George W. Bush: The Good Things (Page 4)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() drewb8 - 2006-01-30 11:21 AM Would you object to a system where we we took say, the top %2 of incomes and taxed them more, and then took that money and said "ok, for every kid that wants to go to college, here is $5000 towards tuition". This system is already in place. As of 2003, the top 50% of income earners paid 96.54% of the taxes in the U.S. and the top 1% in income earners paid an absurd 31.27% of all taxes in the U.S. That is nothing but baldfaced stealing from one group to give to another. How's that working out for us?? Edited by Flyboy 2006-01-30 3:01 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Flyboy - 2006-01-30 1:00 PM drewb8 - 2006-01-30 11:21 AM Would you object to a system where we we took say, the top %2 of incomes and taxed them more, and then took that money and said "ok, for every kid that wants to go to college, here is $5000 towards tuition". This system is already in place. As of 2003, the top 50% of income earners paid 96.54% of the taxes in the U.S. and the top 1% in income earners paid an absurd 31.27% of all taxes in the U.S. That is nothing but baldfaced stealing from one group to give to another. How's that working out for us?? I never said anything about the current system working, because I'm pretty sure it isn't. I'm just saying that I'm ok with taxing the upperest class more IF that can used to help move up the lower classes and increase their odds. I can see why you guys are opposed to this, and I would be too if it were just taxing the rich as a penalty or for no good reason. BTW - The top incomes are always going to contribute the largest amt, even with a flat tax. 25% of 1,000,000 is much more than 25% of 25,000. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bradword - 2006-01-30 3:44 PM .... check out the Church of Ladder Day Saints (Mormons) welfare system.... LMAO! |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() No fair...I already said I can't spell (and I'm dyslexic a bit) :P :P :P |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Yeah but 25% of everyones salary is equitable and fair......whereas the now the $1,000,000 guy pays somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% or so. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Rocket Man - 2006-01-30 4:58 PM Yeah but 25% of everyones salary is equitable and fair......whereas the now the $1,000,000 guy pays somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% or so. For arguments sake, here's a distillation of an argument I once heard in favor of progressive taxation in the form of a national sales tax: - most of our taxes are paid for the national defense. Ergo, the more stuff you have, the more you're getting in government services. Using this reasoning, it's perfectly appropriate for the richest 1% to pay the lions share of the taxes, because they have the most stuff being defended by the military. Discuss. Civilly. First person to use a derogatory term is a no good commie. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() The problem is not that if I make 10,000 or 10,000,000 i should only pay 500 dollars in taxes. It should be 10,000 = 25% = 2500 10,000,000 = 25% = 2,500,000 As it stands now it's (approx) 10,000 = 12% = 1200 10,000,000 = 48% = 4,800,000 How is that fair? The rich are being punished for bring more to the economy, usually more jobs more taxes etc. And the liberal view is, we want more! One of the biggest lies the liberal politicians put out is that they actually care about poor people (and Black people for that matter). It's crap. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Rocket Man - 2006-01-30 1:58 PM Yeah but 25% of everyones salary is equitable and fair......whereas the now the $1,000,000 guy pays somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% or so. Ok, well I can see your point about it being unfair to rich people & hopefully you can see that I'm not being unfair just for the hell of it or for punishment - I'm not thinking about some kind pointless redistribution or welfare. I'm actually pretty uncomfortable with the government mandating morality like that, but if its going to give people a better chance of escaping poverty at the expense of people who already have I'm better with it. And yeah, 40% sounds like a bit much. |
![]() ![]() |
Got Wahoo? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() drewb8 - 2006-01-30 4:19 PM Rocket Man - 2006-01-30 1:58 PM Yeah but 25% of everyones salary is equitable and fair......whereas the now the $1,000,000 guy pays somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% or so. Ok, well I can see your point about it being unfair to rich people & hopefully you can see that I'm not being unfair just for the hell of it or for punishment - I'm not thinking about some kind pointless redistribution or welfare. I'm actually pretty uncomfortable with the government mandating morality like that, but if its going to give people a better chance of escaping poverty at the expense of people who already have I'm better with it. And yeah, 40% sounds like a bit much.
Anyone paying 40% of their income deserves to pay 40% of their income.
If you are earning 20,000 or less - you are more than likely not paying any taxes at all, though you drive on the roads, have a stop light coming out of your neighborhood and are entitled to police, fire and EMS. I've always found it funny to listen to someone who is not paying money into the tax system getting pissed about the rich and wanting to tax them further - these are all talking points put forth by political parties and have very little real validity - I don't want to hear someone who makes 60k complain about their tax bracket if their reported taxable income is 37k or someone who is making 25 k and is paying 1k after earned income credits. Neaither side has any validity. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tmwelshy - 2006-01-30 2:41 PM Anyone paying 40% of their income deserves to pay 40% of their income. Please qualify as I don't understand. The second part which I clipped I understand but this statement seemed a bit out of place. Edited by ChuckyFinster 2006-01-30 5:49 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Got Wahoo? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChuckyFinster - 2006-01-30 4:49 PM tmwelshy - 2006-01-30 2:41 PM Anyone paying 40% of their income deserves to pay 40% of their income. Please qualify as I don't understand. The second part which I clipped I understand but this statement seemed a bit out of place.
Anyone in that tax bracket is taking some heavy deductions to the point that 40% has no meaning - If someone makes 500k a year, after deductions their paying much less than 40% of their actual income, but will still complain about paying that much.... |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChuckyFinster - 2006-01-30 5:54 PM It would seem that TurboTax is not doing me any justice then. If you're clearing 500 large a year I would invest in a CPA and not use just TurboTax
bts |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tmwelshy - 2006-01-30 6:41 PM If you are earning 20,000 or less - you are more than likely not paying any taxes at all, though you drive on the roads, have a stop light coming out of your neighborhood and are entitled to police, fire and EMS. I've always found it funny to listen to someone who is not paying money into the tax system getting pissed about the rich and wanting to tax them further - these are all talking points put forth by political parties and have very little real validity - I don't want to hear someone who makes 60k complain about their tax bracket if their reported taxable income is 37k or someone who is making 25 k and is paying 1k after earned income credits. Neaither side has any validity. While there are federal grants that provide some funding for police, fire, EMS and local streets, the bulk of these operations are paid for through your local property taxes which are NOT based on income, but the VALUE of your property (House). (Yeah, I know some localities have a local income tax). Prior to the Economic Recovery Tax Act -1981 and the Tax Reform Act-1986 (Thank you Mr. Reagan) individuals top tax rate was 70% !!!! There is an Alternative Minimum Tax in place designed to prevent high-income taxpayers from escaping their "fair"-share of the tax burden. Our Federal Tax system is obviously a very complicated system that is (too) tightly interwoven with our economic system (In simple terms, much of our economy depends on our tax structure - maybe "depends" is too strong a word; but I'm talking about things like investments). MORE complicated are the EFFECTS of changes to our tax structure on our economic viability, which makes it difficult to make changes - just ask the lobbyists. You deserve, and have an obligation, to pay what your properly prepared Income Tax form says ya owe under the existing tax code. I don't know anyone that has ever said "let me pay MORE tax", but I think/hope that most of us are willing to pay our taxes to live in this great country.
Edited by glf33 2006-01-30 7:31 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() glf33 - 2006-01-30 4:29 PM [ I don't know anyone that has ever said "let me pay MORE tax...
You obviously haven't ever listened to any Democrat politician...oh, wait...you're right...they don't say "let ME pay more tax", it's always "YOU pay more tax." Key word here being more...the typical Democrat never met a tax they didn't like. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Hey Stan could you post something just to get rid of the 666 thing. btw who is this George Bush you speak of in this thread? Edited by gullahcracker 2006-01-30 8:31 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Flyboy - 2006-01-30 7:02 PM glf33 - 2006-01-30 4:29 PM [ I don't know anyone that has ever said "let me pay MORE tax...
You obviously haven't ever listened to any Democrat politician...oh, wait...you're right...they don't say "let ME pay more tax", it's always "YOU pay more tax." Key word here being more...the typical Democrat never met a tax they didn't like. You're right, I've voted 4 times to raise property taxes for school referendums locally. Oh, but that raises my own taxes to, so there goes your argument. Thanks for not resorting to hyperbolic stereotypes. -Chris
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Flyboy - 2006-01-30 6:02 PM glf33 - 2006-01-30 4:29 PM [ I don't know anyone that has ever said "let me pay MORE tax...
You obviously haven't ever listened to any Democrat politician...oh, wait...you're right...they don't say "let ME pay more tax", it's always "YOU pay more tax." Key word here being more...the typical Democrat never met a tax they didn't like. Good point. In the future I'll try & remember that every democrat hates this country and is doing everything they can to ruin it on purpose. Just curious - has all of this tax talk made any of you pro-torture people reconsider? I'm pretty sure discussing deductions and Tax Acts is one of the questionable techniques. Edited by drewb8 2006-01-30 9:47 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() drewb8 - 2006-01-30 5:19 PM but if its going to give people a better chance of escaping poverty at the expense of people who already have I'm better with it. But throwing money around doesn't help people escape poverty. Hardwork, initiative, hardwork, perseverance, hardwork, luck, HARDWORK etc... that's what it takes to get out of poverty but unfortunately a large group of people in this country don't believe the above statement and thats why they will always live in poverty and the reason there will always be poverty. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() run4yrlif - 2006-01-27 9:47 AM I posed this question a couple of times in another thread, but got almost no response, so I thought I'd try a whole big ol' thread for it. In that other thread, one BTer called W. the "second best president of the last 30 years, behind Reagan." That struck me as Alex P. Keaton saying Nixon was the best President ever on "Family Ties." Clinton is often attacked by the Bush camp as a strategy of "our guy may be bad, but so was yours." So I listed a whole bunch of things which, in my opinion, were successes of Clinton's tenure. When Bush is defended, his actions are always (seemingly) described in the context of not being bad (as in not criminal or not incompetent). So my challenge is this: what *good* has he done? I said he got rid of Hussein which is a good thing, but must be tempered with the circumstances of removing him under false pretenses and also the cost (both in human lives and taxpayer dollars) of doing so. Was it worth it? I'd say no. But OK, that's one thing. Another BTer said Afghanistan and the fall of the Taliban. No question, that's a good thing.But what else has he done? After those two (or one, if you think Hussein's removal came at too high a cost), I'm stumped. So here's your chance, Bushophiles... I hope that your races this year have nothing but left hand turns cause I don't think you'd know what to do otherwise. Edited by Motivated 2006-01-30 9:54 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() coredump - 2006-01-30 10:00 PM You're right, I've voted 4 times to raise property taxes for school referendums locally. Oh, but that raises my own taxes to, so there goes your argument. -Chris You GET to vote on your property taxes. Local education issues are an easy (relatively speaking) one that MOST would vote for. Good schools help property values which benefit the homeowner, ie - the taxpayer. Not to mention, if you have kids or planning to have kids, what the value of a good education is. You don't get to vote on Federal income taxes (not directly) so there's NO choice. Edit: OH yeah - your property taxes are deductible on your Federal return - another direct benefit. Bottom line - you're comparing apples (local property taxes) to oranges (Federal income tax). Edited by glf33 2006-01-30 10:31 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() nbo10 - 2006-01-30 7:51 PM drewb8 - 2006-01-30 5:19 PM but if its going to give people a better chance of escaping poverty at the expense of people who already have I'm better with it. But throwing money around doesn't help people escape poverty. Hardwork, initiative, hardwork, perseverance, hardwork, luck, HARDWORK etc... that's what it takes to get out of poverty but unfortunately a large group of people in this country don't believe the above statement and thats why they will always live in poverty and the reason there will always be poverty. I think you're right that alot of times politicians just throw money at a problem and think that will solve it. If you are in poverty and to sit around and hope a better situation falls in your lap, go for it. But I'm not going to feel sorry for you when you're on the same corner 10 years later. ON the other hand if you are willing to work to improve your situation but your school can't afford books or has one teacher for 40 students or you have to work to help feed your family instead of studying or your family can't afford college these are things where putting $ towards it can help. If someone is in poverty but trying to escape and willing to do whatever it takes we should be willing to do the same to help them. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() drewb8 - 2006-01-30 11:27 PM If someone is in poverty but trying to escape and willing to do whatever it takes we should be willing to do the same to help them. I'm sorry maybe I'm not altruistic enough, but I am NOT willing to "do whatever it takes" to help them. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() A couple of things, Why do we in America think more kids in a class = a bad thing. Other countries have that many and more in a classroom and they do way better. Most of our problems in education stem from the family (the lack of it) and most kids these days are whiney little turds. Anyways, also My in-laws are definatly at poverty level. They have been there for a long time. Plenty of hand outs and hand ups. The problem is, we think we can help everyone. I could give them 50k and they would be in the same place in 2 years. I've been broke before, broke is not having money. I have never been poor. Poor is a state of mind and an attitude. I know plenty of people who came from nothing to become something. I know people who came from everything and became nothing. One of the biggest problems in this nation today is that nothing is ever our own fault. It's always Daddies fault, my parents got divorced, the teacher doesn't like me etc. If we would teach responcibility and take on what we do, the world will be a better place. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() glf33 - 2006-01-30 9:20 PM coredump - 2006-01-30 10:00 PM You're right, I've voted 4 times to raise property taxes for school referendums locally. Oh, but that raises my own taxes to, so there goes your argument. -Chris You GET to vote on your property taxes. Local education issues are an easy (relatively speaking) one that MOST would vote for. Good schools help property values which benefit the homeowner, ie - the taxpayer. Not to mention, if you have kids or planning to have kids, what the value of a good education is. You don't get to vote on Federal income taxes (not directly) so there's NO choice. Edit: OH yeah - your property taxes are deductible on your Federal return - another direct benefit. Bottom line - you're comparing apples (local property taxes) to oranges (Federal income tax). The original poster didn't specify what taxes us commie pinko liberal democrats are supposed to love. If the tax is paid locally or federally, it's still a tax, and you still paid it. Only difference is the "Payable To:" line on the check. You are correct that we don't directly determine our Fed taxes. If they went somewhere useful, to education or other programs that help, instead of pork/special interests, I'd have less of an issue with Fed taxes. I *can* make sure that more of my tax money goes to education by raising my local taxes, and I do. Thanks for trimming my quote, but I'll bet if I'd made a sterotypical attack against republicans you'd have not had any problems leaving it intact though. -Chris |
|