From the Center for Tax Justice...
"Conservative pundits and media outlets have seized upon an estimate that 47 percent of taxpayers owe no federal income tax for 2009. This statistic has morphed into the claim by conservatives that “47 percent of all Americans don’t pay any taxes.” The conservative pundits are wrong. It’s true that many taxpayers don’t pay federal income taxes, but they still pay federal payroll taxes (and some federal excise taxes) and also pay state and local taxes. Most of these other taxes are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of a poor or middle-class family’s income than they take from a rich family. This largely offsets the progressivity of the federal income tax."
OK. These guys did the homework. Add all taxes together - payroll, state, local and federal and compare what Americans actually pay in real taxes as a percent.
Lowest 20% - 16.2% (income $12,500)
Next. 20% - 20.7% (income $25,300)
Middle 20% - 25.1% (income $40,700)
Fourth 20% - 28.5% (income $66,300)
Next 10% - 30.0% (income $100,000)
Next. 5% - 31.1% (income $140,000)
Next. 4% - 31.3% (income $241,000)
Top. 1% - 30.0% (income $1,254,000)
So here's the kicker. The guy at the top, (averaging an annual 1.25 MILLION) pays (just under) 5% more than the average guy earning 40K annual.
Go to CTJ.ORG. for the report. It will dampen any sympathy for the tax crybabies.
The guy at the top pays $375,000; the guy in the middle pays $10,250. In my book that's a 3600% increase, not a 5% increase. Yes, I know what you are trying to say, but find it interesting how easy it is to skew the figures to make people think something that isn't true.
In addition, I suspect that you have left off all the other taxes, such as gas, sales, property, personal property, cigarette, liquor, automobile, phone, power and the other thousands of such taxes. The rich will pay far more here as well, I think.
The fairest tax is that every man, woman and child pay an equal amount, but this won't work for obvious reasons. Next choice would be that everyone pay the same percentage of their income, but even that isn't enough so we require those that work harder, are smarter or for whatever reason earn more to pay a higher percentage of their income. And still want them to pay ever more and more to support those that can't or won't pay their fair share of maintaining our government and country.
You think the rich guy can smoke more cigarettes than a middle class guy? Drink that much more beer? Drive that much more? You list these taxes as if the consumption of the rich will level the tax field. Preposterous on the face of it.
I ofter wonder why it is that liberals feel so compelled to lie about everything.
Doug you knoy you are trying to deceive us. Why don't you just stop it?
I misread the data... I'll delete the post.
Ok, so here's the data.
I assumed that there were 100 people (1 person = 1% of the population). I then plugged in the "tax rate" for each individual (i.e., 16.2% * 20 = the average amount of money for the lowest group), and then divided by 100 (to get an average).
The average tax rate of each individual in that chart was 24.202%.
Which means that the bottom 40% of the population pay LESS than their fair share, and the higher 60% pay MORE than their fair share. The top 20% pay about 7% more per dollar than the average.
I dunno about you, but that's nice of them. They're paying more than "their fair share", when this number is deduced by averages.
Of course you'll retort with "well they're richer, they can afford more", but ... well... They could just leave and not pay their inflated rates!!
The bottom 20% pay about 8% less than average, and the top 20% pay about 8% more.
NOW!! The top 20% are paying a larger amount of MONEY -- if you take the amount of money they pay, they're paying much much much much much much much much more.
But then you'll come back and say "well they should pay even more, because... middle class... similar rate... yada yada".
But the truth is that they could just leave. They could just go somewhere else, or hide their money.
Then, to make up the difference if the top 20% left, the bottom 80% would have to pay an additional $525,173 each year.
The bottom 80% is paying an average per person of $30,181 each year. And $525,173 divided by 80 = $6564.66.
That means that if the top 20% left, the bottom 80% would have to pay an additional $6567 per person per year to make up the difference.
Which would be a 10% increase in taxes for the top 4th quintile, and a 50% increase for the lowest quintile.
Unless you wanna pay about $6,000 more per year... I'd... probably shut up and quit complaining.
No Evan - you don't get it. If the top 20% pack it in and leave then the new top 20% have to pick up the burden - we can't have the bottom bunch paying anything. We'll have to tax the new top 20% at perhaps 80% of their income (I didn't do the math, just guessed), but that's all right.
They will pay it for a few years until they, too, get tired of it and leave. If the rest all paid what was needed they would now have to pay 100% of income, so they will leave too. Everybody will move to Australia and leave the country to the indians, at least until the Chinese take it all on defaulted loans. At that point the only Americans left (two liberals) can begin applying the liberal ideas on taxation on the Chinese and bankrupt them too.
At least it will be "fair".
I'm also surprised that Doug didn't respond. I see that he responded to someone else in between my post and this post...
... oh well!
Check this out, I think you will think it is fair
The rich will: drive a fuel inefficient car, paying more taxes. Drink higher cost liquor, paying higher taxes. Own an expensive home, paying more taxes. Own an expensive car, paying more taxes. Use more electricity, paying more taxes. On the whole they will pay far more in specialty taxes.
There's hard statistics there. The guy at he top is making 30 times what the guy in the middle is.
That's a lot of cigarettes and liqour
The taxes you just listed are all regressive. The take a larger portion of the poor and middle class's income
They are not regressive. They are equal. Have all of you been exclusively tutored only on Marxism?
And here you see the Teabaggers plan. Equal taxes -REGARDLESS OF INCOME!
You can not wrap greed in the flag and call it patriotism.
It seems to me that the ones who are greedy are the ones who want to plunder the property of others.
That would be you. Not me.
Hi Doug, Equal tax rates. I will still pay more than you do. Lots more. I will buy more things at a higher quality and greater expense. So be assured that you will pay your dollar and I will pay my twenty in taxes. But it will remove the greatest disincentives to me working any more than I do today. That means you will benefit as I will provide more interesting things that will improve your life.
Shake of he chains of Marxism/socialism. You really will enjoy your life more. It is morally liberating to free your slaves.
You need the mice to remove the bell so you can hunt them with impunity.
Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt (whom I have quoted recently on taxation) have shaped my opinions.
You can scream Marx until you are blue in the face. My opinion are AMERICAN through and through.
I have read about half of T. Jefferson's (and J. Madison's) collected writings and papers. I cannot place my finger upon that paragraph where Jefferson said it is okay to plunder your neighbor's property as long as you have sufficient votes to do so.
And T. Roosevelt was a Progressive which is the polite, American term, for socialist. Progressives, long ago, figured out that socialism is un-American so they knew they had to hide what they are from the people. By golly, it worked.
Now there you go again.
Karl Marx was a 19th century German Jew. Hardly American at all. And more importantly to our small drama, he was wrong about nearly everything. His ideas have had profound impacts. He heavily influenced V.I. Lenin. That is why I studied Marxism-Leninism as an intelligence officer. The Soviet Union, the Evil Empire, destroyed an entire people and kept them enslaved for about 80 years based on his failed economic theories. And yet here you are, bringing them back out, dusting hem off, and proclaiming that his ideas are American ideas.
Did you attend an American public school perhaps? Taught by union labor? Is it all coming together since the rise of labor unions was central to his economic model? And where have we seen the huge growth in unions? Only in the government sector. Hmmmm. Anti-capitalist conspiracy?
Yeah, gonna have to side with Sn53Anon on this one. The Roosevelts saw the opportunity to use socialism to screw over America.
And, for the life of me, I can't find a passage of Jefferson touting any sort of Socialist writing such as that.
The most socialist thing that Jefferson wanted, that I can think of, was the schooling system. But even then, that was to be controlled by the nearby community, not the Federal Government.
Karl Marx build a very flawed economic model. It's goal was the destruction of capitalism, and therefore freedom. His predictions were completely inaccurate. A method her recommended for the destruction of capital, and thus capitalism was the progressive income tax. This is a built in method to punish achievement at any level and at every level.
Progressives, like you, are socialists. Marxists.
You are envious of the people who are more successful than you are. I think there is a pill for that now. You should take it.
Marx's biggest flaw that gets repeated over and over and over in the media, by politicians, and (unfortunately) by liberals (I see it a lot in conservatives, but much less) was that economic transactions are a zero sum game.
Unfortunately everyone bought into this idiotic notion. Everyone thinks that if I buy toothpaste from the store, then the company is richer and I'm poorer.
This is COMPLETE nonsense. Obviously i value the toothpaste more than the money and the company values the money more than the toothpaste. We BOTH end up RICHER.
Marx was a moron when it came to economics, but he was brilliant in writing a guide to becoming a tyrant. His ideas are responsible for over 100 million deaths, yet people STILL ask for more.
Ludwig Von Mises proved that Socialism and Communism are bankrupt almost a century ago, but no one seems to care.
Salerno discusses this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsF4gAkuaeY
LOL. That was a poorly constructed sentence.
Is socialism the only economic model you know? And is Karl Marx the only economist, excuse me, rabble rouser, uh, community organizer you are familiar with?
No. I'm not all that familiar with Marx as he was more a philosopher than in economist.
I do however, know much more about economists and economics than you do. However, you being ignorant about economics has nothing to do with what I said, which was that those taxes take a higher percentage of income from the middle class and poor. I'm not sure why you felt the need to go on your nonsensical tirade about Socialism and Marxism when I said nothing in any way related to those things.
Awesome. You are not familiar with Marx, the creator of the most dangerous economic model yet devised and yet you know much more than I? Awesome.
I'm familiar, but I studied more relevant economics. You know, the economists, theories, and principles that actually inform modern-day business and economic policy. You learn about Marx in philosophy and political science, not economics. The only reason you know of Marx is because a Right wing radio pundit convinced you to start calling people Marxists and Socialists.
Did you learn anything about the Austrian Business Cycle? The Laffer curve? Karl Menger's marginal utility arguments? Mises' Human Action?
Nah, you probably just learned that "spending = prosperity".
I can see that you didn't study economics, lol. If I was an ideologue like yourself, who just wanted to convince myself that I was right, I could have simply used the internet.
Oh, grand exalted master, please teach me!!
Question one: How did money come to be?
Question two: How is wealth generated?
Question three: How does the Federal Reserve lower interest rates?
Question four: Can you tell me the purpose of interest rates?
Question five: Is inflation better than deflation?
I can't wait to have your knowledge imparted upon me.
A simple google search could find you answers to any of those simple questions. Well you're at it, search for the definition of "regressive tax." You'll learn something.
Do you understand what a "regressive tax" is? It's a tax that takes a greater percentage of a poor person's income than a rich person's income. The sales tax is an excellent example. So is the Soc. Security tax, which is only levied on the first $100K or so that one earns. Remember too that even our progressive income tax is only levied on earned income, that is, income that comes from a job, in a paycheck. Money earned from investments, rent, etc, doesn't get taxed at the income tax rate.
Warren Buffet has famously said that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does. He has also recognized that there's something wrong with that.
In fact I do. It is a Marxist formulation, along with its mirror-image the progressive tax. Karl Marx believed one way to speed the demise of free market capitalism involved both punishment to the achievers through increasing levels of taxation as well as the convenient byproduct of defunding them. And it works.
Yeah? So. Therefore what, exactly? Should we have a gradual payment system for everything? I just bought a car. I am rich. You are not. Let's us say the car, today, costs $40k. Should you, since you are poor, only have to pay $2k for it while I must pay $80k, in order to keep the percentages we pay equal?
There is nothing wrong with it other than it involves Warren Buffet. He can pay as much as he wants to and he knows it. So do you. He is a hypocrite. Let him write a check to the government on all of his wealth equal to that percentage his secretary pays. Then he might have a case. Like most limousine liberals he talks a great game. But what he is really after is for everyone else to pay more.
Versus you people, who only want the poor and middle class to pay more!
When government does only that which, under our Constitution it is allowed to do everyone can pay less taxes.
And you do know the bottom half of all taxpayers pay about 3% of the taxes don't you? If we added in all of the benefits they gain from government they should be paying lots more.
oops, Dang it! Lovemychris got me! I hate people!
Damn. My evil plan of hating people almost went through!
Well you certainly have a strong dislike of those who are not so rich.
The only one in this dialogue who has consistent views towards the rich and poor is me.
YOU GUYS are claiming that "the rich need to pay more than the poor".
I'M claiming that NO one should pay ANYthing.
I'm 100% consistent in a completely neutral view towards both the poor and rich.
YOU are claiming that "we" "need" to steal money from rich people.
The only one here who dislikes anyone else based on their wealth is YOU.
Errrr, where do you get this?
Do you hate liberals? I don't think so.
A constitutionally-based, limited government, a law-abiding government, will not require more taxes be collected. It will do only that which it is lawfully allowed to do. We all win.
They probably are, at that. Your concept as a liberal of the "wrongness" of regressive taxes is misplaced; the only fair tax is an equal one.
Very true. And the taxes applied to the richistanis are as full of loopholes as Swiss cheese. One of the most unconscionable is to allow hedge fund operators to pay capital gains tax instead of income tax on their ill gotten gains.
I just noticed this - Richistanis - sums them up nicely, they may as well be from another country as they don't pay tax in their place(s) of residence, don't feed anything back into the governments they control.
There must be other 'richisims' out there ?
That's awesome. Barry had the opportunity to pay more, voluntarily, but like most liberal millionaires and billionaires chose to take full advantage of the tax code and pay only 27% effective income tax rate. But he is a piker compared to the loving and generous Joe "the plagiarist" Biden.
CTJ.ORG posted this article:
Obama Blasts Ryan Budget Plan
April 15, 2011
President Obama speech explained the Ryan Budget stating it would do the following.
1. Typical 65-year-olds would spend nearly $6,400 more annually on health care
2.Medicare would be turned into a voucher, and "if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own."
3.50 million would lose health insurance, resulting from Medicaid cuts and the repeal of the health care reform law.
All of the above are half truths, the whole truth looks a little different.
What the president didn’t say, was that none of the above would occur presently for citizens 55 and over. Absolutely no changes in the way Medicare is administered today. The budget does not cut Medicare as the present Obamacare cuts MEDICARE $150 billion in the healthcare law. The changes occur in Medicare 10 years down the road as the 55 year olds will be 65.
The President didn’t tell the public that Ryan’s Budget repeals Obamacare ,cuts in doctor’s pay , Medicare payments to healthcare providers and IPAD, a government department that will decide if a service is needed or not needed. When Medicare cuts payments, co-pays increase, meaning the patient will pay more out of pocket cost.
4.A trillion dollars in tax breaks for the rich (the extension of the parts of the Bush tax cuts that Obama wants to see expire)
The president didn’t say that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will immediately raise taxes rates and taxes for everyone. The President can call it anything that he wants but it is a tax increase on all. Hardest hit are small businesses, middle class and the poor.
One would like to believe what the President is telling the public about the Republicans and the Ryan budget yet to be debated. It would be nice if he would talk about his $ trillion deficits budget plan for 2012.
http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/arc … t_plan.php
Ps CTJ is a liberal biased news site
What about EIC? Do those stat's take that into account?
And that's if they even PAY it.
Warren Buffet claims he pays 12%.
GE paid zilcho.
Lawyers and loop-holes. The bookends of really really rich people's tax code.
Made BY LAW just for them!
Law can fix it.
They could just leave.
Then we'd be stuck with an additional $6500+ per year per person to pay to make up the difference.
... I think I'd prefer to keep them here.
Let's lower the rates on everyone so that there's a smaller incentive for the rich to hide their money.
Sorry--I see no incentive to hide money other than greed.
Perhaps you can explain how we have had tax cuts for 10 years, and things have only gotten worse?
Unless it was the 2 UNFUNDED wars and the big prescrition drug bill that was UNFUNDED...
you might almost think it was deliberate..to starve the gvt??
Well, by gum, I've heard that before.
In fact, the author of that idea was called the most powerful unelected man in gvt by O'Donnell the other night.
No tax pledge...held like a gun to their heads.
Next time a burglar comes into your house, you won't try to hide your money? The problem is that you see the government as some holy entity with no fault.
The truth is that they use a military and police force to steal money from people.
If you can't find any incentive to hide money from the government, then you have never heard of FDR's 1933 EXECUTIVE ORDER (not even an act of congress) where he LITERALLY stole the entire population's Gold.
He wrote a sheet of paper that said "give me your gold, b!tches! I dun be da prezident!" And... people were thrown in jail if they didn't hand it over!
Governments can't equalize peoples' wages. Nor should it! My uncle's deserve the money they make, and I should NOT be making the same amount of money as them. They work hard.
nonono -- they stole the GOLD, not the MONEY.
FDR made the dollar unbacked by gold.
I can't believe I cited the executive order, and yet you still don't believe me!
http://www.google.com/search?q=Executiv … =firefox-a
There ya go.
"They could just leave. "
Except they won't. Heck, during the 50s, if the idea that excessive taxes = exodus of earners is true, we should have seen scads of wealthy people abandoning ship and a massive downturn in the economy. After all, the top tax rate was close to 90%! That should have destroyed our economy! But it didn't. Rich folks stuck around (oh, the went to other countries on vacation, but they always came home to the US) and the economy boomed.
If buffet feels he should pay more why does he take all those loop-holes??? that is being the typical socialist hypocrite isn't it? the same with your messiah! his tax return he took many loop-holes and paid just 26% and made 1.7M and the kicker he received a 12k refund!!! lets hear you spin that sweetie!
The President Barack Obama has been proven a hypocrite.
He is unwilling to practice for himself what he wishes to demand of others. And in so doing, he is exposing for all to see the lack of importance his own agenda is--even to himself.
Let me lay it out for you.
In the 2008 campaign, then Senator Obama repeatedly scoffed at the tax rates for the majority of the small business class of our nation. He repeatedly chided those in the tax bracket that housed the biggest number of small business owners, that they would need to do "more," that everybody should, "do their share."
He also promised repeatedly that if elected President he would increase those tax rates, that he would force those in that bracket to do more, and that it would be the true measure of patriotism to do so.
He spoke in glowing terms of returning the tax rates in his administration to the levels of the Clinton era, and challenging those earning above $250,000 a year to embrace their dutiful responsibilities to pay 39% federal income taxes (not the then 35% under President Bush.)
Last week in his speech to the American people, where he released yet his fourth attempt at trying to define how he would reduce the deficit, he re-engaged these ideas of those in the top earnings bracket paying what he refers to constantly as "their fair share." He insisted that he personally didn't need "yet another tax cut." And he scoffed at the idea that any deficit reduction plan would include such things.
To hear him rail against those who earn big paychecks one could only come away convinced that this was a President who was as committed to this cause of taxation to reduce the deficit as any history had ever seen.
And then we saw his tax return.
For 2010 President Obama earned well more than $250,000 in total family income for the year. In fact the Obama household--after every loophole, donation, and tax exempt charitable donation had been subtracted--recorded a revenue earnings of $1,700,000 and change. To repeat, this wasn't gross earnings, this was adjusted earnings. This is what he was responsible to pay taxes on.
For those of you who could not do the immediate math that's $1,450,000 above the $250,000 that he wished to tax at the maximum level under the Clinton era--39%.
From the reports concerning the President's tax returns he paid roughly $454,000 and change in federal taxes. Sounds like a lot doesn't it?
It is... to most people. But on taxable income of $1,700,000 it only works out to be a tad more than 26%. Woah! Wait a minute... The President--who had a taxable income of $1,700,000--paid what?
Had he voluntarily paid the rate he wished everyone else in his own income bracket to pay (39%) in federal taxes, he SHOULD have paid $663,000.
But wait there's more... To top off the sundae with a cherry, President Obama got a refund back from the government of $12,000.
This week following his deficit reduction speech--or as I like to call it--the Obama 2012 kick-off event--the President made a series of additional stops across the country pitching the idea of taxing people in his own income bracket much more in taxes than they currently pay. I wonder how many of those in each audience even had a clue that what President Obama practices is about $200,000 less per year than what he preaches--with a $12,000 rebate on top?
Like the phony group of "millionaires" who came out to hold press conferences after the President's "deficit reduction" address and claimed they wished to be paying more in taxes, let me remind the President as I did them: the IRS does take donations.
In fact here's the address: "Internal Revenue Service, Washington DC, 20001"
In my brand new hardback from Thomas Nelson titled "No He Can't", I examine carefully the hypocrisy of what the current President does vs. what he says in multiple arenas, it is designed to be great reading in the run up to debate over the deficit reduction season--or what I like to call: Campaign 2012--just in front of us.
So Mr. President before you give your next speech on those in your own income bracket "ponying up" and "doing more" when will you be cutting your own check and aligning your actions with your words?
Leadership is not made up from purely the cult of personality. It is not doing one thing, while saying something else.
It is acting with clarity when crises present themselves, and for now it is something the American executive branch sorely lacks.
Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:00:50 AM by Kaslin
Well here's a concept. The poorest people spend all their money, no matter how much they got. Set their taxes at zero, and their money will make its way to the rich pretty darn quick. But really, the whole reason for federal income tax is so that the nosy Gub'ment can know just how much money you got, how you got it and what you did with it.
Here we see the results of Marx's idiotic "transactions are a Zero sum game" idea. I already dissected the argument earlier in this forum, but here we see the argument in action.
Jed Fisher here is making the mistake that every transaction makes one person richer and one person poorer. This is INCORRECT.
"Well here's a concept. The poorest people spend all their money, no matter how much they got. Set their taxes at zero, and their money will make its way to the rich pretty darn quick."
Jed completely misses the fact that, sure, the rich get the MONEY, but they lose their time (doctors), their toothpaste, their oil, their food, their bedsheets, their cars, their electricity. etc. etc.
The poor might be spending their paychecks, but that's because they're GETTING SOMETHING IN RETURN!! They are getting something that they value MORE than the money in return.
Sure, the rich want money, but the poor want the stuff that the money can buy!
Medical Care for Seniors
Medical Care for Children
Medical Care for the Poor
Assistance for Blind
Assistance for Pregnant
Higher Education Grants & Loans
I know this list is incomplete. But none of these services 'just happens'. I don't mind paying 25% to have the benefits of living in an advanced society. I think people making a million dollars a year more than me can pay a LOT more.
These people are spending a LOT in an organized campaign to convince voters from middle-income down that their lives would be better if we didn't tax the rich.
This is the cat trying to convince the mice that the bell is annoying.
Each of those has something in common.
Each one could be provided in a market for less money and with more effectiveness, and could be provided without relying on theft to pay for them.
Heck, I'm a library - I rent out my books to people! They pay me the cost of the book (in case I need to buy a new one if they screw it up), and then I give it back to them when they bring it back!
I wonder why then why every private lending library in the UK has gone out of business?
They didn't even take a 100% deposit on every book borrowed, think of that, how many people could afford to borrow say 5 books at $20 a book!
So there is risk in starting a business? Four out of five fail in the first five years. I have started two. Both failed in less than five years. Three more to go until I have the success I am working toward.
But I won't start my third business now. President Obama and his left-wing henchmen will not take the risk with me but they will take the better portion of any profits I make.
I have looked at other countries to emigrate to. The great success that liberal tyrants have had is that they have screwed up nearly the entire world. There are no free places any more.
Well undoubtedly there are risks connected to starting any business but that wasn't the point I was making.
That was that some businesses just aren't suited to the capitalist model.
Or should I say that some services are not suited to the capitalist model, things like lending libraries, care for the elder, in fact care for everybody.
I would say that it isn't liberals who have screwed up the entire world, they just don't have that deep penetration of government, unlike capital whose fingers go deep in every pie and do their damnedest to keep what they see as rightfully theirs.
probably because COMPETING WITH A LIBRARY THAT CAN JUST STEAL MONEY IS IMPOSSIBLE.
glad we got that rather foolish question answered.
Which restaurant will go out of business first if they compete with one another?
A: nothing costs any money MORE than what you already pay to the government!
B: You have to pay $10 when you eat at my restaurant.
I await another non-sequitur comeback.
I wonder why then, did Andrew Carnegie feel it so important to establish public libraries?
He was a capitalist of the first order and would surely have used them to make money.
Some things just do not lend themselves to private enterprise, you example of a restaurant is a classic non-sequitur, as sound as comparing, not apples and oranges even, more like apples and bananas.
The funniest part about your argument is that there already is a huge privately owned library that almost everyone uses every day. Much bigger than any government library that you could point to!
Here's how it works: I buy a book, then I read it, then I want to sell it later.
It's a library, but it's not set up the same way that a government would set it up.
Amazon.com, eBay, and any other "second hand bookstore" are all examples of privately owned libraries.
You'll come back and say "those aren't libraries", when, actually, it is -- people using books until they get rid of them.
The brilliance of the liberal argument is to claim that X needs to exist, and then point out that only government can provide X... EVEN THOUGH X HAS EXISTED FOR CENTURIES!!
Libraries don't need to be publicly owned. Every university proves this, every bookstore proves this, Amazon proves this, and so does eBay.
However, you ARE right: "Being allowed to read a book that was paid for through theft for two weeks" is a business model that can ONLY be provided by government. The free-market would NEVER let that happen.
Evan, I am a bookseller and believe me, if somebody comes along and asks me if they can just check a recipe in a book, they get told no.
Amazon, ebay and the like do not demonstrate that there is no need for public libraries any more than cars demonstrate that there is no need for public transport.
OF course they'd be told no. But they could buy the book, and then sell the book to someone else later.
It's the same idea as a library - you own the book for a while, then you give it up later.
I consult books in my public library that would cost me tens of thousands of pounds to buy, if I could actually find a copy.
I hope you thank the wealthy who paid for the majority of those books with the money that was stolen from them.
You can even use Doug's stats to prove that the rich actually helped pay for the most of those books.
Well that Scottish/American Andrew Carnegie certainly deserves a vote of thanks, as do the many who donated their private libraries for the greater good rather than selling them off for private profit.
charity is charity.
Theft is theft.
see how that works?
I don't think Andrew Carnegie can be accused of stealing off the people, do you?
I'm not sure where else theft comes into it, unless you are implying that the donated books were somehow stolen.
(psst, carneige was the "charity" part of my statement... y'know, because he DONATED the books?)
Doug, would you please explain to me why you believe your claim to their wealth is superior to their? If they can pay a lot more because they have more, than you can too. For certainly there is someone who lives in your city who has less than you do. Shouldn't you have to pay a lot more since you are able to?
I already do pay more tax than some others, seems fair to me.
Shouldn't we let them decide? Just as you insist that the hated rich should pay lots more because the can shouldn't we get those who have made even poorer choices than you get together to determine just how much more you should pay than them?
Or should we decide that taxation is about funding the essential services of government and move away from the class warfare model that Karl Marx gave liberals and liberalism?
Well I already think that taxation is about funding essential services, the argument is about what are to be considered essential.
The class warfare seems to come from your side who quickly attribute any unevenness in the system to poor choice on the part of the under dog rather than any basic unfairness in the system.
Well no. If what you wrote was true the entire tax code could be written in less than twenty pages. And anyone could read and understand it. Compliance with the tax code would not cost individuals and businesses hundreds of billions of dollars. The tax code is a powerful political instrument used to shake down corporations for campaign contributions and, of course, to punish liberalism's enemies (you know, the productive people who actually pay for nearly everything the government gives to its friends ).
No. Class warfare divides us up into rich, middle class, and poor. Then it pits one group against another for political benefit. Your life is made no better when my taxes go above 40%. You won't even notice. But you eagerly look forward to it. Why? Class warfare. You hate that I have made slightly better decisions about my life and you want the government to get even with me.
I just want the best possible life for you, love, and everybody. And that does not mean class warfare. But it does mean that you will have to be an adult and do some things on your own, without government. But you can do it. If only you want to.
Isn't that rather arrogant of you to decide that you have made better life decisions than I have?
Not surprisingly, I'd turn it around and say that I have made better life decisions than you!
Your vision of me is based on stereotypes and preconception, a very bad way for a military man to think!
You are quite correct to say that your paying tax would make no difference to me, you're assuming that that is the only thinkable reason, not for society's greater good, not for a fairer more equitable society, purely out of self interest.
Indeed, class warfare does divide and set the classes against each other, we're all too busy fighting to notice that the cause of the warfare are running off with the spoils.
You automatically assume that you are one of the rich that others are opposed to, you aren't, you are no better than me or LMC, just a bit different but just as vulnerable to predation by the rich who don't view you as one of them.
“ The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
The formula applied for the tax obligation is not specified. But the concept of progressive taxation has the support of our finest presidents.
"“At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth…… "
No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar?s worth of service rendered?not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”
I understand you quoting T. Roosevelt. I liked him until I began to read the Progressive nonsense he wrote.
Back to you. Why do you think you have a greater moral claim to the wealth someone created than they do? Why do you believe it is okay for you to rob, steal, and plunder your neighbor's property just because you can get the votes to do so? Is this not perhaps the greatest evil one person can do to another? When you take someone's stuff you take their very life for they had to exchange their hours of life to create the things of wealth that you desire to have without paying the price for it.
Do you have evidence of him robbing, stealing, or plundering?
It's not about me. If I was in the bottom 40%, you could make the claim that I am trying to plunder your wealth for my personal benefit. I am firmly in the middle-class, paying for services I feel are moral and healthy for a society greater than my individual self.
I have nothing but contempt, which I don't conceal very well, for the greedy sows who would abandon the poor and elderly in a quest to amass fortunes greater than a hundred middle-class families could aquire or spend.
But it is. You are making the claim that others who have more than you are greedy for wanting to enjoy the wealth they have created. If you do not stand against plunder then you are condoning it, if not actually for it.
Which proves nearly all of my previous points.
I have enjoyed our discussion. Thank you.
Who would have believed that a political party would be founded on Leona Hemsley's (in)famous quote - "Only the Poor Pay Taxes."
yes we are.
You are forced to work for the government for the first 3-4 months each year.
Or as I put it, I have to work to benefit others the first two out of every five workdays. Thank goodness I work well more than five days each week.
Hehe. Except for the last few. Minor surgery kept me below 80 hours for the pay period.
Next week I travel. And the week after it will be more than full time. Success is driven both by what I do and how much of it.
Whereas in reality in the US you work until the 9th of March on average until all your money is your own.
If you are working for longer than that it is because others aren't contributing their share.
i LOVE the way that John just agreed that taxes are theft!!
"... until all your money is your own"
That takes a bit of twisting worthy of Danny's opprobrium to get to me agreeing that taxes are theft.
No: you said that for about 4 months, all my money isn't mine.
you agreed that the money that I work for, for 4+ months, is not mine.
That's the definition of involuntary servitude.
Well, in my book the beginning of March is two months, not four.
That's you paying for the right to live in a civilised society (well nearly anyway) with all the benefits, police, roads, education etc etc. I wonder just how many months you would have to work for to pay for those things privately?
alright, in YOUR books (20% tax rate) it's about 2-3 months.
For the richer (30+%) it's about 3-4 months.
...so... there you go...
Despite the fact that for almost 90+% of Human's civilized history, all of those things you wrote WERE provided by the private sector...
... no, i can't finish that sentence. It would just be too ludicrous to say "we need government to give us police, Fire departments and schools"... it's just too contradictory to history. I can't say it.
And provided how?
Ever heard of the great fire of London when a large area of London burnt down because there was no building standards and no fire brigade?
Educated to the bare minimum, but any more would have been a waste for somebody who would be dead by thirty.
How about law enforcement then, if you were poor you couldn't afford it and if rich you did what you liked because you bought the law.
I have devised a simple experiment to test your assertion. Work for the first four months of the year and take the rest off. If the government takes all of your money, we will no longer think you're crazy.
apparently division is an unneeded tool for the grand exalted master of Economics!!
I HAVE MUCH TO LEARN!!
...speaking of taxes...what's the average tax load in the US (i think that is what it is called - tax load)
..in Canada the average is 42%...
...i think India is 20%
28.4% is the average.
30.0 is what the top tier is paying now. Real. Total.
And they are screaming???
...ha ha ha....i know...just thought I'd ask the question....off to pay my taxes...later!
Only if the majority of the rate you are considering is in capital gains. And that money had already been taxed at the 35% rate.
Its only true on paper.
"Were you stunned by the revelation, days before your taxes are due, that nearly two-thirds of companies operating in America reported owing no taxes from 1996 through 2000? That over 90 percent of large corporations --with at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in gross receipts --reported owing taxes of only under 5 percent?
The law requires firms to pay 35 percent tax on U.S. profits. Had big business complied, corporate income taxes in 2002 would have been $308 billion instead of only an estimated $136 billion. Do you wish you knew the corporate secret?"
They have gamed the system so the major players pay 5% or less while they still SCREAM that the. corporate tax rate is 35%.
The quote is from http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_20 … shore.html
Are you finally ready to join me in the repeal of the 16th Amendment and the replacement of a horrible system based on incomes and instead move to a far simpler system of taxation based upon consumption?
Your arguments certainly ought to push you toward the Fair Tax.
You live in a state where medical marijuana is legal?
You know that I know that the 'fair tax' is a scam to shift the tax burden to the middle class and under.
Let's see Doug, I make a widget,claim back the tax I pay on raw materials, I then sell to a wholesaler charging him tax, which he then reclaims and sells on to the retailer, who reclaims the tax and then charges tax which the consumer pays. . .
Damn it Doug, I'd never really thought about it before but you are right, the consumer pays all!
Obviously you never owned a company! There is no tax when you sell to a wholesaler! they show there tax exempt certificate for their company and they do not pay the taxes! the end buyer only pays taxes!
Danny is right. Companies do not pay taxes. Companies collect taxes on behalf of the government.
Now that is not entirely right. Companies pay massive amounts to governments at all levels for a wide variety of things. The costs of those taxes get added into the price of everything we buy.
Danny, surprise surprise, I have owned and operated several businesses and what you say is not how things work in the UK.
The UK has a Value Added tax, which happens every time someone does something to a product before it reaches the shelves. The US doesn't have one of those; just a sales tax.
"Companies pay massive amounts to government [offical]s at all levels for a wide variety of things." Yes, that's called "campaign contributions" or in more enlightened societies, "bribes."
I thought he was talking about in the USA. I guess that is the socialist way. I wouldn't want that. Maybe that is why gas is like 9.00 a gallon?
Danny, how many times must you be told that the UK is not a socialist country?
There is nothing intrinsically socialist in a value added tax.
It is mostly socialist with sprinkles of capitalism which helps keep your socialism afloat for now. Do you thank George Soros for busting the UK?
Oh Danny Danny! So naive, so gullible, so ignorant!
Do you really think that having a national health service is all there is to socialism.
Did I say that was all there is? I don't think so. So I guess It is OK for you to call me Ignorant but not the other way around? I have not said anything bad about you in a longtime. John, I said we should do something to our health-care in this country, but first the politicians need to stop with the lobbyist and keeping us from crossing state lines! this would drop rates drastically. that would be the first step!
Danny, ignorant means unknowing, you claim that the UK is a socialist country, which it patently isn't, therefore you are ignorant of the true state of affairs in this country.
Why do you consider the UK to be a socialist country?
mostly socialism with a sprinkle of capitalism! that is a socialist country to me! your own statement to me you said your right is our left! well then your left who is in control is the socialist party...no?
Well go on, don't stop there, what is mostly socialism with a sprinkling of capitalism?
There are many degrees of right, without leaning to the left, and the left does not automatically equate to socialism.
Come on Danny, you claim to be a frequent visitor to the UK, how can you be so blind as to not see what the UK actually is?
Come on John, You live there how can you say you are not more socialist than Capitalist? The people I speak to tell me you guys are, why would they lie?
Precisely because I live here I can easily say that we are a capitalist society!
Even our public utilities are privately owned, our steel industry is owned by Tata of India, our auto-mobile industries are owned by America, Germany, India, Japan, China.
Just what is socialist about the UK?
Certainly that is not all there is. But it is a pretty good start. Don't you think? "Grab the people by their ba*ls, and their hearts and minds will follow."
You ignored inflation and debt repayment.
Sure, we're only paying 30% (or whatever), but we'll have to raise rates in the future, or inflate the money supply.
Everyone sees the rising prices of just about everything in the economy and finds some BS thing to blame it on. The real fact is that we've created so much money that the dollar is worth less than it was.
We're really paying something like 40-50%, we just don't realize it.
1 US dollar adjusted for inflation is worth like 13 cents,feels like it too. I just went food shopping ,a loaf of bread was 4 dollars. When the US dollar was backed by gold they could only print so much money because we had to back it.Now they print money to monetize our debt.They say sure we'll buy treasuries so they FED buys treasuries but they create the money out of thin air to do it,Monetizing our debt out of nothing.
It's the cost of living and inflation that'r the problem. Go into Debt just to buy gas to get to work...nothing to do with taxes, isn't it speculators IE Wall Steet, that are behind it?
Ask your parents...."Mom, Dad....what could you buy for 20 bucks when you were a kid?"
The answer will astound you!
and I can have my own kids ask me the same....well dear, in my day, 20 bucks would fill a tank of gas in the car.
The inflation comes when the boy president and the democratic congress spend 1.6 trillion dollars the government does not have and will not have. They crank up the godl ole printing presses and print more money. Now the money is just high quality paper. It has no value. So we get Jimma Catta style inflashun. The technical term is monetizing the debt.
If you are a debtor this is good. You borrow money with value and you pay back with paper that has no value. If you are a citizen you will notice that everything you buy costs you more. This is your government at work.
Consumer Price Index -
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.5 percent in March on a seasonally adjusted basis, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 2.7 percent before seasonal adjustment. "
2.7 annual is not serious. The problem is speculators in the oil market mostly.
Doug, when the government lies and you repeat it what does that make you?
Have you been to a store lately? Have you paid for gasoline? Does it seem like a 2.7% increase to you?
I have caught you out in so many lies it's not funny. You tried to tell us that corporations are paying 35%. You are telling us that fat cats are paying more in taxes - there's a 5% spread between the middle class and the top 1%. You are the master of spin but WAY short on facts.
If you have an authority to cite re the rate of inflation cite it.
From the stats that you provided, the rich are paying more in tax rates AND in dollars.
The point spread between someone in the middle class earning $40K and someone in the top 1% earning $1.5 Million is LESS than 5%.
The rich should pay more - a lot more than they are. The screams of pain that they pay too much in taxes are as phony as the anguish in pro wrestling.
I cannot recall ever writing that. In my opinion corporations/business don't pay income taxes. The are unofficial and unpaid tax collectors for the federal government.
There you go again. You compare grapes to persimmons. But that is just the way you are. Even so, let us stipulate that what you are saying is true. That means everyone (except the drones that pay no taxes) are paying way too much. [Insert Fair Tax discussion here]
Have *you* been to a store lately?
Not government at work - this is inflation at work. When you are broke and max-ed out your credit you have to adjust to a new style of life, you must become as poor as you really are when you cannot cover it any more with spending on credit. As a country you are in economic decline and screaming at your President just makes you feel better. Get real, get used to the fact that everything is going to cost every US citizen more from now on, adjust to living within your means and might all get better over a few generations.
"you see the government as some holy entity with no fault."
Did you seriously say that Evan?
I think my gvt helped committ 9/11.
You are just using hyperbole to disgard my views.
well then why do you think they're allowed to steal money?
Why do you continue to phrase the question this way when you know good and well that the people you are asking, in this case LMC, don't believe that a government lawfully collecting taxes is "theft"?
Even most conservatives are willing to pay taxes to fund the military and infrastructure and don't consider it theft.
I keep asking the "taxes-are-theft" crowd for a list of countries without compulsory taxes. They never answer.
The reason is not that these countries don't exist - they do. However, they are not places anyone wants to live.
Which brings us to the blatant hypocrisy (in the case of the Teabaggers) or muddled fantasy (in the case of libertarians) that the advanced society they want as a fertile place to grow their fortunes, would exist without the infrastructures which are the product of taxation.
Some people see things as they are and ask, "Why?" Others see things that do not yet exist and ask, "why not?"
We have not yet be aroused to sufficient anger.
I am reading four books on the French Revolution. I see three issues. Resentment between the ways the clergy, the nobility (government workers) and everybody else are treated concerning taxes and privileges. Lack of upward mobility, and price increases for the essentials of life (then it was bread, today perhaps gasoline?).
The books are instructive.
Aeaaaaaahhhhh yes. How profound. The richest 1% of the US aristocracy (making $1.25 Million annually) are going to rise up, cast off their chains, and slay the evil democrats....
Except they aren't going to do that. They didn't do it in the 50s, when their tax rate was about 90%, and they're sure not going to do that now, when their tax rate is about a third of that. It's not. Going. To happen.
I should have mentioned that the clergy and the nobility had a very large hand in crafting the laws and sitting on the courts in judgement of the commoners (that means everyone who was not clergy or nobility).
Think of today's privileged class, the government worker. We now know they make significantly more money that the people who pay the taxes which pay for their pay and benefits. They are driving local and state governments into bankruptcy and do not care one bit. That sounds like the complaint about the "swarms of bureaucrats" who hounded and taxed the commoners. And a very great many were murdered in the reign of terror.
"We now know they make significantly more money that the people who pay the taxes which pay for their pay and benefits. "
Wait, what? Whose BS are you repeating now?
If you compare government employees to corporate employees with like qualifications doing like jobs, the government employees are paid a lot less.
Also, you're mixing up your revolutions.
"Swarms of bureaucrats"? Yes, it was a complaint in the precursor to the French Revolution.
One of the books I am reading covers the differences in beliefs leading up to the French Revolution. I am very interested in discerning the reasons why the American Revolution did not result in a reign of terror while the French revolt did. So far there is evidence of tremendous anger at the rising taxes, the rising costs of living and the references to being hounded.
I have had those books for 20 years and only yesterday pulled them all together, poured a glass of Shiraz, sat on my deck, and read while the raccoons ate on the retaining walls, the birds cried their warnings, and my two cats rubbed against my legs.
Actually you are wrong. right now they are making more especially with the benefits package. That is on the state level, Government employees do not have a union.
Ah, the noble libertarian, who rails against taxes and government regulation while enjoying the benefits of both, not daring to actually practice the fantasy ideology by moving to a country where there is no legitimate government and anarchy reigns. It would, after all, be the perfect place to find a free market niche and make boatloads of money, unfettered by any kind of government interference.
Hmm. I thought I had mentioned this before. There are no free places left on Earth. I did have a list of places to emigrate to. As I explored each they had their own problems. So the fight is here.
I understand. It's hard to give up the comforts of civilized society in order to live your dream. Much easier to enjoy them while doing your best to avoid paying for them.
government never brought us civilization.
No, people did. Government is an invention of people, funded by people, run by people. I wonder why it is so commonplace throughout the world?
On the contrary, without government there would be no civilisation.
This is where the fight is. We shall win. We shall defeat you.
Simply astonishing. Understandable. But astonishing all the same.
Why is the fight here? Please explain.
Why are you astonished? Why, exactly, did you decide to stay here? You were rather vague about that. I honestly would like to know.
I prefer to take my fight to my enemy. That would be the Left. And the prize worth fighting for is a constitutionally-based, limited government. We had it once. And we can have it again.
I am astonished at the fervent left wing within these hubs. I was not vague at all. There are no free places left. I made a list and started reviewing them. Each one had its own problems.
I read your HP profile. With 20 years as a military officer listed, you discuss the list of other countries you might live in, your decision to stay in the US to make your fortune.
In all the discussion and consideration, one word never crops up - patriotism. What I was in the Navy I ran into a lot of poor officers and a few good ones. I know which group you would fit in.
"Keep the government's hands off my Medicare!"
If you are nearing eligibility you will get what has already been promised. If you are not yet ensnared you will be set free. Freedom might frighten you at first. It is understandable.
I see you missed the point of the quote completely, but that's hardly surprising.
If you love freedom so much, I recommend that you go to one of those 'freer' places you were considering emigrating to. But those 'problems' you mentioned are a by-product of the 'freedom' that you envy, so yeah, I suppose freedom must seem scary to you, since you didn't go get it despite having the ability to do so.
The fight is here. And we are going to kick your a$$. You don't even see it coming. That is fine with me.
Usually, people who talk about kicking a$$es don't have a clue how to do it. Those who really know how don't have to announce it.
Just a personal observation, Mr. Anon.
LOL. Okay. Don't recognize hyperbole? No problem. We will defeat you. We are awake now. The left will fall. And the nicest part is that you really won't see it coming.
Well, we do notice the fascist bent of the Baggers...
And just think, if you win, you will have a bunch of rich white men deciding everything.....something the First Dads came here to escape!!!!
Ironic. And sad. Y'all missed the whole point of America!!
Well, there you go again. I suppose to a leftist the point of America was to plunder one's neighbors. If that is your view then I guess I did miss the point.
No, it was to form a more perfect UNION, not another feudal Lord dictatorship, like they left in Europe.
Although, they were pretty slow on the up-take on that one, and it took a lot of struggle to get where we are.
Now you want to erase it all with this feudal-funded bagger crap.
Sometimea I really have to wonder...how much money is ever enough?
Did you see O'Donnell quote the words of Jesus last night?
Very poweful stuff. And point taken!
You cannot serve both God and Mammon (money).Better take your pick.
"And if you take your pick, be carful how you choose it."
--Led Zeppelin, Royal Orleans
So you read it?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Do you have any idea why you behave as if you have not? Do you believe that securing the blessings of liberty means plundering your neighbor's property?
Why do you believe you have to decide that for anyone other than for yourself?
How exciting. Would you be a proponent of Islamism? It is a political movement you might have heard of. It has lots of godly exhortations...
Do you believe that Jesus would have you use his words to punish your political opponents?
His words don't punish you, they point out that you are not living by them!!!
WE as a country, do not live by them.
Oh, and for you and your Baggers information...the world did not start with you.
Yes, there are other people in this county who do not subscribe to your philosophy.
We had to suffer it for 8 years, and we voted it out.
Tuff...get used to it.
You had a long run, now move over Rover...let Barry take over!!!
Do you think we should? As a nation? How is that any different than Islamism? Isn't that was Islamofascists want as well? A political system combined with a theocracy?
Awesome. Cool even. In your opinion then, elections have consequences?
Barry Soetoro? The guy who just might not be eligible to be the president? That guy?
You're not worth responding to.
Propaganda and smears is all you Baggers got...take it up with Danny. he LOVES that kind of talk....especially if it's aimed at Democrats.
The sad part is that you consider your fellow American citizens to be your enemy. You are merely a tool and glad to be one, it seems.
And sure, I recognize hyperbole. My point still stands. Those who talk tough and accuse others of being cowards are rarely the courageous ones.
I responded to what you wrote. What more could you ask for?
This is a nonsense argument.
I guess theft is valuable in your eyes.
The difference is between that which *is* constitutionally based. And that which is not.
Yeah, it's amazing how many constitutional experts we suddenly have among us. It's also interesting how popular it has become in certain circles to refer to taxes as "theft." But most fascinating how they seem to go together.
Anyone can be an expert on the constitution. It is plainly written. There are records of the debates. There are collections of the private papers of many of the founders. I have Washington's, Jefferson's, Madison's, Paine's plus a two volume set on the debates themselves.
Not all taxes are thefts. Only the ones that pay for unconstitutional purposes. Unfortunately today, that is over half.
Which is also against the law.
When are we going to DO something about that?
Unlesss they prove that Obama is doing it...THEN they will all scream for his prosecution.
Bush and Cheney both admitted it.
USA USA USA
MY tax dollars, going for the purpose of throwing used tampons at prisoners.
Soo gauche.Theft? How about debauchery?
Yeah think of that all my european friends showed me stuff about our own government setting that up on 9/11
And if you believe it, I have a bridge to sell you.
I didn't say i believed it, but I can tell you from international relations class here in american when a professor pulls out official documents that presidents and CIA conversed with other leaders, It makes it quite clear we don't always hear the truth about our government, and when a reporter goes to jail for leaking informations to the public that is just crazy! You saying the goverment doesn't lie to you, go do some research!
As an America, you are the one who should wonder about it!
Everyone who wants higher taxes, give all your money to the government. You believe it should take care of everyone and everything, so you obviously don't need your money.
Most people who have complained about taxes, are more upset about how it is being spent and on who than the amount. There was not a Tea Party movement until Obama started giving money out hand over fist. Including outrageous amounts to his buddies in the unions, on Wall Street, and Detroit.
"There was not a Tea Party movement until Obama started giving money out hand over fist. "
Actually, that's not true. The Tea Party movement got its start toward the end of the Bush administration. But they absolutely lost their bloody minds when Obama was elected.
The rich can have their tax breaks if that's what's so important to them. But they can also get the hell out of my gov't! But now they won't be paying taxes and will still expect us to bail them out when they screw up! I know those of you who apparently never read a newspaper before 2008 think this whole bailout thing is a new phenomenon, but the rest of us know this has been happening virtually without a break for the last four decades. Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, W and Obama all bailed out the rich ad nauseum and without restrictions. If the wealthy can use their lobbying power to poach federal revenue whenever they feel like it, then you damn well better believe they should pay for it, too.
Same story for the rich: they love our markets and exchanges, but having to show loyalty to their own country apparently pains them to no end.
And since when is it to be believed that rich people automatically work harder than poor people? Biggest load of crap I've ever heard.
What's with the "we"?
You don't imagine that you are rich do you? Heck, you've told us how few people you employ and how sometimes you work an eighty hour week.
You're just a wannabe, a pretender, get real, you aren't rich!
It is all relative, John. And I typically work closer to 100 hours. President Obama says I am rich. That is how he can convince the rest of you to steal from me.
I will start a third business one we have pulled the socialist weeds growing in our garden. My first company employed twenty people. Nearly all were high tech positions. My next company, in the planning stages, will directly employ just a few. Maybe five. But indirectly will employ dozens more. So what is better, to allow me to keep the wealth I create (which is the right thing to do) or to have the government plunder my property on your behalf? What would the people I plan to employ say? Would they prefer a well paying job with me or a hand out from the government?
So you get no benefit from the taxes you pay, no protection from crime, no education (wonder how well you would do employing uneducated people)and what about all those who do not have a well paying job with you, leave them to die?
And you still aren't rich, you aren't earning your living off the backs of your fellow countrymen.
Now there you go again. We have a Constitution. I want a return to constitutionally-based, limited government. Our current government is lawless and it uses the tax code to punish me and enslave you. A lawful government is what I am after and what I am willing to pay for. Wealth that is confiscated that is not used for a constitutionally-based purpose is plunder. It is theft. It is rape.
This speaks very loudly of you.
I think it speaks rather louder of you, a perfectly ordinary working man with delusions of grandeur!
Who are you calling perfect?
One difference between us is that I am not afraid of success. I am smart enough to know that the government will steal everything I have when I succeed. So I will bide my time and wait until we have defeated you before I start my next company.
I shall consider your words however, as I drive down my 225 foot driveway, through my woods, on my way to my ordinary working job.
Whereas I am afraid of success!
Bad for a military man to make blind assumptions- it's OK chaps, they're all woolly hats, they'll never shoot at y . . .
225 foot driveway, that'll be the town-house then?
I shall have to look up town house.
I love this time of year. The trees are all so tall and green with their lush growth of leaves. I can no longer see the tops of the three houses up hill. The 250 feet of thick woods in my back yard obscures them completely this time of year. Downhill, my front yard is not quite so thick with trees. We have a mere 225 feet down to the road.
What I love best is the variety of wildlife we have. Raccoons and opossums visit us each evening. Two raccoons come in the morning. I enjoy feeding them before I head off for work.
In the evening I like to pour a red wine, usually shiraz, get whatever book I am reading, and sit on the deck where I can see the bats flying in their precise patterns thirty feet above me near my roof line. As the sun sets I can hear one pair of owls hooting back and forth between them. Up hill one or two raccoons will drink from the Raccoon Puddle or try to catch the goldfish.
Last year we had three gray foxes and one coyote. I have not seen any of them so far this year. They are such delightful creatures.
Apparently you are "afraid of success." I know plenty of people who aren't. They make lots of money, the government takes a portion of their income slightly larger than the portion the middle class pays and they still have tons of money. Maybe you're doing something wrong.
LOL! Is Anon's boasting about his driveway length a variation on the "mine is bigger than yours" contest? If so, then I win because mine is longer than Anon's and I'm just a girl with a "pretty little head."
Why yes. Exactly. In addition to my driveway being larger than life and bigger than average other parts of my life have been described (by admirers, I must admit) the same way.
Awesome. I am always delighted to hear of others who have won life's lottery. If you send me a picture of yours I will send you a picture of mine.
Sorry, I don't show mine to just anybody.
Just to clarify, I do have a l-o-n-g driveway, but a very modest home.
Oh darn. I was hoping for a terrific picture of your, uh, oh, driveway.
Town house = small.
Oh don't tell me about it! Probably the best time of my life was spent living about half a mile into a thousand acres or so of woodland. We had roe, red and fallow deer around all the time, with the occasional muntjac.
Got some beautiful photos of adders basking on the doorstep and seeing goshawks and sparrow hawks taking their prey was almost boring, it was so common.
No Raccoons or Opossums though, although a bit of a walk at the right time of day might catch a badger or two.
LOL. No. We planned it to be smaller that it finally turned out to be. For the parts that are built out we have 4,300 square feet. Inside, under roof, we have an additional, I don't know, 2,000 square feet? I also have a crawl space that is 55 feet wide, 35 feet deep and 18 feet high. At some point we may build an in-house theater.
I have not see the deer this year either. Last year I saw all seven at one time. They are magnificent. I have no idea how much total acreage of woods there are on this mountain. Probably more than 500 privately owned plus another 6,000 or so in a land trust.
Tax Truth ‘’Most of these other TAXES are regressive, ......the progressively of the federal income tax."
Other TAXES TAKEN FROM EVERYONE on a purchase of a commodity is required to feed local, state, federal and city governments. The only way to avoid the these local taxes is to cheat, steal or ignore. All of the those actions could, if caught be a violation of breaking the law. Honesty is the best policy, something that isn’t practiced and seldom taught in our schools, home and society today. The above is worth debating!
‘’the progressively of the federal income tax."
THE DEBATE AS TO WHO SHOULD PAY MORE OR LESS is the responsibility of those we send to Congress to represent ‘’we the people’’, to make laws that are FAIR to all the citizens. Everyone should pay their FAIR share to support the government and the work of the government. FEDERAL INCOME TAXES are due on 4/15/…., don’t forget your duty to support!
The politicians in our government are creating a division in the classes of people by proclaiming the rich need to pay more than what Congress determined is their FAIR SHARE. Let’s face reality, the rich and the poor are all Americans living in the greatest country on earth. One nation under God with liberty and Justice for all.
Let’s not condemn those who by their hard work or toil don’t deserve the fruits of their labor. Without the very rich, many non profit charities could not take care of the needy and unfortunate.
Oil prices escalating is partially caused by government regulation, mostly environmental, President Obama’s directives to close down the oil industry, speculators, many on wall street, union pension funds and large banking investors who participated in 2006,2007 and 2008 that caused gasoline prices to skyrocket during the Bush administration. Note! only 3% of Exxon’s profits were from activities in the USA. Companies making profit is good because the taxpayers benefit because of taxation, companies pay dividends to stock holders who pay taxes on capital gains, companies have extra money to purchase new equipment and expand the workforce, meaning jobs, something the administration talks about but does nothing to help produce jobs.
Again President Obama and the Democrats didn’t tell the whole truth about the oil industry. Wake up America! The TRUTH, where is the TRUTH?
GE was a great choice for a discussion as to why they didn't pay their fair share OF TAXES.It's nice to be friends with the right people in washington.
by MikeNV 10 years ago
ACCORDING TO AN ASSOCIATE PRESS STORY RELEASED TODAY... THE "RICH" ARE ALREADY PAYING THE MAJORITY OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.I'm not sure I buy into their numbers but here is what they had to say:"The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs...
by Judy Specht 8 years ago
If you have a job, is it fair that you may not pay Federal Income Tax?Forty nine percent of people in US don't pay Fed Income Tax because they don't make "enough", Warren Buffet says he doesn't pay as much as his secretary. Whats a fair share and who should pay it.
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 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...
by Susan Reid 7 years ago
The Gish Gallup. Who knew?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/0 … ish-Gallop
by ptosis 2 years ago
Tell Congress: Tax reform should help working families, not millionaires!https://petitions.signforgood.com/prote … orgood.com Want a new house? If you're in a big city or a blue state, you'd be screwed. It limits the mortgage tax deduction of $500,000 for new home purchases....
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.|