Obama Is Smart At Least Regarding Taxes

Solitary said:
So lets keep nailing the successful people by taking 45% of their income, and keep the EIC so that the ones who don't do anything but squeeze out a kid can actually show a profit come tax time. Yep, thats a great plan.

Maybe those making little could get a damned education and be a productive member of society instead of a constant drain?

The Fair Tax is indeed fair. The fact that someone busts their ass and gets to making more does get to keep more money. Its the reward for going to work early and staying late.

Fair does not mean we all get to have the same amount, it means we all pay the same amount in taxes.
Click to expand...

Don't give me that shit. Millionaires don't bust their asses. They don't do shit. I'm sure that having 4.1 million instead of 4.2 million isn't going to make them cry, especially whenever its the difference between someone at the bottom owning a home or not. Save me the pathetic "abuse of the rich" speech.

BTW, the top tax bracket is 35%. Not 45%.
 
Solitary said:
So lets keep nailing the successful people by taking 45% of their income, and keep the EIC so that the ones who don't do anything but squeeze out a kid can actually show a profit come tax time. Yep, thats a great plan.

Maybe those making little could get a damned education and be a productive member of society instead of a constant drain?

The Fair Tax is indeed fair. The fact that someone busts their ass and gets to making more does get to keep more money. Its the reward for going to work early and staying late.

Fair does not mean we all get to have the same amount, it means we all pay the same amount in taxes.
Click to expand...
Can anyone say "strawman"?

Point out ONE place I support a high-end progressive tax system. Why is it if one is opposed to the national sales tax - ie: fair (a lie) tax - means they support a socialist type income redistribution tax system? Are there only two tax systems to choose from?

I have said I am not specifically opposed to - but also do not specifically support - a REASONABLE progressive tax system (and 45% is WAY not reasonable, even if the income is in the billions). But I have also said many times I DO support a flat tax. Flat is fair: every one pays the same percentage on all income above a minimum standard. And because everyone pays the same percentage, those who make more get to keep more, too. It does NOT penalize wealth, because it treats wealth the exact same is any other income. EVERYONE gets to deducct the minimum standard. EVERYONE pays the same percentage after that, and KEEPS the same percentage after that.

If "fair" means everyone "pays the same", why don't you support a simple head tax?

Because you know everyone paying the same regardless of income is NOT actually fair.
 
Good Luck said:
Can anyone say "strawman"?

Point out ONE place I support a high-end progressive tax system. Why is it if one is opposed to the national sales tax - ie: fair (a lie) tax - means they support a socialist type income redistribution tax system? Are there only two tax systems to choose from?

I have said I am not specifically opposed to - but also do not specifically support - a REASONABLE progressive tax system (and 45% is WAY not reasonable, even if the income is in the billions). But I have also said many times I DO support a flat tax. Flat is fair: every one pays the same percentage on all income above a minimum standard. And because everyone pays the same percentage, those who make more get to keep more, too. It does NOT penalize wealth, because it treats wealth the exact same is any other income. EVERYONE gets to deducct the minimum standard. EVERYONE pays the same percentage after that, and KEEPS the same percentage after that.

If "fair" means everyone "pays the same", why don't you support a simple head tax?

Because you know everyone paying the same regardless of income is NOT actually fair.
Click to expand...

EVERYONE gets to deduct the minimum. EVERYONE pays the same percentage on every bracket of income after that. EVERYONE pays the same percentage for each bracket after that, and KEEPS the same percentage after that.
 
Watermark said:
EVERYONE gets to deduct the minimum. EVERYONE pays the same percentage on every bracket of income after that. EVERYONE pays the same percentage for each bracket after that, and KEEPS the same percentage after that.
Click to expand...
Doesn't work for fairness, because we are treating each bracket of income differently from the other brackets. Therefore, we treating people differently according to which bracket they fall into. Then we add tax shelters, additional deductions, and treat different sources of income differently, and we end up with the grievous, inequitable, middle-guy-gets-screwed mess we have now.

Flat tax treats everyone equally, no bracketing, no special tax shelters available only to income in higher brackets, no differentiating where the income came from, no exceptions. Each and every tax paying jack is treated the exact same as every other tax paying jack. After all, are we not supposed to be a society based on equal treatment under the law?
 
Good Luck said:
Doesn't work for fairness, because we are treating each bracket of income differently from the other brackets. Therefore, we treating people differently according to which bracket they fall into. Then we add tax shelters, additional deductions, and treat different sources of income differently, and we end up with the grievous, inequitable, middle-guy-gets-screwed mess we have now.

Flat tax treats everyone equally, no bracketing, no special tax shelters available only to income in higher brackets, no differentiating where the income came from, no exceptions. Each and every tax paying jack is treated the exact same as every other tax paying jack. After all, are we not supposed to be a society based on equal treatment under the law?
Click to expand...

Everyone is treated equally. Everyones income within said incomes specific brackets is treated equally.
 
Watermark,

Perhaps you could start by explaining what is wrong with a flat-rate tax.

I've already proven that it is progressive, simple, and effective.

Why do liberals always oppose change for the better?
 
Thor said:
Watermark,

Perhaps you could start by explaining what is wrong with a flat-rate tax.

I've already proven that it is progressive, simple, and effective.

Why do liberals always oppose change for the better?
Click to expand...

Could you explain to me what is wrong with a progressive-rate tax?
 
Watermark said:
Could you explain to me what is wrong with a progressive-rate tax?
Click to expand...

Overcomplicated, unfair (penalizes the wealthy), and less effective than a single-bracket tax. Every country that has switched to a flat-rate has seen a dramnatic increase in revenue.
 
Watermark said:
Don't give me that shit. Millionaires don't bust their asses. They don't do shit. I'm sure that having 4.1 million instead of 4.2 million isn't going to make them cry, especially whenever its the difference between someone at the bottom owning a home or not. Save me the pathetic "abuse of the rich" speech.

BTW, the top tax bracket is 35%. Not 45%.
Click to expand...

They don't bust their asses? How the hell do you think they got to be millionaires? This idea that all rich people are trust fund babies or they stole the money is bullshit. Most of the rich folks got that way by working 80+ hour weeks to build something up or to get where they are. They busted their ass and took risks.

The top federal is 35%, but add in state taxes and they often get to 45%.

Plus, about 20% to 22% of the price of goods and services is taxes paid by the businesses. So AFTER you pay your income tax you pay more taxes that are in the price of items.

In this country we spend $500 billion annually on tax compliance.

That is completely ridiculous.
 
Watermark said:
Everyone is treated equally. Everyones income within said incomes specific brackets is treated equally.
Click to expand...
Note the qualifier. A person in the 400K bracket is NOT treated equally to a person in the 50K bracket. If you add a qualifier which separates people into groups, then any claim of equal treatment is a flat out lie.

No, it is NOT fair to tax someone more "because they can afford it" any more than it would be fair for a department store to charge more for the same product because someone "can afford it." Such claims are nothing less than bigotry coming from politically induced class warfare.
 
Good Luck said:
Note the qualifier. A person in the 400K bracket is NOT treated equally to a person in the 50K bracket. If you add a qualifier which separates people into groups, then any claim of equal treatment is a flat out lie.

No, it is NOT fair to tax someone more "because they can afford it" any more than it would be fair for a department store to charge more for the same product because someone "can afford it." Such claims are nothing less than bigotry coming from politically induced class warfare.
Click to expand...


Not true. corporations sculpt the society via buying legislators, hence, the profits and the employees and shareholders who collect them should be taxed differently to compensate the society they have twisted to support their fascist aims. Sorry, it's true.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Not true. corporations sculpt the society via buying legislators, hence, the profits and the employees and shareholders who collect them should be taxed differently to compensate the society they have twisted to support their fascist aims. Sorry, it's true.
Click to expand...

Over half the people in the country own stocks. Anyone with a retirement fund owns stocks.

So this idea that the stocks, capital gains taxes and the like are taxing only the rich is bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top