Fixing Tax Loopholes, 51% of Americans Pay NO Incomes Taxes

[Big Fitz]

So if you're income is below the poverty line or you have no income and you can't feed your kids..you should be liable to taxes?

If you earn income in the United States yes, you should pay Federal Income Taxes. If you have no income then NO you would be NOT liable to pay INCOME tax,, but neither should you receive a rebate on the ZERO you pay.

No working person should have trouble feeding their kids and having decent housing.

This is the richest nation in the world. There is absolutely no excuse for poverty of any kind.

Mat 26:11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

Get used to it, and stealing from others to only make poverty more comfortable is not an ethical or righteous act.

 

[Moonglow]

If you earn income in the United States yes, you should pay Federal Income Taxes. If you have no income then NO you would be NOT liable to pay INCOME tax,, but neither should you receive a rebate on the ZERO you pay.

No working person should have trouble feeding their kids and having decent housing.

This is the richest nation in the world. There is absolutely no excuse for poverty of any kind.

Mat 26:11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

Get used to it, and stealing from others to only make poverty more comfortable is not an ethical or righteous act.

are you ready to give America back to the Natives?

 

[Wry Catcher]

So if you're income is below the poverty line or you have no income and you can't feed your kids..you should be liable to taxes?

If you made an income, absolutely.
If you can't feed your kids then you shouldn't have had any.
I have ZERO sympathy for a single mother who has 4 kids by 3-4 different sperm donors. In fact...she should have to pay a higher rate of taxes since the rest of us are paying for the lion share of her kids food/healthcare/education.

The new goal of CON$ervatism, only the rich can have children.
But the poor can't abort their fetuses. So the children of the poor will be taken away from them to work as foster children for Moochele Bachmann who gets paid from the government for them.

The more children born into poverty, educated in overcrowded and underfunded public schools, the greater the number of a new underclass seeking work; the greater the supply of labor the less value labor becomes. Simply math, Plutocracy 101.

 

[edthecynic]

If you earn income in the United States yes, you should pay Federal Income Taxes. If you have no income then NO you would be NOT liable to pay INCOME tax,, but neither should you receive a rebate on the ZERO you pay.

No working person should have trouble feeding their kids and having decent housing.

This is the richest nation in the world. There is absolutely no excuse for poverty of any kind.

Mat 26:11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

Get used to it, and stealing from others to only make poverty more comfortable is not an ethical or righteous act.

Well, if you are going to quote that Commie Socialist Jesus, don't forget this:

Acts 4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

4:35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
(New Revised Standard version)

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you think trying to raise taxes on just the wealthy is difficult,

try raising taxes on just the not-wealthy.

Sorry conservatives, and anyone else who hates it...

...you are stuck with this no-tax half of the American population. You wanted it, you got it.

Hell no,, the conservatives did not want it. It's not called a conservative tax system sistah,, it's called a Progressive tax system. We conservatives want a fair and flat tax. You guys want unfair.

Uh oh. Here comes the history revision.

Prove that conservatives did not support the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, AND for good measure, the initiation of the child tax credit in 1997 with the Republican Congress and Clinton.

Prove that, because that is how we got to where we are with lower income no-taxers.

 

[Big Fitz]

I wonder how much freedom and liberty concerns those with an empty stomach, or those ill and in constant pain. The argument that someone whose income (and I expressly used the word income, not earned, because many of the wealthiest Americans inhertited great wealth, they didn't earn it) is above the median in America today is deprived of freedom because they pay income tax is ridiculous.

The argument for a flat or fair tax is foolish. There is nothing fair about someone working at Wal-Mart - a company inherited by siblings who are in the top 1% paying the same percentage of income tax as one of their 'assoiciates' - is laughable and stupid.

Those who suggest such a plan is beneficial to anyone, including the Wal-Mart owners, hasn't considered the consequences of and reality of the global economy. It is self evident that allowing the smallest percentage of Americans to own and control the greatest amount of wealth is a dead end propostion.

I won't explain why again, the willfully ignorant who're advocating such a plan - a flat tax - as fair and appropriate are simply echoing the propaganda of the plutocrats. An average brain critically thinking can easily see the consequences. Economic slavery should not be a part of the American dream.

I wonder how much freedom and liberty concerns those with an empty stomach, or those ill and in constant pain. The argument that someone whose income (and I expressly used the word income, not earned, because many of the wealthiest Americans inhertited great wealth, they didn't earn it) is above the median in America today is deprived of freedom because they pay income tax is ridiculous.

Your envy of their wealth does not entitle you to any portion it they do not wish to give. You also have no deferred right to anyone's wealth, work, achievement or ability due to your need, though it should always be encouraged to be given FREELY, not by fiat. Nor does their wealth prevent you from going out and EARNING your own. It is when they abuse their wealth to prevent you from gaining your own, that they are the ones in the wrong.

The politics of envy ladies and gentlemen. On display for your viewing pleasure. Not for the faint of heart or weak of mind... you'll think it has actual merit.

The argument for a flat or fair tax is foolish. There is nothing fair about someone working at Wal-Mart - a company inherited by siblings who are in the top 1% paying the same percentage of income tax as one of their 'assoiciates' - is laughable and stupid.

Oooh wow! Look at the green-eyed monster of jealousy dance on top of his soapbox. Once again, because they were fortunate to be born rich does not mean that they do not deserve the same rights to that wealth as you would an inheritance. Personally, I think you're pissed that it wasn't you that is one of them. I further bet the instant you somehow get real wealth from an outside source (Uncle Sugar ain't gonna give it to you, obviously work isn't so you better hope Powerball or rich relative does) you'd change your tune so fast and abuse your wealth to keep the poor away from you, your hat would spin. Nothing worse than a class crusader who makes it. You should see how fucked up millionaire football players become when they suddenly realize they have BECOME that 1% they were trained to hate in the ghetto all their life.

Those who suggest such a plan is beneficial to anyone, including the Wal-Mart owners, hasn't considered the consequences of and reality of the global economy. It is self evident that allowing the smallest percentage of Americans to own and control the greatest amount of wealth is a dead end propostion.

Yet the laws of economics say otherwise. Sorry, but you've gotta do much much better to prove your concept of class envy is more effective than capitalism. The idea of preventing abuse of power through anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws is a good thing for it prevents market totalitarianism. The US has it, but few other countries, specifically COMMUNIST countries have that. The government IS the monopoly which forces you by gun and tax to support it in whatever failing enterprise it begins. The rampant hypocrisy of such a philosophy that a few hands controlling wealth is laughable when you talk with a communist.

I won't explain why again, the willfully ignorant who're advocating such a plan - a flat tax - as fair and appropriate are simply echoing the propaganda of the plutocrats. An average brain critically thinking can easily see the consequences. Economic slavery should not be a part of the American dream.

And actual slavery to government should be? Communist systems are all based on enslaving the proletariat to the party. Your crazed demagoguery based on psychotic ideology has lead you so far away from clear, rational thought, it's not even cute anymore. If government would remain strictly in the regulatory realm and leave the markets to play out within well defined rules (including PARTICULARLY rules that dissuade monopolistic control and trusts) this nation would be far better off and economically healthier under 10 companies versus one government.

But it just goes to show your envy permeates everything you preach.

 

[Big Fitz]

No working person should have trouble feeding their kids and having decent housing.

This is the richest nation in the world. There is absolutely no excuse for poverty of any kind.

Mat 26:11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

Get used to it, and stealing from others to only make poverty more comfortable is not an ethical or righteous act.

are you ready to give America back to the Natives?

Don't ask stupid questions.

 

[Big Fitz]

If you made an income, absolutely.
If you can't feed your kids then you shouldn't have had any.
I have ZERO sympathy for a single mother who has 4 kids by 3-4 different sperm donors. In fact...she should have to pay a higher rate of taxes since the rest of us are paying for the lion share of her kids food/healthcare/education.

The new goal of CON$ervatism, only the rich can have children.
But the poor can't abort their fetuses. So the children of the poor will be taken away from them to work as foster children for Moochele Bachmann who gets paid from the government for them.

The more children born into poverty, educated in overcrowded and underfunded public schools, the greater the number of a new underclass seeking work; the greater the supply of labor the less value labor becomes. Simply math, Plutocracy 101.

Wow. You need to grow up and realize that reality just isn't going to be that June Cleaver mommy you want so desperately to make sure you and everyone else is forced to have the same slice of pie. Mommy is an evil figment of your psychosis.

 

[Big Fitz]

No working person should have trouble feeding their kids and having decent housing.

This is the richest nation in the world. There is absolutely no excuse for poverty of any kind.

Get used to it, and stealing from others to only make poverty more comfortable is not an ethical or righteous act.

Well, if you are going to quote that Commie Socialist Jesus, don't forget this:

Acts 4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

4:35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
(New Revised Standard version)

Christ was a socialist. Uh huh.

You do realize that those very verses are written about how the APOSTLES managed affairs AFTER Christ ascended. When he was around, before his Crucifixion, he left the monies to Judas Iscariot. Nice try, liar.

Second of all, those were donated CHURCH monies, donated from people who joined. It does not state that the people the lived off the church in perpetuity, but I can see how convenient that would be to make that assumption for you.

 

[kaz]

I almost started a thread about this because its so funny.

Half of Americans pay no federal income taxes, conservatives have picked up on this and are outraged (ironically)

and, more ironcially, that can't be changed because the Republicans have signed a pledge not to raise ANY taxes ANY time for ANY reason.

Hmm...conservatives generally think everyone should pay taxes but Republican politicians aren't so it's "ironic." Actually, my friend, Republican politicians don't do most of what conservatives at large want them to do. Far from being the salient point on that topic, this is way down the list of how conservatives would like Republican politicians to represent their actual views.

 

[saveliberty]

Democrats have rendered half the population dependent and unable to earn enough to pay taxes.

 

[edthecynic]

Get used to it, and stealing from others to only make poverty more comfortable is not an ethical or righteous act.

Well, if you are going to quote that Commie Socialist Jesus, don't forget this:

Acts 4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

4:35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
(New Revised Standard version)

Christ was a socialist. Uh huh.

You do realize that those very verses are written about how the APOSTLES managed affairs AFTER Christ ascended. When he was around, before his Crucifixion, he left the monies to Judas Iscariot. Nice try, liar.

And how exactly does Judas handling the money for ALL the apostles change anything?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If you think trying to raise taxes on just the wealthy is difficult,

try raising taxes on just the not-wealthy.

Sorry conservatives, and anyone else who hates it...

...you are stuck with this no-tax half of the American population. You wanted it, you got it.

I never wanted anything of the sort.
It was one of President Bush's many failures - the number of wage earners who received more from the IRS than they paid in - grew more under President Bush Jr. than any other President - even Carter.
President Clinton reformed welfare - only to transfer them to the new welfare - the Internal Redistribution System.

 

[Sallow]

If you earn income in the United States yes, you should pay Federal Income Taxes. If you have no income then NO you would be NOT liable to pay INCOME tax,, but neither should you receive a rebate on the ZERO you pay.

No working person should have trouble feeding their kids and having decent housing.

This is the richest nation in the world. There is absolutely no excuse for poverty of any kind.

Mat 26:11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

Get used to it, and stealing from others to only make poverty more comfortable is not an ethical or righteous act.

And that's another thing.

We ain't a theocracy..despite what you guys want.

 

[Sallow]

If you think trying to raise taxes on just the wealthy is difficult,

try raising taxes on just the not-wealthy.

Sorry conservatives, and anyone else who hates it...

...you are stuck with this no-tax half of the American population. You wanted it, you got it.

I never wanted anything of the sort.
It was one of President Bush's many failures - the number of wage earners who received more from the IRS than they paid in - grew more under President Bush Jr. than any other President - even Carter.
President Clinton reformed welfare - only to transfer them to the new welfare - the Internal Redistribution System.

So..you don't like Taxes?

 

[kaz]

Democrats have rendered half the population dependent and unable to earn enough to pay taxes.

And they are now going with the rallying cry to adjust our expectations to continue to be poor. Last time Obama's slogan was "Hope for Change." Didn't work, socialism still made us poor. I'm thinking this time he goes with "Failure is a Choice, Obama 2012."

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Democrats have rendered half the population dependent and unable to earn enough to pay taxes.

No friend it was the American citizen who lowered their own wages.
Every single person who graced the doors of WalMart/Cosco/Target etc. and chose cheaper items over better quality items "voted" over and over and over to cut wages and put Americans out of work.
It might have been the house republicans and Clinton who enacted NAFTA - but it was the American population that secured it's success.

 

[Sallow]

Democrats have rendered half the population dependent and unable to earn enough to pay taxes.

Bullshit.

The New Deal Created the middle class. There was almost NONE in this country prior to it's implementation.

Since the New Deal, Conservatives have been working overtime to get us back to a condition that existed prior to the New Deal.


A small very wealthy class..and a large very poor class.

THAT's what Consevatives want.

 

[kaz]

Democrats have rendered half the population dependent and unable to earn enough to pay taxes.

No friend it was the American citizen who lowered their own wages.
Every single person who graced the doors of WalMart/Cosco/Target etc. and chose cheaper items over better quality items "voted" over and over and over to cut wages and put Americans out of work.
It might have been the house republicans and Clinton who enacted NAFTA - but it was the American population that secured it's success.

By spending less to get the same thing Americans made themselves poorer...

 

[Sallow]

Democrats have rendered half the population dependent and unable to earn enough to pay taxes.

No friend it was the American citizen who lowered their own wages.
Every single person who graced the doors of WalMart/Cosco/Target etc. and chose cheaper items over better quality items "voted" over and over and over to cut wages and put Americans out of work.
It might have been the house republicans and Clinton who enacted NAFTA - but it was the American population that secured it's success.

Hmm..

Okay..good post.