Here's a tax lesson that will be good for the archives. Any time somebody whines about the rich not paying their fair share, we can seek this thread out, C&P it to the new whiner's thread and save time. From the Congressional Budget Office themselves, and taken from Glenn Beck's new book, "Broke": The top 1% pay 35% of the taxes and the top 10% in income pay a whopping 71% of all federal income taxes. "Even if the federal govt. were to take every single penny from the top 1 percent of earners, it would yield only a little less than $2 trillion. The government spends that in eight months." Glenn suggests that EVERYONE who earns money needs to pay tax. Something. Anything. Why? Not to be cruel. But because then everybody would have a stake in the game which would lead to people paying more attention to elections and possibly would lead to more responsible decision making in the elections. Instead, that's a wild fantasy! "According to 2009 data from the CBO (which goes through tax year 2006), the bottom 20% of earners paid an effective tax rate of negative 6.6% in federal income tax. They received more money back through credits than they paid in taxes. In terms of overall revenue collected from individual taxes, the bottom 40% of the country contributed negative 3.6%!! In other words, the other 60% of the country paid 103.6% of the taxes collected."
I would sugest that every person in the USA actualy allrady pays some form of tax, everytime you purchase something (with some exceptions) you pay some form of tax on it Therfore why not drop Income tax to lets say 10% across the board and actualy tax items that one buy's at a rate depending if they are luxury or essentials
The purpose of the post was to focus only on federal income tax which is the lion's share of what people pay. Yes, everybody pays a few dollars tax on groceries. A few cents on gas. A few cents on snacks. The income tax is the main burden (to some) while others pay none and actually take from the system what they haven't even paid. To defend people by saying they pay a few dollars on their groceries, the same as I do, doesn't make me feel any better about it.
Actualy if for once you took the time to read what others write instead of assuming that they are in disagreement with you you might be plesantly suprised nor am I intent on making you feel any better or worse about anything simply giving a opinion the same as you are. I have no reference in my post nor alluded to defended anyone I simply put forward the idea of a low basic rate of tax for EVERYONE who works and then tax at different rates on products and services that one might purchase The fact still remains that just about everyone in the US pays some form of tax and those few $$ as you put it across the nation as a whole add up to a very hefty slice of income, simply look at the size of the population and assume that they all pay $1 each per week now tell me that is a few $$ (You are looking at a figure in excess of $300 million) Now you are complaining about folks who pay no tax or very little well imagine if the tax on a packet of cigeretts was $3, 50%+ on a luxury car etc you want a pair of designer sneakers fine then you pay for them same for a 50" tv and so on
DeOrc, in your first sentence you were trying to imply that paying sales tax on items is somehow equivalent to paying income tax for everyone. Which it is not. I personally lose around $5k a year in income tax plus about another 3-4k to social security. I purchased a newer vehicle and the sales tax was only about $1600. Even that large of a purchase doesn't even come close to the loss from income tax. The tax on fuel and other items is pennies. I'd be happy to pay the rest if I could keep my $5k and then get more back on top of it. That's the boat that 40% of the rest of the country is in! But somebody along the line has to pay something in! My point was just to show that taxing the rich to solve all of our problems is a fairy tale that is comforting to some people that don't understand numbers. It's just an emotional fantasy. The harder you pursue people to pay taxes, the harder they will fight to avoid them. The more money they can save by criminally evading, the more that will try to evade. You lower the amount that you take from these people and all of a sudden the crime doesn't pay anymore. Then it's not worth it for them to evade. But just to magically raise taxes and think X% of revenue will start flowing in anymore is completely false. It likely leads to less revenue or very small gains, as more and more will flee the system in tax shelters on remote islands and foreign countries. What's to be learned from this, is that there is a finite, maximum amount of taxes that can be expected to be collected before the arc starts going the other way. I'm all for the flat tax but politicians are afraid of change. It's more likely that it will be passed on top of current taxes without changing anything in the current system. With the current system, they can control what percentages come out of what income levels. With a flat tax, they can't control what people will do with the money. They surely won't want to give up that control.
I just can't understand why liberals are so opposed to an equal tax system. Why does one guy pay 36% of what he earns while another guy gets more money back than he even paid in the first palce. Consumption taxes, flat taxes, etc tax everyone on a proportionately equal basis (don't worry libs, the rich still pay much, much more). What could be more fair than that? Or a better question would be, what is unfair about this type of system?
Kindly do not attempt to tell me what I was implying, I wrote it not you and I was implying nothing Now if you wish to assume that I was implying something that of course is your perogative As for what you pay in direct and indirect taxation you might want to take a few moments to check the actual figures How much gas do you use in your car every year and what is the tax on that alone, then there is the tax on what you eat (yes a number of states actualy have tax on groceries and Prepared foods) clothing, non prescription drugs, entertainment forget the major purchases The worst problem is of course that you do not have a unified tax system across the entire country for example NC has a state sales tax of 5.75% but you can then add up to another 2% levied by the counties and the same is true for most of the US Alaska prides itself on having no State sales tax but it does have boroughs that levy the tax instead. If you live in California you pay about 18c per gallon tax on fuel Yet new Hampshire is around 38c per gallon!
Part of the reason is that the Income Tax is used as an entitlement program (EIC, Child Tax Credit, etc) and as a way to effect the economy (stimulus plans, etc). And, yes, I do have a problem with that even though I do think we have to have some redistribution of income to maintain a stable democracy. My problem in using it in that way is that it is, what I call, a shotgun approach.
Your exactly right. Additionally, the "spreading" of wealth & so many entitlements simply serve to (on the large part) subsidize failure & zap the initiative of multiple generations. But I think the libs do this on purpose because that indentured class they have created is also a loyal voting block...when they can get them motivated to vote.
I am not saying there should not be social programs. I am just saying that the tax system should not be used that way because it ends up being a blanket approach that leaves less for those that really do need help.
Libs created an indentured class? Pray tell how and when? To me this is the question NEITHER party can answer and it's a question I've had for a long time. How DO you fix this minor (but major) glitch? In past jobs I've seen those that deserved NO (IMHO) help. They did nothing but work the system. I've also seen plenty that DID need help. Hard working, honest Americans. I still see it every week at work. It's an impossible situation but we can't just ignore everyone any more than we can take care of them. I don't have the answers but I'd sure love to see some suggestions that aren't filled with blind rhetoric. That's all I ever really seem to see here.
I don't have the answer either but there has to be a better system than just sending an entire group of people a check every April 15th. Like unemployment...don't you at least have to prove some kind of effort to find a job to keep getting checks? Don't you have to prove a disability to get SS Disability? You don't seem to have to prove any need to get a tax rebate.
Never ending subsidies and entitlements, maybe, with the promises to keep the free money coming? The system is overrun with abuse, multi-generational recipients and fraud. Many of these families motivation & initiative was zapped decades ago by these costly & ineffective programs? Why do they continue? Simple, these liberal social handouts guarantee a voting bloc the libs can count on election after election. The libs can't afford to control these programs and the Repubs are too afraid to tackle them. So, yes, liberal policy long ago established an indentured class...call it what you want...but you cannot deny those on the receiving end of these policies vote for the lib (when they vote) in large part because they want to keep the status quo.
Really, you can't call these big checks a "tax return", that would imply the money was paid in in the first place. We have a lady at work who claims to get $6000-8000 a year as a "tax refund". I know what she makes because I sign her paycheck & she sure doesn't pay $6000 a year in federal taxes.
40% of the population doesn't even have a stake in what happens in this country. They don't care in the least how politicians waste the treasury. As long as they get their cut. This not only is mindless but is completely destructive. Yes, this is a voting block. Once the dem/progressive/socialists can bump that number up to 51%,.... good-bye America. Keep fighting Tom and Moen. You're almost there.
There are children with better arguments than this. That statement is really getting old from you. It's made up. Unrealistic. And most importantly, you're missing the whole point. The top 2% has had no affect on my life, except maybe helping in keeping my tax rate down. What have they done to you? They didn't give you their money for the fun of it?? You're a misguided individual. Some choose to destroy the country because that's what they desire. Some choose out of ignorance. It's too bad really. You see, you'll never get rid of rich people at the top. Even if you achieve the destruction of capitalism and we switch over to 100% socialism, you won't be happy. Your dear leaders at the top will be filthy rich and will not live under the same system. Pretty much how it is now. You wouldn't be better off. Not at all!!! Money should be taken away from you in order to implement what you want, since there are so many people less fortunate than you. Best to even it all out, right? I'm sure you'd go along with that.
The 2% that you are referring to are not all republicans. How much are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid worth now compared to when they first took office? You party by default is just as guilty as those you blame you blind fool.
