Check out this article and give your opinions.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_ … s_no_taxes
Is that like people without jobs? Those jerks! lol
"Is that like people without jobs? Those jerks! lol"
Very funny. FYI unemployment benefits are taxable. Aside from that, it's hard to collect taxes from people who don't have jobs. Of course the only reason they don't have jobs is because they are lazy bums who prefer to be unemployed. As I recall in a recession back in the 1960s or 70s a Republican candidate said there are two kinds of people "bird dogs (the worker bees) and kennel dogs (the unemployed)."
That was a bit rash for a rational man. Not everyone who is unemployed collects unemployment. And not everyone who doesn't have job is a lazy bum either.
Not really, because those that DO pay income taxes are paying those other taxes as well!
But there are very few people who are getting something for nothing (unless your corporation is getting government subsidies).
People that aren't making a lot of money aren't paying taxes and are likely receiving benefits from programs to help the poor, in addition all the things that government uses tax money for they also enjoy the benefit of.
Don't forget the 52,000 rich Americans who have secret Swiss bank accounts. Plus others in Antigua, the Bahamas and other offshore locations. And the multinational corporations who have stashed profits in their overseas subsidiaries rather than repatriating them and paying U.S. corporate taxes. Not to mention the hedge fund managers who pay only 15% capital gains tax on their billions of "earnings."
Even if you get money back,it doesn't add up to what they withheld from you.
"Don't forget the 52,000 rich Americans who have secret Swiss bank accounts"
This made me laugh. Seriously think about that statement.
How "Secret" can they be if there is an EXACT number ... in this case 52,000 "Rich Americans" with offshore accounts.
Bush and Obama both encourage policy that pushes profits out of the country.
If ever there were an argument for LESS Government this only proves the point.
Always the ignorance.
The Swiss banks have provided that number but have refused to provide the names of the American tax dodgers because of Swiss bank secrecy laws. (I believe UBS is going to provide 10,000 names but hasn't done so yet.)
(You are the one who's ignorant, pal.)
This is similar to Australian taxation. Not taxing the poor and offering benefits for poor and low pay families with children has improved the economy here.
Long term benefits are in. It works because it reduces the cost of living enough to avert a lot of long term social problems that are poverty related.
"The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%."
In fact, the data shows that the bottom 60% by poulation own about 5% of the net worth of the country.
So who do YOU think should be paying the bulk of the taxes?
The bottom 60%
They receive 100% of the benefits!
"The bottom 60%
They receive 100% of the benefits!"
How do you figure that? Did you ever visit a National Park? Drive on an Interstate Highway? Deposit money in a bank insured by the FDIC? And so forth?
Care to retract that foolish statement? Probably not. I suspect you don't find it easy to admit when you are wrong.
No, I don't mean you!
Yeah, I visited a national park, I took some oak leaves!
Ever tried to spend an oak leaf?
What exactly would be your point?
Do you think those in the 60% are contributing to the National Parks?
Jesus, not you!
Means absolutely nothing, but excellent!
What he means is - you won't retract a stupid statement.
Taxes pay for a wide spectrum of services from national defense, which protects and defends the wealth of the rich more than the poor - to roads, cleanwater, national parks,etc.
All you can see is that someone at the botttom of the ladder is lazy and deserves to starve - such is the hateful philosophy of wingnuts.
If conservatives hate taxes so much, then why are you upset that half of housesolds don't pay any?
But as Ralph put it so perfectly, everyone pays taxes one way or another. The issue really is who should pay more or less.
By the way, my household is one of the 1/2 that didn't owe federal taxes this year, got a nice refund. And believe it or not, I have a job. But that doesn't mean I didn't pay any income tax, I did.
Plus I owe $700 to the State of California.
I wish we could escape ***sigh*** and we haven't seen money back in years, lucky that they don't have to pay
by ga anderson 4 years ago
Much is heard of a demand that corporations and the wealthy pay their "fair share" of taxes, but I have heard little of what that share should be.With only a single restriction; that the discussion is about legal tax actions, what should that "fair share" be?One could say that...
by Eddie Carrara 8 years ago
Do you think the rich should pay higher taxes?Do you think rich people should pay a higher percentage in taxes then middle class or low income people, or do you think taxes should be straight lined across the boards?
by tobey100 10 years ago
What’s wrong with the Liberals’ view on taxes? What’s wrong with their constant vow to tax the ‘rich’? What’s inherently wrong with their proclaimed intent to ‘level’ the playing field? Here’s a simple, logical example that any open minded individual can understand explaining the...
by Jesusjohn78 6 months ago
Everyone hates the "rich" and I do not understand why. I was always under the impression the American dream was to become successful and stay successful? SO why are we always trying to punish the rich?
by Shyron E Shenko 3 years ago
Trump said at the first debate that it is good business not to pay taxes, do you agree with him?At the same time he is talking about the Military shrinking. Maybe he doesn’t know that taxes pay for the Military. Taxes also pay our infrastructure, schools, police…etc.
by ptosis 3 years ago
federal income tax rates history, During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.)What does it mean, though? For the duration of Eisenhower’s presidency, that rate affected individuals...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|