Hey Lefties....shouldn't we increase taxes on EVERYBODY in the U.S.?

[ScreamingEagle]

TAX! TAX! TAX!....socialism being the new world order and all.....

the average worldwide income is only $7,000.....and the world median income is only $1,700.......that means EVERYBODY in the U.S. is RICH....!

Countries with an average income near $7,000 include Mexico, Chile, and Latvia. They rank about 40th in the global income table.

As of 2005, people living in rich countries had an average income of about $35,000. The high incomes in these countries make the world average income four times larger than the world median income, which was $1,700 that year.

Average income worldwide is $7,000 - The Boston Globe

Well if my income went up 275% over the past 20 plus years, hell why not pay some taxes.
Now those whose income jumped that far have so many tax deductions and loopholes they pay no taxes or a limited amount.
So don't start to make me feel sorry for those money scum suckers.

if we had a flat tax one would pay proportionally more taxes....and there would be no need for jealousy and the Leftist class warfare bullshit....

if you look at all the people in the world who make 275% LESS than you.....the socialists think YOU should pay more... you money scum sucker.....how does that strike you.....?

 

[asaratis]

Liberals cannot fathom the dynamics of tax rates and tax revenue. Their static view of the economy dictates that they will never understand how decreasing the tax rate on a certain item may increase the sales of that item enough to produce MORE tax revenue to the treasury. Decreasing taxes on jobs-creators will cause the creation of jobs for which the workers will pay income taxes (as opposed to NO INCOME at the present time.)

Even simple examples go right through the vacuum between their ears.

Decreasing US corporate taxes would create jobs in the US.

Liberalism is a form of mass insanity!

 

[Sallow]

Still no answer.

you got your answers.....where's mine...?

I simply want to discover a basis for communications, here. Most conservatives seem to divorce meaning from words and attach new definitions.

Like you are doing here.

 

[Sallow]

All "government endeavors" are with "qualification"........sparky....

Ah..so..you can't answer the question.

Typical.

Do you still beat your wife? Yes or no only, no qualifications. See how that works?

And it wasn't that type of question.

But thanks for playing.

Door prizes are on the way out.

 

[DiamondDave]

Still no answer.

you got your answers.....where's mine...?

I simply want to discover a basis for communications, here. Most conservatives seem to divorce meaning from words and attach new definitions.

Like you are doing here.

Sort of like you liberals with the words actually written in the Constitution??

 

[kwc57]

Still no answer.

you got your answers.....where's mine...?

I simply want to discover a basis for communications, here. Most conservatives seem to divorce meaning from words and attach new definitions.

Like you are doing here.

Do you still beat your wife? Please communicate your yes or no answer without qualifications.

 

[Sallow]

Liberals cannot fathom the dynamics of tax rates and tax revenue. Their static view of the economy dictates that they will never understand how decreasing the tax rate on a certain item may increase the sales of that item enough to produce MORE tax revenue to the treasury. Decreasing taxes on jobs-creators will cause the creation of jobs for which the workers will pay income taxes (as opposed to NO INCOME at the present time.)

Even simple examples go right through the vacuum between their ears.

Decreasing US corporate taxes would create jobs in the US.

Liberalism is a form of mass insanity!

Corporate taxes have been decreasing over the last decade. So has employment in this country. And quite the opposite occurred until Clinton. Taxes went up..so did employment.

So your post is incorrect.

 

[Navy1960]

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office
Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The 2001 act and the 2003 act significantly lowered the marginal tax rates for nearly all U.S. taxpayers. One byproduct of this tax rate reduction was that it brought to prominence a previously lesser known provision of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would seem based on the data available that cutting taxes across the board doesn't always lead to "job creation". In fact in 2004 under the previous Administration 2004 repatriation tax holiday the money brought back into this nation led to increased share holder dividends and bonuses and very little job creation. In short, if one wishes to lower taxes, without reforming the tax code and hold out hope that those they are lowering taxes on will somehow use that money to create jobs to meet new demand, recent data would seem to call that theory into question.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Still no answer.

you got your answers.....where's mine...?

I simply want to discover a basis for communications, here. Most conservatives seem to divorce meaning from words and attach new definitions.

Like you are doing here.

if all taxes are "socialist" like you say.....then why don't you pay to the gubmint all of your income....except for $1700/yr (the world median income).....in order to make the world FAIR......like a good little socialist....?

 

[8537]

The USA already is socialist, just a most unfair and bought off version. Luckily the dems are working on it. A little reasonable regulation to protect citizens and a health system to save money and lives will do the trick.Obamahhhhhh...

When the top 1% has tripled their money while the non rich are sqeezed under voodoo, of course you raised taxes on the 1%...duh.

That 1% already pay 39% of all federal taxes while 47% of Americans pay 0% in federal income tax.

No, that's not right. The 1% pay 39% of all federal INCOME taxes, which is about half of all federal tax revenues directly from income.

 

[8537]

When you liberals have to really start PAYING for all your stupid social programs.....guess who will be bitching then....?

So, you think it's right for Republicans to raise taxes on all working Americans? Or are you just lapping up milk at the rightwing trough?

i never said we SHOULD raise taxes on all working Americans..

I mentioned that Republicans were looking to increase taxes on working Americans and you bitched about social programs in response. I can't be held accountable for your failure to make your point clearly.

 

[Sallow]

you got your answers.....where's mine...?

I simply want to discover a basis for communications, here. Most conservatives seem to divorce meaning from words and attach new definitions.

Like you are doing here.

if all taxes are "socialist" like you say.....then why don't you pay to the gubmint all of your income....except for $1700 (the world median income).....in order to make the world FAIR......like a good little socialist....?

The problem here is that it is impossible to have an honest discussion about taxes. Part of the problem is that you link it to hyperbole. Are taxes socialism? Of course. So is government for that matter. If you want to have a discussion about how much socialism is acceptable in a government..that's a valid discussion. If you think that taxation and prosperity are mapped, that's a valid discussion.

But really..this is sort of trolling.

It would be like me starting a thread, "Hey righties, you think we should eliminate all taxes?"

 

[kwc57]

The USA already is socialist, just a most unfair and bought off version. Luckily the dems are working on it. A little reasonable regulation to protect citizens and a health system to save money and lives will do the trick.Obamahhhhhh...

When the top 1% has tripled their money while the non rich are sqeezed under voodoo, of course you raised taxes on the 1%...duh.

That 1% already pay 39% of all federal taxes while 47% of Americans pay 0% in federal income tax.

No, that's not right. The 1% pay 39% of all federal INCOME taxes, which is about half of all federal tax revenues directly from income.

Correct. My bad as I intended to say federal income tax as I did when I mentioned the 47% paying nothing. My comment still stands. The 99% crowd who bitch and moan about the 1% won't ever respond to everyone paying a fair share. They think it is perfectly fine for 47% of Americans to pay nothing in federal income tax as their fair share while the 1% who pay 39% of the federal income tax are not paying a fair share. I ask you, wouldn't a fair share mean everyone paying something?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So, you think it's right for Republicans to raise taxes on all working Americans? Or are you just lapping up milk at the rightwing trough?

i never said we SHOULD raise taxes on all working Americans..

I mentioned that Republicans were looking to increase taxes on working Americans and you bitched about social programs in response. I can't be held accountable for your failure to make your point clearly.

yet Republicans are NOT looking to noticeably increase taxes on working Americans.....except maybe Cain....

however if we continue to SPEND like drunken sailors we are ALL going to pay in the end.....even if Obama taxed the rich at 100% it would not be enough to pay for all his spending....

 

[Sallow]

That 1% already pay 39% of all federal taxes while 47% of Americans pay 0% in federal income tax.

No, that's not right. The 1% pay 39% of all federal INCOME taxes, which is about half of all federal tax revenues directly from income.

Correct. My bad as I intended to say federal income tax as I did when I mentioned the 47% paying nothing. My comment still stands. The 99% crowd who bitch and moan about the 1% won't ever respond to everyone paying a fair share. They think it is perfectly fine for 47% of Americans to pay nothing in federal income tax as their fair share while the 1% who pay 39% of the federal income tax are not paying a fair share. I ask you, wouldn't a fair share mean everyone paying something?

The whole eliminating federal income tax on the poor was a George W. Bush initiative. It made sense by the way. It was a good way to keep them off Federal programs while encouraging them to continue working hard.

 

[Sallow]

i never said we SHOULD raise taxes on all working Americans..

I mentioned that Republicans were looking to increase taxes on working Americans and you bitched about social programs in response. I can't be held accountable for your failure to make your point clearly.

yet Republicans are NOT looking to noticeably increase taxes on working Americans.....except maybe Cain....

however if we continue to SPEND like drunken sailors we are ALL going to pay in the end.....even if Obama taxed the rich at 100% it would not be enough to pay for all his spending....

You are correct. Spending 300 billion or so on a joint strike fighter which has wasn't needed and never deployed, was spending like a drunken sailor.

 

[8537]

That 1% already pay 39% of all federal taxes while 47% of Americans pay 0% in federal income tax.

No, that's not right. The 1% pay 39% of all federal INCOME taxes, which is about half of all federal tax revenues directly from income.

Correct. My bad as I intended to say federal income tax as I did when I mentioned the 47% paying nothing. My comment still stands. The 99% crowd who bitch and moan about the 1% won't ever respond to everyone paying a fair share. They think it is perfectly fine for 47% of Americans to pay nothing in federal income tax as their fair share while the 1% who pay 39% of the federal income tax are not paying a fair share. I ask you, wouldn't a fair share mean everyone paying something?

All of those 47% that work pay between 7.65% and 15.3% of their income in a federal tax based on one's first 106,000 of income - and that tax accounts for about half of income-based revenues. In other words, the working among those 47% are paying federal taxes.

The remaining in that 47% include retired people living on Social Security and the disabled who can not work. Which ones of those two groups should start paying more taxes?

 

[kiwiman127]

Corporate Tax rates are at historical lows now (except for 1987).
Corporate America has grown to where they are now while paying taxes at higher rates. Plus with all the loopholes, many don't pay taxes at all!

Highest Margin Corporate Tax Rate-Year/Years
40% 1942-45
38% 1946-49
42% 1950
50.75 1951
52% 1952-63
50% 1964
48% 1965-67
52.8 % 1968-69
49.2% 1970
48% 1971-78
46% 1979-86
40% 1987
34% 1988-92
35% 1993-present

Historical Rates

 

[8537]

i never said we SHOULD raise taxes on all working Americans..

I mentioned that Republicans were looking to increase taxes on working Americans and you bitched about social programs in response. I can't be held accountable for your failure to make your point clearly.

yet Republicans are NOT looking to noticeably increase taxes on working Americans.....except maybe Cain....

Then why aren't they passing legislation to keep the payroll tax cut in place? Without that legislation every working American will face a significant tax increase in January, but Republicans are blocking attempts to extend the cut.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I simply want to discover a basis for communications, here. Most conservatives seem to divorce meaning from words and attach new definitions.

Like you are doing here.

if all taxes are "socialist" like you say.....then why don't you pay to the gubmint all of your income....except for $1700 (the world median income).....in order to make the world FAIR......like a good little socialist....?

The problem here is that it is impossible to have an honest discussion about taxes. Part of the problem is that you link it to hyperbole. Are taxes socialism? Of course. So is government for that matter. If you want to have a discussion about how much socialism is acceptable in a government..that's a valid discussion. If you think that taxation and prosperity are mapped, that's a valid discussion.

But really..this is sort of trolling.

It would be like me starting a thread, "Hey righties, you think we should eliminate all taxes?"

guess you don't want to give up your income.....

i suppose you think "tax the rich" isn't hyperbole ...or class warfare either....

lefties use that kind of tactic to push their agenda......i was addressing how socialist types work....as long as there is income inequality they will forever be attacking "the rich"....

don't you think that before they fall for this socialist type hyperbole.....Americans surely need to know that 99% of them qualify as "the rich" in this world of low income people....

it's all relative......