If you feel so bad about it, why don't you right a check and give it to your nearest rich person? I haven't worked the numbers, but about 30k seems about right.....a year....
Those voting for Obama I have a ??
- Thread starter idareyou
- Start date
If you feel so bad about it, why don't you right a check and give it to your nearest rich person? I haven't worked the numbers, but about 30k seems about right.....a year....
In the eyes of obama we are rich. Nothing funny about that.
Yea and in the eyes of McCain you arent "rich" unless you make 5 million a year!
Sheesh i know LOTS of poor people....
52.6% of Americans receive some form of income from the U.S Government. (google it) Not necessarily welfare. Income from welfare, subsidies, food assistance, government job, disability, etc, etc. Our government has gotten too big and our people too reliant upon it.
I don't care what your definition of rich is. If you worked hard for your money, you should keep most of it. I don't have a problem with welfare. If someone is working and living within their means and still can't make it, I don't have a problem with helping them. I do however, take issue with career welfare recipients who have no desire or initiative to make themselves better, more productive members of society. The Democrats appear to me to to be the champion of the latter. They want to help those who won't help themselves. And the part that makes my blood boil is that they insist on doing it with MY money.
Last edited:
The first $8,950 (standard deduction of $5,450 plus the one personal exemption of $3,500) you make, you don't pay taxes obviously.
Yes, a large number of "tax payers" pay no federal income taxes.
That's 32% for the math challenged.
source
Now, the 45% is a play on words, depending upon what you want to say. 45% may not pay "federal Income tax", but everyone pays "payroll tax". Or, at least your company pays it for you. (we can argue who pays till the cows come home) Payroll tax is social security and medicare tax, also known as FICA tax.
So, even the bottom 50% pay like 3% taxes, on average. Since the payroll tax is like 9.2 percent, that means a lot of people are getting back a lot more federal income tax, than they paid in. Basically, it's welfare. You can call it what you will, but if the IRS is playing Robin Hood, it's welfare. We can argue about the effectiveness of the earned income credit and all, but it's wealth redistribution, wrapped up as an entitlement. (which it aint, by my way of looking at things)
example data
Notice, the bottom 20% pay like -6.5% federal income tax. But, pay around 8.3% payroll tax. That's where the 3% tax comes from. You will also notice that the bottom 45% pay no federal income tax, and from there down, get more than they pay. 8.2 + -6.5% = 1.7% (for the bottom 20% household income in 2005)
Everyone has to pay property taxes, and sales tax, ect.....
There Ruffy, chew on that a little, Don't make a bitter beer face.
Yes, a large number of "tax payers" pay no federal income taxes.
That's 32% for the math challenged.
source
Now, the 45% is a play on words, depending upon what you want to say. 45% may not pay "federal Income tax", but everyone pays "payroll tax". Or, at least your company pays it for you. (we can argue who pays till the cows come home) Payroll tax is social security and medicare tax, also known as FICA tax.
So, even the bottom 50% pay like 3% taxes, on average. Since the payroll tax is like 9.2 percent, that means a lot of people are getting back a lot more federal income tax, than they paid in. Basically, it's welfare. You can call it what you will, but if the IRS is playing Robin Hood, it's welfare. We can argue about the effectiveness of the earned income credit and all, but it's wealth redistribution, wrapped up as an entitlement. (which it aint, by my way of looking at things)
example data
Notice, the bottom 20% pay like -6.5% federal income tax. But, pay around 8.3% payroll tax. That's where the 3% tax comes from. You will also notice that the bottom 45% pay no federal income tax, and from there down, get more than they pay. 8.2 + -6.5% = 1.7% (for the bottom 20% household income in 2005)
Everyone has to pay property taxes, and sales tax, ect.....
There Ruffy, chew on that a little, Don't make a bitter beer face.
Last edited:
I would not say change is a good reason to vote for someone. I depends on what their type of change will bring to the country as to weather or not I will vote for them.
The liberals have another "great person" to back the Obama campaign. Its none other than nutjob Lindsay Lohan!! Now that right there should be reason enough to NOT vote Obama.
No employers are poor? I might have to disagree a little with that because its a blanket statement. Give a hand out and an opportunity for a job, then take the hand out away at a point in the future.
I don't know about you, but most of these studies don't tell us anything more than what we already know. If you have a billion dollar highway bond, shouldn't you get a billion worth of highway? Instead of 750 mill in "studies" and 250 million worth of "well its not enough and costs have went up and......."
You can give it in direct support or "community based support" how ever Mr. Obama wants to phrase it, but it comes down to provide a parachute for folks that make bad decisions. Mind you some hit hard times and we as a prosperous nation should reach out and assist them back to their feet. However, when you have a system in place that doesn't make it more difficult for irresponsible behavior, you'll never solve the problem. No matter how much money you throw at it.
I thought the thread was why vote for Obama
Well said
It makes Paris Hilton sound down right intelligent.
It wasn't meant to be ridiculous. I was mearly try to state that you benefit from the rich paying more in taxes, and if you think they shouldn't then obviously your taxes would increase to compensate. You do not need to wait for the government to change this, you can just write a check yourself.
If the rich's taxes are reduced, keeping everything else equal, those that are not rich, will need to pay more. This more is our "Fair share" that people like to talk about only when talking about the poor, but they forget that the middle class benefits from the rich paying taxes too and that the middle class has to pay more too. I just never see anyone willing to say so.
Last edited:
The first $8,950 (standard deduction of $5,450 plus the one personal exemption of $3,500) you make, you don't pay taxes obviously.
Yes, a large number of "tax payers" pay no federal income taxes.
There Ruffy, chew on that a little, Don't make a bitter beer face.
No bitter face here, lots of good information.. thank you
I could write pages of response to this. About daily operating costs, making work(even at a loss) to keep from laying good workers off and risk having them look for work elsewhere. How about waiting up to 60days to get paid after the contract is completed, meanwhile making payments on equipment, materials, payroll, fuel, repairs, and taxes. Or working Sat and Sun to complete a job. to get paid a little sooner to buy materials to do it again. How would you end dependence on welfare? Some people simply don't want to work. I could use another operator. I know of several logging companies short handed because they can't find dependable workers.
How about this: We take buildings the state already owns but doesn't use. Old schools, admin buildings, Etc. We turn them into dorm style buildings. Give people on Welfare a choice, move into the dorms where you'll be housed,fed, childcare provided, and given a job. But, there'll be no live in boyfriends, drinking or partying. Or become self sufficient. This is an abreviated version of a proposal I saw years ago. I thought it was a good idea, but I can imagine the fits it caused in Olympia
M
MTdream
Well-known member
Come on, your smarter than that...what taxes do businesses actually pay? it is included in the cost of goods sold...pretty basic economics...
thus it is just a tax on the consumer of the goods...So lets increase taxes to big oil...no one uses oil right? especially not the middle income person...and lets increase the "sin" tax (term fro companies that sell not healthy foods, i.e. mcdonalds, Kraft, Budweiser, Cigarettes) because the lower and middle class never consume the goods from these companies...
ludicrous...
Now Biden has told us it is "patriotic to pay more taxes" insanity, and total detachment from reality!!!
How about Obama and Biden start with giving their own money to charity...not just giving my money to failed government programs? newsflash, Obama's TOTAL charitable giving last year...$900....I gave that much in one gift, and I didnt make millions from book sales and speaking engagements...
Cmantle, your smarter than this...
M
MTdream
Well-known member
completely false....
the top 50% of Americans pay 97% of taxes....
So, if we simply made a flat tax @ say 10% we would have a monumental budget surplus...
M
MTdream
Well-known member
yes except it would be hard to argue they pay the income tax and FICA when they get other tax credits that off-set even that...
fact is top 50% of americans pay 97% of taxes, and top 1% pay 39% of taxes....If you want raw data file here it is...
Last edited:
Flat tax for 80% or what ever the # would be.
People under the poverty line pay less. Not specifice just less.
Elderly (75) with income under X pay nothing. income over Y pay something.
Income over YZ (Wealthy) pay the flat tax rate.
Flame on!!
People under the poverty line pay less. Not specifice just less.
Elderly (75) with income under X pay nothing. income over Y pay something.
Income over YZ (Wealthy) pay the flat tax rate.
Flame on!!
Their economic model probably already includes taxes (would be stupid for a company of any size not to plan for taxes). Therefore paying taxes is part of their plan, and having them not pay taxes they are supposed to, only increases the profits for the top.
And for those that say they will hire more people, that is a total feel good argument. Companies hire people to make money off of them. They can pay you a wage such that the company has a monetary benefit greater then the wage they pay you. The point at which employees start costing too much, then they are reduced.
M
MTdream
Well-known member
completely specious argument....
if their taxes go up...they will just make less money? not a chance...they will raise their prices commensurately...
Basing your presidential campaign purely on the word "Change" is rediculous.
Let's take a look back at the last ten elections and see how many times it has been used. I think that you will find it rather disappointing how often it is used as a rally cry, only to be dismissed once the keys to the Whitehouse are handed over...................WAKE UP AMERICA.
Tax breaks create more tax revenue. It helps companies create jobs, which in turn creates income tax, and puts spending money in the pockets of the people. Everybody needs to pay, but sometimes you gotta spend money to make money.
Let's take a look back at the last ten elections and see how many times it has been used. I think that you will find it rather disappointing how often it is used as a rally cry, only to be dismissed once the keys to the Whitehouse are handed over...................WAKE UP AMERICA.
Tax breaks create more tax revenue. It helps companies create jobs, which in turn creates income tax, and puts spending money in the pockets of the people. Everybody needs to pay, but sometimes you gotta spend money to make money.
The argument was that they already planned to have their taxes as a payment. You remove the payment illegally (which is what MH was talking about) and the business plan doesn't change. Unless of course you have all the accountants in on the tax fraud.
Similar threads
