rather extremes terms, a tax of 10% on someone who only earns $100 per week is far more financially devastating than that same tax on someone earning $10,000 per week. (i.e. not eating versus not eating Kobe beef). Hence, we don't tax (or more precisely, we give tax credits to) those who can least afford to be taxed lest they go hungry)
Now here's where you and I part ways: I don't agree that the people who live below, at, or just above the poverty level are just a bunch of lazy leeches. Especially in the present economic circumstances, there are tons of folks who are out of work; or who are working at low paying, menial jobs through no fault of their own. And truth be told--in modern history there has always been a sizable percentage of our society that lives in or near the poverty level. The fact of the matter is our economic system (the best in the world) has never been able to produce enough jobs, at sufficiently high wages, to eliminate, or come close to eliminating, significant levels of lower income citizens. And if our economy hasn't been able to make that happen so far, chances are we ain't never gonna see a time when the vast majority of people who are ready, willing and able to work will be able to obtain well paying jobs. Not in our lifetimes, anyway.
So while you seem to want to blame those who don't earn a lot of money for not being more---motivated, my contention is that until a better economic system is invented, even the best system we have won't be able to create enough jobs, and enough well paying jobs, to neutralize the equitable reasons why we tax those who are wealthy/wealthier more than we tax those at the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
Please excuse my rant...

---

I agree with your reasoning to a large extent. The tax code is as much to do with influencing behavior as it is about raising money for the treasury. However, our economic system isn't really to blame. It generates plenty of money. However, we don't have enough regard for our fellow man to take care of our own families (as a whole of course there are good folks who do), much less have a system where the distribution of wealth is so askew :(

I'm with Commiecat... The Fair Tax sounds like a great deal to me.

Here is the thing. Which filthy rich lawyer would you trust to be benevolent enough to take the country's economy and altruisticaly destribute the money so everyone has a high quality life? I know that there are scoundrel business men as well, but at least you can use your resources to compete and try to become wealthy as well. Once the Government has all of the wealth and is in charge of distributing it "fairly", you will see just how unfair they can be.

As far as the 47% that pay no taxes, let me say this. My father earned $27,500 a year. He had a wife, 3 sons, a house, a car, we wnet on vacations. We lived at poverty level, but never wanted for anything. My father knew how to budget and knew what his responsibilities were for his family.

My two brothers and I all have engineering degrees, all of us have Master's degrees, and one brother has an additional Master's and a PHD in computer science. We are all top in our professions. We never borrowed or recieved one dime from the government. And my father could not afford to send us to college. My brother's and I worked our butts off and paid our own way. And now somebody is determining we have too much and MUST take some of it away to give to somebody else.

I am very charitable with my money. I sponsor children in poverty stricken areas of the world. I donate a lot anonymously.

But that is not enough is it? From each according to his means to each according to his needs. Sounds familiar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richmondesi

I agree with your reasoning to a large extent. The tax code has as much to do with influencing behavior as it is about raising money for the treasury. However, our economic system isn't really to blame. It generates plenty of money. However, we don't have enough regard for our fellow man to take care of our own families (as a whole of course there are good folks who do), much less have a system where the distribution of wealth is so askew :(

I'm with Commiecat... The Fair Tax sounds like a great deal to me.

---

So does that mean we can get rid of ALL other taxes and just go with the Fair Tax?