TEA party compared to 47% pay no fed income taxes
-
and tax havens through creative accounting.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
They still pay SOME tax (Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions)... Just less than they SHOULD be paying. If everything went to sales tax, then all of that money that they stuff away in investment accounts wouldn't be taxed at all, since they don't use it to actually PURCHASE things. They just use it to make more money. Sure, there are those REALLY rich guys who buy entire fleets of cars and fly their private jets across the country a few times a week, who might actually end up paying a bit more in sales tax than they currently pay in income tax, but that's the top end of the spectrum.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I won't disagree with you on that. That's why I responded by using such harsh language. wow! Just say your second link. I find it amazing that 2% of filers that make over 1 million dollars pay no federal income tax. I wouldn't have thought there would be any.
Well, 2% of SINGLE filers over a million... 1.5% for everyone over a million... I do agree though... Even that 2% is disturbing... Unless that "income" doesn't include charity donations (Donations to non-profits lower your effective income, so reduces your tax burden), I don't see why ANYONE making that much should be able to avoid paying taxes.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Well, 2% of SINGLE filers over a million... 1.5% for everyone over a million... I do agree though... Even that 2% is disturbing... Unless that "income" doesn't include charity donations (Donations to non-profits lower your effective income, so reduces your tax burden), I don't see why ANYONE making that much should be able to avoid paying taxes.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I think people at that level of income get a lot of it from stock options and untaxed payment. If a redefinition of payment for goods and services was to include investment instruments those people would have to pay more.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
According to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1[^] 47% of all households pay no federal income taxes because of credits, etc. These numbers came from the Tax Policy Center. The source http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001289_who_pays.pdf[^], first table. So that being said, what's the problem? If the tea party doesn't like how much tax is collected and 47% pay none then there should be no problem. Policy never matches what people believe.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
You think because the government gives them other people's tax money (directly or indirectly through progressive tax schemes) that those people should support the government or have no right to criticize the government? The tea party members are people of principle.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Well, I know I'm not in that 47%... Heh... I'm paying a pretty hefty chunk of my income to Uncle Sam... But hey, that's the way it works. The tea party, though, don't want any income tax at all... They want everything to be based around an increased sales tax, which would pretty much screw the lower and lower-middle class (That 47% who aren't paying) and benefit the upper and upper-middle class.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian, a VAT or Sales type tax will not hurt the poor any more than the rich. Think about it, if the rich aren't spending their money, then they aren't being taxed. They can't enjoy their money if they aren't spending it. However if they are saving it, that money is being invested into the economy (IE SPENT) and since it would be spent all throughout the economy, it would be taxed. Interest on that money would be taxable because the bank sold its serviced to the rich man who deposited that money. DO you get it? Also, slapping high taxes on higher income workers still hurts the poor, because they pay high prices when they buy things to make up for the loss of income for the more skilled and productive worker, and to pay for all the business taxes ontop of that.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Carbon12 wrote:
"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation." Sorry, but that is a load of horse sh*t.
You're going to get that from that organization. They support tax cuts without paying for them.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
They support tax cuts without paying for them.
:wtf: The correct wording is that they support tax cuts AND spending cuts.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You think because the government gives them other people's tax money (directly or indirectly through progressive tax schemes) that those people should support the government or have no right to criticize the government? The tea party members are people of principle.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
wolfbinary wrote:
They support tax cuts without paying for them.
:wtf: The correct wording is that they support tax cuts AND spending cuts.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
AND spending cuts.
Obviously not. I haven't seen any republican or teabagger(not that there is any real difference between the two) propose any serious attempt to balance the budget. Just bust it with more and more tax cuts for the rich.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
AND spending cuts.
Obviously not. I haven't seen any republican or teabagger(not that there is any real difference between the two) propose any serious attempt to balance the budget. Just bust it with more and more tax cuts for the rich.
Republicans are no better than democrats. They don't give a fuck because they are in power and are able to spend up trillions of dollars and enrich themselves and their buddies. That is why there are tens of millions of people out there organizing and making sure their message is heard. STOP SPENDING ALL OF OUR MONEY! LETS GET BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS! IE TEA PARTY PATRIOTS Those patriots out there are people of principle and sound mind.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Republicans are no better than democrats. They don't give a fuck because they are in power and are able to spend up trillions of dollars and enrich themselves and their buddies. That is why there are tens of millions of people out there organizing and making sure their message is heard. STOP SPENDING ALL OF OUR MONEY! LETS GET BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS! IE TEA PARTY PATRIOTS Those patriots out there are people of principle and sound mind.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Republicans are no better than democrats.
Not true, but an argument for another day.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
TEA PARTY PATRIOTS
I can't even imagine what you think that means. These are the same "patriots" who what to deny basic constitutional rights to any group of people they don't happen to like.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Republicans are no better than democrats.
Not true, but an argument for another day.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
TEA PARTY PATRIOTS
I can't even imagine what you think that means. These are the same "patriots" who what to deny basic constitutional rights to any group of people they don't happen to like.
Carbon12 wrote:
These are the same "patriots" who what to deny basic constitutional rights to any group of people they don't happen to like. Quote Selected Text
Citation?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Carbon12 wrote:
These are the same "patriots" who what to deny basic constitutional rights to any group of people they don't happen to like. Quote Selected Text
Citation?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Ian, a VAT or Sales type tax will not hurt the poor any more than the rich. Think about it, if the rich aren't spending their money, then they aren't being taxed. They can't enjoy their money if they aren't spending it. However if they are saving it, that money is being invested into the economy (IE SPENT) and since it would be spent all throughout the economy, it would be taxed. Interest on that money would be taxable because the bank sold its serviced to the rich man who deposited that money. DO you get it? Also, slapping high taxes on higher income workers still hurts the poor, because they pay high prices when they buy things to make up for the loss of income for the more skilled and productive worker, and to pay for all the business taxes ontop of that.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Ian, a VAT or Sales type tax will not hurt the poor any more than the rich
Incorrect. The lower class currently DOES NOT PAY income tax, for the most part, as is shown by the links in this thread. With a VAT or Sales tax, you have no way to distinguish between rich and poor (Since the tax is applied at time of purchase), so everyone pays the same rate. This means a significant increase to the tax burden of the lower class, which is least capable of shouldering that burden.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Think about it, if the rich aren't spending their money, then they aren't being taxed. They can't enjoy their money if they aren't spending it.
They spend a small fraction of their annual income to "enjoy" it. The rest sits in investment accounts and trusts. Poor people spend almost every cent they earn. Rich people don't.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
However if they are saving it, that money is being invested into the economy (IE SPENT) and since it would be spent all throughout the economy, it would be taxed. Interest on that money would be taxable because the bank sold its serviced to the rich man who deposited that money. DO you get it?
Sure, it's being invested... It's already being invested. But investing wouldn't generate taxes under your system, any more than it does now. When they buy stocks and bonds, they don't pay sales tax. It wouldn't make sense to apply VAT to that kind of transaction. And sure, the interest would be taxed, just as it is now, but that's a small fraction of the money being invested. Tax revenue from the rich would still drastically decrease.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Also, slapping high taxes on higher income workers still hurts the poor, because they pay high prices when they buy things to make up for the loss of income for the more skilled and productive worker, and to pay for all the business taxes ontop of that.
Either way, the costs will hit the consumers, whether it's by taxing the rich or applying VAT to every purchase.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The tea party members are people of principle.
Thank you for a good laugh!
Hey, easy there... He's right about them being people of principle... But he never specified what those principles ARE. Hell, even the KKK had principles. Bad ones.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
AND spending cuts.
Obviously not. I haven't seen any republican or teabagger(not that there is any real difference between the two) propose any serious attempt to balance the budget. Just bust it with more and more tax cuts for the rich.
The closest thing to that is Paul Ryan's proposal that has some funny math about having tax cuts, but not having them taken into account of the budget. Some how the government getting less money and spending only slightly less is supposed to balance the budget. I'm calling BS on that. This of course was scored by the CBO like all the other budgets and legislation being proposed. I've found an article by Megan McArdle at the Atlantic about Paul Ryan looking to have the revenue scored by the JCT because they do tax scoring not CBO; however, a simple google search find they have, do and reviewing the site where there is a tax link says otherwise. I wonder if these journalists know there is this thing called google. Of course I find http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=966[^] also interesting since it blows the idea that the Bush tax cuts haven't had any deficit impacts.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Seriously!? You are so clueless about teabaggers that you are unaware of their hatred for Hispanics and Muslims? Read about their loathing of the 14th amendment and the hand wringing over the Burlington Coat factory swimming pool.
You are the one filled with blind hatred and bigotry. The tea party members don't want open boarders, and for good reason. Mexico is a collapsed state, so they all come rushing up here and they get free welfare and work under the table, and get into the black market. They come from a totally corrupt and broken down country of near total lawlessness and they bring that up there with them. I here a lot of bashing of muslims here on this forum from even the most liberal of socialists. All I read is how Islam and all the other religions are pure trash and scum. A bunch of hypocrites.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Hey, easy there... He's right about them being people of principle... But he never specified what those principles ARE. Hell, even the KKK had principles. Bad ones.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
The closest thing to that is Paul Ryan's proposal that has some funny math about having tax cuts, but not having them taken into account of the budget. Some how the government getting less money and spending only slightly less is supposed to balance the budget. I'm calling BS on that. This of course was scored by the CBO like all the other budgets and legislation being proposed. I've found an article by Megan McArdle at the Atlantic about Paul Ryan looking to have the revenue scored by the JCT because they do tax scoring not CBO; however, a simple google search find they have, do and reviewing the site where there is a tax link says otherwise. I wonder if these journalists know there is this thing called google. Of course I find http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=966[^] also interesting since it blows the idea that the Bush tax cuts haven't had any deficit impacts.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Yeah, that's why I qualified it as any serious attempt to balance the budget. Ryan's budget is [edit] not [/edit] a serious attempt to balance the budget, but it is a serious attempt to destroy SS and Medicare.
modified on Monday, August 23, 2010 2:22 PM
-
You are the one filled with blind hatred and bigotry. The tea party members don't want open boarders, and for good reason. Mexico is a collapsed state, so they all come rushing up here and they get free welfare and work under the table, and get into the black market. They come from a totally corrupt and broken down country of near total lawlessness and they bring that up there with them. I here a lot of bashing of muslims here on this forum from even the most liberal of socialists. All I read is how Islam and all the other religions are pure trash and scum. A bunch of hypocrites.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The tea party members don't want open boarders,
So? No one is talking about open borders. I was talking about the 14th amendment.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I here a lot of bashing of muslims here on this forum from even the most liberal of socialists.
Even if true, so what? Does that excuse teabaggers? I'll answer that for you - NO!
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Ian, a VAT or Sales type tax will not hurt the poor any more than the rich
Incorrect. The lower class currently DOES NOT PAY income tax, for the most part, as is shown by the links in this thread. With a VAT or Sales tax, you have no way to distinguish between rich and poor (Since the tax is applied at time of purchase), so everyone pays the same rate. This means a significant increase to the tax burden of the lower class, which is least capable of shouldering that burden.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Think about it, if the rich aren't spending their money, then they aren't being taxed. They can't enjoy their money if they aren't spending it.
They spend a small fraction of their annual income to "enjoy" it. The rest sits in investment accounts and trusts. Poor people spend almost every cent they earn. Rich people don't.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
However if they are saving it, that money is being invested into the economy (IE SPENT) and since it would be spent all throughout the economy, it would be taxed. Interest on that money would be taxable because the bank sold its serviced to the rich man who deposited that money. DO you get it?
Sure, it's being invested... It's already being invested. But investing wouldn't generate taxes under your system, any more than it does now. When they buy stocks and bonds, they don't pay sales tax. It wouldn't make sense to apply VAT to that kind of transaction. And sure, the interest would be taxed, just as it is now, but that's a small fraction of the money being invested. Tax revenue from the rich would still drastically decrease.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Also, slapping high taxes on higher income workers still hurts the poor, because they pay high prices when they buy things to make up for the loss of income for the more skilled and productive worker, and to pay for all the business taxes ontop of that.
Either way, the costs will hit the consumers, whether it's by taxing the rich or applying VAT to every purchase.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Incorrect. The lower class currently DOES NOT PAY income tax
They still do pay for all of the taxes imposed on the more skilled and productive workers, and businesses, because when the poor purchase a good or service, they must pay a higher price to pay for the taxes on the other end.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They spend a small fraction of their annual income to "enjoy" it. The rest sits in investment accounts and trusts. Poor people spend almost every cent they earn. Rich people don't.
As I already explained, investments still generate considerable tax revenue because money invested is spent, and additionally interest is taxed because the investment firm or bank sold the rich guy its services.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
When they buy stocks and bonds, they don't pay sales tax.
That is why we need reform, our current tax system is broken. There are all kinds of loopholes and tricks for a select few to take advantage of. I figured you would have known this by now.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And sure, the interest would be taxed, just as it is now, but that's a small fraction of the money being invested. Tax revenue from the rich would still drastically decrease.
That interest taxed is just a cherry on top for the government on top of all the VAT/Sales type taxes collected from that investment money being spent by the people who where invested in.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Either way, the costs will hit the consumers, whether it's by taxing the rich or applying VAT to every purchase.
Which is my point, there is no purpose for complex tax schemes other than micromanagement of the economy. The whole (it will hurt the poor) thing is just a load of crap to keep people supporting a system of control and loopholes. ================================== TO break everything down, taxes should only be collected on money spent, not money earned from labor (income). ALL goods and services should be taxes equally (IE no special tax on cars, cigarettes ...) and (NOT PERMITTED for instance e-books being taxed at 5% while regular books being taxed at 10%)
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[