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

Hey Glen,

I just read a similar article that said almost 1/2 of the country pays no income tax, and of those a large portion actually make a profit off of their tax breaks.

So I ask you, is it any wonder that 1/2 of the country would vote for somebody that would take money from the other 1/2 and give it to them?

The state of Michigan managed to tax out of existance my business and 2 of my friends businesses. We are the only state in the union that taxes a business over 3% on its GROSS. Most companies here are only running a 5% net margin, then the state is going to take 3% off of the top. What the hell happened?

Your Pal,
David

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?

"evidence of how concentrated the wealth has become in this country."

Yep, I saw that online recently. The bottom 80% of households have only 7% of the finacial wealth. Conversely, the richest 20% control 93% of the financial wealth.

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Consumer Balance Sheet and Consumer Spending in Perspective

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???

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...

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Alembic

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

That's the idea (not state, but federal)

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

So now I'm a socialist. Who knew?

Yes you are ...You somehow think that it is fair that one family pay 28% and another pay nothing, nada, zippo, in fact lets give them some extra...

Ok this is real word math, 10% is 10%, I know that is rather tuff for some of the people in government to figure out, but you seem smarter than that...

If everyone paid 10% as you proposed that would actually mean that the rich still pay more...

Wow I think that might just work or maybe even lets get rid of the real leech the IRS and just increase the sales tax on everything... No more income tax you just get taxed on what you consume, whoops that is way to simple it won't work...

Because we are back to that other thread now about E Q U A L I T Y

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Yes you are ...You somehow think that it is fair that one family pay 28% and another pay nothing, nada, zippo, in fact lets give them some extra...

Ok this is real word math, 10% is 10%, I know that is rather tuff for some of the people in government to figure out, but you seem smarter than that...

If everyone paid 10% as you proposed that would actually mean that the rich still pay more...

Wow I think that might just work or maybe even lets get rid of the real leech the IRS and just increase the sales tax on everything... No more income tax you just get taxed on what you consume, whoops that is way to simple it won't work...

Because we are back to that other thread now about E Q U A L I T Y

The problem is that a straight sales tax is a disproportionately unfair burden on the poorer among us. That's why The Fair Tax is a "better", more equitable way to incorporate your ideals