One Of The Wealthiest Men In America Says Rich Not Paying Their Fair Share

[Campbell]

The top 10% should pay it all....they damn sure don't go fight and die in the Republican wars.

They should, huh?

Can you explain why anybody should be paying your way through life? Because they happen to have it? If you are in a fancy restaurant, and there is a very rich guy there, should he be buying your dinner for you and your wife? Or if you are looking at new cars at the dealership, should a rich guy buy you a car because of the reason he is wealthy?

I guess that's the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy: conservatives believe all men are created equal, while liberals believe they make everybody equal.

How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

What you folks never have nor ever will admit is that rich people got it one of two ways.

1) They inherited it
2) They used the labor and/or talents of others.....anything else is some kind of con

I have a theory about what goes on in this life. A person cannot choose who their parents will be. They cannot choose where they will be born. They cannot choose their IQ. They have nothing to say about whether or not they will be crippled or normal. Why don't you Republican assholes just admit how lucky you are?

The Republicans are not against those who are underprivileged physically or mentally. The Republicans are against those who are capable of earning a living but opt to suck off the system because Democrats are able to buy votes that way.

Economist Dr. Walter E Williams said it best about the wealthy. When teaching in college, he was often asked by his students what the secret to financial success was? He would always reply that it's no secret at all. The key to financial success is making your fellow man happy. That's it.

You've been told you make a great hamburger when you cook for parties or picnics, so you take your great hamburger and open up a restaurant. You are making your fellow man happy by the hundreds, and that will be reflected in your income. Then you decide to franchise your restaurant and sell your delicious burger to millions of people. Again, your income will reflect serving your fellow man by the millions: McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King.

You often play your guitar for friends and family at parties or gatherings, and they tell you that your music is outstanding. So you put together a band and start playing bars and weddings making your fellow man happy by the hundreds, and you will be financially rewarded. Then a recording company hears about your talent, signs you up to make a recording, and now your music is pleasing your fellow man by the millions. Your income will reflect that.

In most cases, wealthy people are wealthy because they provide a product or service that pleases their fellow man by the thousands or millions. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Oprah, Cher........

LOL....life is a business solution. You are definitely a Republican!

What about the poor bastard who is born with osteoporosis and is losing bone mass every day that he/she lives? A person living their life knowing that just bending forward might break their back. Crippled people definitely don't want to join the Republican party.

Why is that? When have Republicans stated they want the disabled to support themselves? If anything, we want to get the leeches off of the programs so that those who really need them have more. Don't get me wrong, we think it would be great of a disabled person were able to find a way to create money. I've seen it done repeatedly in my life. But no Republican is for throwing the unfortunate off of our welfare programs to let them starve or die.

Horse Shit!!!

What you want is zero taxes and let every poor son-of-a-bitch in the country fend for themselves. I've posted this multiple times.....I was a Republican, born and bred for the first thirty years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times. I even voted for Reagan his first term but when I saw his absolute agenda of cutting any kind of public assistance and slashing tax rates for the rich to the lowest they had been in 50 years I went twenty years and didn't even show up at the polls. The modern Republican party stands for two things....low tax rates for the rich and maximum subsidies for corporations. Under Reagan the mentally retarded were put out of public assistance and the number of homeless on our streets peaked at levels never seen before or since:

 

[Centinel]

That's why the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes.

Ray, you just aren't smart enough to figure things like this out.

Of course the wealthy pay most of the taxes. They have most of the income.

Guess what Ray. If the wealthy had 100% of the income, they would pay 100% of the taxes.

You may be able to read (thank those teachers you hate), but your critical thought process sucks.

You still believe that poor people lobbied congress for the EITC?

Well in a real equal country, it wouldn't matter how much money the wealthy or poor have. Everybody should pay their fair share as you liberals like to say.

When you go to the movies, do the rich people pay a different ticket price than you because they have so much money? Do they pay a different price for the same car you drive because they have too much money? Do they pay a higher rate in utilities for their home because they have a lot of money?

Of course not. Everybody pays the same rich, poor, or anything in between. So why shouldn't taxes be the same way?

That's exactly how it should be.

I think the fairest way to raise federal revenues would be twofold:

1) Where the fed gov can identify a particular user of a particular service, it should charge that individual for that service. For example, a post office customer should be charged for the service provided. A post road user should be charged a toll to use that road. Someone who wants their money coined by the government should be charged a fee for that service, etc.

2) For true public goods (non-excludable and non-rivalrous), such as the navy, for example, the cost of these services should be shared equally by all. Each state in the union should be billed, proportional to its population.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Under Reagan the mentally retarded were put out of public assistance and the number of homeless on our streets peaked at levels never seen before or since.

You know how people like Ray hate the EITC? Cause working people get a larger refund than they paid in.

Republican president Ford signed that legislation.into law and St. Ronnie GREATLY expanded it. Ronnie loved the EITC and today's republicans hate it.

That is some funny shit.

 

[Camp]

How come when Donald Trump says the rich should be taxed more every one of his supporters like to jump up and down and cheer but when this guy who has more wealth than Trump ever dreamed about have suggested higher taxes they attack him and whine like retarded little girls.

 

[Campbell]

That's why the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes.

Ray, you just aren't smart enough to figure things like this out.

Of course the wealthy pay most of the taxes. They have most of the income.

Guess what Ray. If the wealthy had 100% of the income, they would pay 100% of the taxes.

You may be able to read (thank those teachers you hate), but your critical thought process sucks.

You still believe that poor people lobbied congress for the EITC?

Well in a real equal country, it wouldn't matter how much money the wealthy or poor have. Everybody should pay their fair share as you liberals like to say.

When you go to the movies, do the rich people pay a different ticket price than you because they have so much money? Do they pay a different price for the same car you drive because they have too much money? Do they pay a higher rate in utilities for their home because they have a lot of money?

Of course not. Everybody pays the same rich, poor, or anything in between. So why shouldn't taxes be the same way?

That's exactly how it should be.

I think the fairest way to raise federal revenues would be twofold:

1) Where the fed gov can identify a particular user of a particular service, it should charge that individual for that service. For example, a post office customer should be charged for the service provided. A post road user should be charged a toll to use that road. Someone who wants their money coined by the government should be charged a fee for that service, etc.

2) For true public goods (non-excludable and non-rivalrous), such as the navy, for example, the cost of these services should be shared equally by all. Each state in the union should be billed, proportional to its population.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The magic of being a Republican. I think all rich people who don't want to share their wealth should be deported to Mexico so they can share their wealth there. That way the rich can enjoy Mexico's Interstate highway system.

The most obvious goal of any group or organization in the world today is the Republican's desire for America to convert to a Lord/Serf society.

 

[Zoom-boing]

oh brother. that's easy enough to say when you're gawddam rich for crying out loud.

Nothing is stopping him from donating all his monies to the Fed. Guberment

He's telling the truth. Why the hell should a normal everyday American pay at the same percentage as a millionaire? This country was built on everybody paying their fair share.....not a flat tax rate! We had a middle class until Reagan slashed tax rates to 50 year lows:

THEN THE RESULT. NOTICE THAT THE LOWER HALF ACTUALLY LOST BUYING POWER WHEN COMPARED TO 1979.....I WILL POINT OUT THAT BILL CLINTON RAISED TAX RATES IN 1993 AND IF YOU'LL LOOK CLOSELY HAD THE UPPER 1% HEADED TOWARD A CORRECTION BEFORE BUSH'S TAX CUTS IN 2001 AND 2003:

If everyone paid the same percentage THAT would be fair ... as everyone would be paying the same percentage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's why the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes.

Ray, you just aren't smart enough to figure things like this out.

Of course the wealthy pay most of the taxes. They have most of the income.

Guess what Ray. If the wealthy had 100% of the income, they would pay 100% of the taxes.

You may be able to read (thank those teachers you hate), but your critical thought process sucks.

You still believe that poor people lobbied congress for the EITC?

Well in a real equal country, it wouldn't matter how much money the wealthy or poor have. Everybody should pay their fair share as you liberals like to say.

When you go to the movies, do the rich people pay a different ticket price than you because they have so much money? Do they pay a different price for the same car you drive because they have too much money? Do they pay a higher rate in utilities for their home because they have a lot of money?

Of course not. Everybody pays the same rich, poor, or anything in between. So why shouldn't taxes be the same way?

That's exactly how it should be.

I think the fairest way to raise federal revenues would be twofold:

1) Where the fed gov can identify a particular user of a particular service, it should charge that individual for that service. For example, a post office customer should be charged for the service provided. A post road user should be charged a toll to use that road. Someone who wants their money coined by the government should be charged a fee for that service, etc.

2) For true public goods (non-excludable and non-rivalrous), such as the navy, for example, the cost of these services should be shared equally by all. Each state in the union should be billed, proportional to its population.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The magic of being a Republican. I think all rich people who don't want to share their wealth should be deported to Mexico so they can share their wealth there. That way the rich can enjoy Mexico's Interstate highway system.

The most obvious goal of any group or organization in the world today is the Republican's desire for America to convert to a Lord/Serf society.

Better look again, because the wealthy have never gotten wealthier than under DumBama.

 

[Centinel]

That's why the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes.

Ray, you just aren't smart enough to figure things like this out.

Of course the wealthy pay most of the taxes. They have most of the income.

Guess what Ray. If the wealthy had 100% of the income, they would pay 100% of the taxes.

You may be able to read (thank those teachers you hate), but your critical thought process sucks.

You still believe that poor people lobbied congress for the EITC?

Well in a real equal country, it wouldn't matter how much money the wealthy or poor have. Everybody should pay their fair share as you liberals like to say.

When you go to the movies, do the rich people pay a different ticket price than you because they have so much money? Do they pay a different price for the same car you drive because they have too much money? Do they pay a higher rate in utilities for their home because they have a lot of money?

Of course not. Everybody pays the same rich, poor, or anything in between. So why shouldn't taxes be the same way?

That's exactly how it should be.

I think the fairest way to raise federal revenues would be twofold:

1) Where the fed gov can identify a particular user of a particular service, it should charge that individual for that service. For example, a post office customer should be charged for the service provided. A post road user should be charged a toll to use that road. Someone who wants their money coined by the government should be charged a fee for that service, etc.

2) For true public goods (non-excludable and non-rivalrous), such as the navy, for example, the cost of these services should be shared equally by all. Each state in the union should be billed, proportional to its population.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The magic of being a Republican. I think all rich people who don't want to share their wealth should be deported to Mexico so they can share their wealth there. That way the rich can enjoy Mexico's Interstate highway system.

The most obvious goal of any group or organization in the world today is the Republican's desire for America to convert to a Lord/Serf society.

I just explained a way where everyone would pay his fair share.

Personally I'm in favor of a lord/lord society. A lord/serf relationship is a statist relationship. That's the goal of big government statists.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's why the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes.

Ray, you just aren't smart enough to figure things like this out.

Of course the wealthy pay most of the taxes. They have most of the income.

Guess what Ray. If the wealthy had 100% of the income, they would pay 100% of the taxes.

You may be able to read (thank those teachers you hate), but your critical thought process sucks.

You still believe that poor people lobbied congress for the EITC?

Well in a real equal country, it wouldn't matter how much money the wealthy or poor have. Everybody should pay their fair share as you liberals like to say.

When you go to the movies, do the rich people pay a different ticket price than you because they have so much money? Do they pay a different price for the same car you drive because they have too much money? Do they pay a higher rate in utilities for their home because they have a lot of money?

Of course not. Everybody pays the same rich, poor, or anything in between. So why shouldn't taxes be the same way?

That's exactly how it should be.

I think the fairest way to raise federal revenues would be twofold:

1) Where the fed gov can identify a particular user of a particular service, it should charge that individual for that service. For example, a post office customer should be charged for the service provided. A post road user should be charged a toll to use that road. Someone who wants their money coined by the government should be charged a fee for that service, etc.

2) For true public goods (non-excludable and non-rivalrous), such as the navy, for example, the cost of these services should be shared equally by all. Each state in the union should be billed, proportional to its population.

No, because that's more paperwork and more bureaucracy.

What we need is a federal consumption tax. It doesn't have to be much, say five cents on the dollar. Everybody pays, rich, poor and anything in between. The more you buy, the more you pay into the system.

A federal consumption tax could be used to replace Commie Care. It could be used specifically to pay down our national debt. But it is fair because the wealthy buy more things and more expensive things at that. The poor don't buy all that much but at least they are contributing to society in a small way.

Plus with a consumption tax, there is no way around it. It doesn't matter if you're an honest hard working guy, or you are selling drugs or prostitutes out in the street. Everybody still pays.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They should, huh?

Can you explain why anybody should be paying your way through life? Because they happen to have it? If you are in a fancy restaurant, and there is a very rich guy there, should he be buying your dinner for you and your wife? Or if you are looking at new cars at the dealership, should a rich guy buy you a car because of the reason he is wealthy?

I guess that's the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy: conservatives believe all men are created equal, while liberals believe they make everybody equal.

How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

What you folks never have nor ever will admit is that rich people got it one of two ways.

1) They inherited it
2) They used the labor and/or talents of others.....anything else is some kind of con

I have a theory about what goes on in this life. A person cannot choose who their parents will be. They cannot choose where they will be born. They cannot choose their IQ. They have nothing to say about whether or not they will be crippled or normal. Why don't you Republican assholes just admit how lucky you are?

The Republicans are not against those who are underprivileged physically or mentally. The Republicans are against those who are capable of earning a living but opt to suck off the system because Democrats are able to buy votes that way.

Economist Dr. Walter E Williams said it best about the wealthy. When teaching in college, he was often asked by his students what the secret to financial success was? He would always reply that it's no secret at all. The key to financial success is making your fellow man happy. That's it.

You've been told you make a great hamburger when you cook for parties or picnics, so you take your great hamburger and open up a restaurant. You are making your fellow man happy by the hundreds, and that will be reflected in your income. Then you decide to franchise your restaurant and sell your delicious burger to millions of people. Again, your income will reflect serving your fellow man by the millions: McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King.

You often play your guitar for friends and family at parties or gatherings, and they tell you that your music is outstanding. So you put together a band and start playing bars and weddings making your fellow man happy by the hundreds, and you will be financially rewarded. Then a recording company hears about your talent, signs you up to make a recording, and now your music is pleasing your fellow man by the millions. Your income will reflect that.

In most cases, wealthy people are wealthy because they provide a product or service that pleases their fellow man by the thousands or millions. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Oprah, Cher........

LOL....life is a business solution. You are definitely a Republican!

What about the poor bastard who is born with osteoporosis and is losing bone mass every day that he/she lives? A person living their life knowing that just bending forward might break their back. Crippled people definitely don't want to join the Republican party.

Why is that? When have Republicans stated they want the disabled to support themselves? If anything, we want to get the leeches off of the programs so that those who really need them have more. Don't get me wrong, we think it would be great of a disabled person were able to find a way to create money. I've seen it done repeatedly in my life. But no Republican is for throwing the unfortunate off of our welfare programs to let them starve or die.

Horse Shit!!!

What you want is zero taxes and let every poor son-of-a-bitch in the country fend for themselves. I've posted this multiple times.....I was a Republican, born and bred for the first thirty years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times. I even voted for Reagan his first term but when I saw his absolute agenda of cutting any kind of public assistance and slashing tax rates for the rich to the lowest they had been in 50 years I went twenty years and didn't even show up at the polls. The modern Republican party stands for two things....low tax rates for the rich and maximum subsidies for corporations. Under Reagan the mentally retarded were put out of public assistance and the number of homeless on our streets peaked at levels never seen before or since:

Oh please. How can you be the age you claim to be without knowing what happened with the mentally ill?

Reagan did close down some facilities because people were being abused and treated like animals. But remember it was the Democrats that led the charge. I believe it was Geraldo who had his own show at the time calling mental institutions crime-less prisons. His claim was that the government had no business violating anybody's constitutional right just because they think something might be wrong with that person. You can't imprison people for not being all there.

Prior to that, we used to have people committed. It took people off the streets and gave others some help.

 

[Centinel]

That's why the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes.

Ray, you just aren't smart enough to figure things like this out.

Of course the wealthy pay most of the taxes. They have most of the income.

Guess what Ray. If the wealthy had 100% of the income, they would pay 100% of the taxes.

You may be able to read (thank those teachers you hate), but your critical thought process sucks.

You still believe that poor people lobbied congress for the EITC?

Well in a real equal country, it wouldn't matter how much money the wealthy or poor have. Everybody should pay their fair share as you liberals like to say.

When you go to the movies, do the rich people pay a different ticket price than you because they have so much money? Do they pay a different price for the same car you drive because they have too much money? Do they pay a higher rate in utilities for their home because they have a lot of money?

Of course not. Everybody pays the same rich, poor, or anything in between. So why shouldn't taxes be the same way?

That's exactly how it should be.

I think the fairest way to raise federal revenues would be twofold:

1) Where the fed gov can identify a particular user of a particular service, it should charge that individual for that service. For example, a post office customer should be charged for the service provided. A post road user should be charged a toll to use that road. Someone who wants their money coined by the government should be charged a fee for that service, etc.

2) For true public goods (non-excludable and non-rivalrous), such as the navy, for example, the cost of these services should be shared equally by all. Each state in the union should be billed, proportional to its population.

No, because that's more paperwork and more bureaucracy.

What we need is a federal consumption tax. It doesn't have to be much, say five cents on the dollar. Everybody pays, rich, poor and anything in between. The more you buy, the more you pay into the system.

A federal consumption tax could be used to replace Commie Care. It could be used specifically to pay down our national debt. But it is fair because the wealthy buy more things and more expensive things at that. The poor don't buy all that much but at least they are contributing to society in a small way.

Plus with a consumption tax, there is no way around it. It doesn't matter if you're an honest hard working guy, or you are selling drugs or prostitutes out in the street. Everybody still pays.

Actually, a consumption tax would require a heck of a lot more bureaucracy than a capitation levied on the states. Think of how many businesses would have to file consumption tax returns and how many auditors would be required to ensure compliance and accuracy. Contrast that with the simplicity of the fed gov simply issuing fifty tax bills and collecting fifty tax payments.

 

[Camp]

oh brother. that's easy enough to say when you're gawddam rich for crying out loud.

Nothing is stopping him from donating all his monies to the Fed. Guberment

He's telling the truth. Why the hell should a normal everyday American pay at the same percentage as a millionaire? This country was built on everybody paying their fair share.....not a flat tax rate! We had a middle class until Reagan slashed tax rates to 50 year lows:

THEN THE RESULT. NOTICE THAT THE LOWER HALF ACTUALLY LOST BUYING POWER WHEN COMPARED TO 1979.....I WILL POINT OUT THAT BILL CLINTON RAISED TAX RATES IN 1993 AND IF YOU'LL LOOK CLOSELY HAD THE UPPER 1% HEADED TOWARD A CORRECTION BEFORE BUSH'S TAX CUTS IN 2001 AND 2003:

If everyone paid the same percentage THAT would be fair ... as everyone would be paying the same percentage.

The argument can be made that by paying the same percentage, a much higher amount of tax is being paid by those who make more income. The person with a $40,000 a year income gets the same exact services from the government as the person making $50,000 per year. Why should the person making a little bit higher income have to pay more in taxes for the same exact services?

 

[Camp]

What you folks never have nor ever will admit is that rich people got it one of two ways.

1) They inherited it
2) They used the labor and/or talents of others.....anything else is some kind of con

I have a theory about what goes on in this life. A person cannot choose who their parents will be. They cannot choose where they will be born. They cannot choose their IQ. They have nothing to say about whether or not they will be crippled or normal. Why don't you Republican assholes just admit how lucky you are?

The Republicans are not against those who are underprivileged physically or mentally. The Republicans are against those who are capable of earning a living but opt to suck off the system because Democrats are able to buy votes that way.

Economist Dr. Walter E Williams said it best about the wealthy. When teaching in college, he was often asked by his students what the secret to financial success was? He would always reply that it's no secret at all. The key to financial success is making your fellow man happy. That's it.

You've been told you make a great hamburger when you cook for parties or picnics, so you take your great hamburger and open up a restaurant. You are making your fellow man happy by the hundreds, and that will be reflected in your income. Then you decide to franchise your restaurant and sell your delicious burger to millions of people. Again, your income will reflect serving your fellow man by the millions: McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King.

You often play your guitar for friends and family at parties or gatherings, and they tell you that your music is outstanding. So you put together a band and start playing bars and weddings making your fellow man happy by the hundreds, and you will be financially rewarded. Then a recording company hears about your talent, signs you up to make a recording, and now your music is pleasing your fellow man by the millions. Your income will reflect that.

In most cases, wealthy people are wealthy because they provide a product or service that pleases their fellow man by the thousands or millions. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Oprah, Cher........

LOL....life is a business solution. You are definitely a Republican!

What about the poor bastard who is born with osteoporosis and is losing bone mass every day that he/she lives? A person living their life knowing that just bending forward might break their back. Crippled people definitely don't want to join the Republican party.

Why is that? When have Republicans stated they want the disabled to support themselves? If anything, we want to get the leeches off of the programs so that those who really need them have more. Don't get me wrong, we think it would be great of a disabled person were able to find a way to create money. I've seen it done repeatedly in my life. But no Republican is for throwing the unfortunate off of our welfare programs to let them starve or die.

Horse Shit!!!

What you want is zero taxes and let every poor son-of-a-bitch in the country fend for themselves. I've posted this multiple times.....I was a Republican, born and bred for the first thirty years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times. I even voted for Reagan his first term but when I saw his absolute agenda of cutting any kind of public assistance and slashing tax rates for the rich to the lowest they had been in 50 years I went twenty years and didn't even show up at the polls. The modern Republican party stands for two things....low tax rates for the rich and maximum subsidies for corporations. Under Reagan the mentally retarded were put out of public assistance and the number of homeless on our streets peaked at levels never seen before or since:

Oh please. How can you be the age you claim to be without knowing what happened with the mentally ill?

Reagan did close down some facilities because people were being abused and treated like animals. But remember it was the Democrats that led the charge. I believe it was Geraldo who had his own show at the time calling mental institutions crime-less prisons. His claim was that the government had no business violating anybody's constitutional right just because they think something might be wrong with that person. You can't imprison people for not being all there.

Prior to that, we used to have people committed. It took people off the streets and gave others some help.

That mess gets shared equally among governments from the town and city level, the state level and eventually the federal level. Those hospitals and institutions for the mentally ill were supposed to be replaced by community run outreach and treatment services, but everyone passed the buck.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's why the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income taxes.

Ray, you just aren't smart enough to figure things like this out.

Of course the wealthy pay most of the taxes. They have most of the income.

Guess what Ray. If the wealthy had 100% of the income, they would pay 100% of the taxes.

You may be able to read (thank those teachers you hate), but your critical thought process sucks.

You still believe that poor people lobbied congress for the EITC?

Well in a real equal country, it wouldn't matter how much money the wealthy or poor have. Everybody should pay their fair share as you liberals like to say.

When you go to the movies, do the rich people pay a different ticket price than you because they have so much money? Do they pay a different price for the same car you drive because they have too much money? Do they pay a higher rate in utilities for their home because they have a lot of money?

Of course not. Everybody pays the same rich, poor, or anything in between. So why shouldn't taxes be the same way?

That's exactly how it should be.

I think the fairest way to raise federal revenues would be twofold:

1) Where the fed gov can identify a particular user of a particular service, it should charge that individual for that service. For example, a post office customer should be charged for the service provided. A post road user should be charged a toll to use that road. Someone who wants their money coined by the government should be charged a fee for that service, etc.

2) For true public goods (non-excludable and non-rivalrous), such as the navy, for example, the cost of these services should be shared equally by all. Each state in the union should be billed, proportional to its population.

No, because that's more paperwork and more bureaucracy.

What we need is a federal consumption tax. It doesn't have to be much, say five cents on the dollar. Everybody pays, rich, poor and anything in between. The more you buy, the more you pay into the system.

A federal consumption tax could be used to replace Commie Care. It could be used specifically to pay down our national debt. But it is fair because the wealthy buy more things and more expensive things at that. The poor don't buy all that much but at least they are contributing to society in a small way.

Plus with a consumption tax, there is no way around it. It doesn't matter if you're an honest hard working guy, or you are selling drugs or prostitutes out in the street. Everybody still pays.

Actually, a consumption tax would require a heck of a lot more bureaucracy than a capitation levied on the states. Think of how many businesses would have to file consumption tax returns and how many auditors would be required to ensure compliance and accuracy. Contrast that with the simplicity of the fed gov simply issuing fifty tax bills and collecting fifty tax payments.

I don't think so. This is what we have in Cuyahoga county. Anything you buy here has an 8 cents on the dollar tax. It goes to various places like public transportation and a new Medical Mart that just got erected, but I've never read where it was a bureaucratic nightmare or accounting problem. The vendor just sends the county a check at the end of the month.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Republicans are not against those who are underprivileged physically or mentally. The Republicans are against those who are capable of earning a living but opt to suck off the system because Democrats are able to buy votes that way.

Economist Dr. Walter E Williams said it best about the wealthy. When teaching in college, he was often asked by his students what the secret to financial success was? He would always reply that it's no secret at all. The key to financial success is making your fellow man happy. That's it.

You've been told you make a great hamburger when you cook for parties or picnics, so you take your great hamburger and open up a restaurant. You are making your fellow man happy by the hundreds, and that will be reflected in your income. Then you decide to franchise your restaurant and sell your delicious burger to millions of people. Again, your income will reflect serving your fellow man by the millions: McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King.

You often play your guitar for friends and family at parties or gatherings, and they tell you that your music is outstanding. So you put together a band and start playing bars and weddings making your fellow man happy by the hundreds, and you will be financially rewarded. Then a recording company hears about your talent, signs you up to make a recording, and now your music is pleasing your fellow man by the millions. Your income will reflect that.

In most cases, wealthy people are wealthy because they provide a product or service that pleases their fellow man by the thousands or millions. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Oprah, Cher........

LOL....life is a business solution. You are definitely a Republican!

What about the poor bastard who is born with osteoporosis and is losing bone mass every day that he/she lives? A person living their life knowing that just bending forward might break their back. Crippled people definitely don't want to join the Republican party.

Why is that? When have Republicans stated they want the disabled to support themselves? If anything, we want to get the leeches off of the programs so that those who really need them have more. Don't get me wrong, we think it would be great of a disabled person were able to find a way to create money. I've seen it done repeatedly in my life. But no Republican is for throwing the unfortunate off of our welfare programs to let them starve or die.

Horse Shit!!!

What you want is zero taxes and let every poor son-of-a-bitch in the country fend for themselves. I've posted this multiple times.....I was a Republican, born and bred for the first thirty years I voted. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times. I even voted for Reagan his first term but when I saw his absolute agenda of cutting any kind of public assistance and slashing tax rates for the rich to the lowest they had been in 50 years I went twenty years and didn't even show up at the polls. The modern Republican party stands for two things....low tax rates for the rich and maximum subsidies for corporations. Under Reagan the mentally retarded were put out of public assistance and the number of homeless on our streets peaked at levels never seen before or since:

Oh please. How can you be the age you claim to be without knowing what happened with the mentally ill?

Reagan did close down some facilities because people were being abused and treated like animals. But remember it was the Democrats that led the charge. I believe it was Geraldo who had his own show at the time calling mental institutions crime-less prisons. His claim was that the government had no business violating anybody's constitutional right just because they think something might be wrong with that person. You can't imprison people for not being all there.

Prior to that, we used to have people committed. It took people off the streets and gave others some help.

That mess gets shared equally among governments from the town and city level, the state level and eventually the federal level. Those hospitals and institutions for the mentally ill were supposed to be replaced by community run outreach and treatment services, but everyone passed the buck.

No, not really. This was a problem before pass the buck came around or even Ronald Reagan:

O'Connor v. Donaldson


O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), was a landmark decision in mental health law. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. Since the trial court jury found, upon ample evidence, that petitioner did so confine respondent, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that petitioner had violated respondent's right to liberty.[1][2][3]

O'Connor v. Donaldson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mudwhistle]

Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others

It's not often you see someone stand up and say, "Tax me more!"

Yet that's just what famed investor Warren Buffett has done in an op-ed in the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." Buffett says that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than the middle class, thanks to special tax categories for investment income.

The part Buffet didn't mention is that not only payroll taxes the poorest of the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income than others. When every kind of local tax, fee, registration charge, license and other government and normal living required costs are added the rich are getting off and making out like a bandit when observed as a percentage of their total.

For example in Tennessee there is a state sales tax and in the county where I live there's also a local retail tax on everything one purchases. A poor bastard earning $30,000 a year pays the same gasoline tax as a millionaire and if one looks closely there's another form of taxation or fee being charged every time the poor man/woman opens his/her billfold/purse.

Obama gave him a huge tax break 4 years ago so he would say this kind of mess before the 2012 election.
Buffett is out there saying it again during an election year......and then he'll go back to not paying his fair share, thanks to a Democrat administration.

 

[Centinel]

Ray, you just aren't smart enough to figure things like this out.

Of course the wealthy pay most of the taxes. They have most of the income.

Guess what Ray. If the wealthy had 100% of the income, they would pay 100% of the taxes.

You may be able to read (thank those teachers you hate), but your critical thought process sucks.

You still believe that poor people lobbied congress for the EITC?

Well in a real equal country, it wouldn't matter how much money the wealthy or poor have. Everybody should pay their fair share as you liberals like to say.

When you go to the movies, do the rich people pay a different ticket price than you because they have so much money? Do they pay a different price for the same car you drive because they have too much money? Do they pay a higher rate in utilities for their home because they have a lot of money?

Of course not. Everybody pays the same rich, poor, or anything in between. So why shouldn't taxes be the same way?

That's exactly how it should be.

I think the fairest way to raise federal revenues would be twofold:

1) Where the fed gov can identify a particular user of a particular service, it should charge that individual for that service. For example, a post office customer should be charged for the service provided. A post road user should be charged a toll to use that road. Someone who wants their money coined by the government should be charged a fee for that service, etc.

2) For true public goods (non-excludable and non-rivalrous), such as the navy, for example, the cost of these services should be shared equally by all. Each state in the union should be billed, proportional to its population.

No, because that's more paperwork and more bureaucracy.

What we need is a federal consumption tax. It doesn't have to be much, say five cents on the dollar. Everybody pays, rich, poor and anything in between. The more you buy, the more you pay into the system.

A federal consumption tax could be used to replace Commie Care. It could be used specifically to pay down our national debt. But it is fair because the wealthy buy more things and more expensive things at that. The poor don't buy all that much but at least they are contributing to society in a small way.

Plus with a consumption tax, there is no way around it. It doesn't matter if you're an honest hard working guy, or you are selling drugs or prostitutes out in the street. Everybody still pays.

Actually, a consumption tax would require a heck of a lot more bureaucracy than a capitation levied on the states. Think of how many businesses would have to file consumption tax returns and how many auditors would be required to ensure compliance and accuracy. Contrast that with the simplicity of the fed gov simply issuing fifty tax bills and collecting fifty tax payments.

I don't think so. This is what we have in Cuyahoga county. Anything you buy here has an 8 cents on the dollar tax. It goes to various places like public transportation and a new Medical Mart that just got erected, but I've never read where it was a bureaucratic nightmare or accounting problem. The vendor just sends the county a check at the end of the month.

Yeah, every business has to collect the tax and submit a return to the state. The state also audits businesses to ensure they are complying.

If we enacted a federal consumption tax, every single business in the country would have to file a return. That's a lot of returns. And of course the feds would have to audit some percentage of businesses in order to ensure compliance. That's a lot of audits.

Much simpler to simply send fifty bills to the fifty states and receive fifty checks.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well in a real equal country, it wouldn't matter how much money the wealthy or poor have. Everybody should pay their fair share as you liberals like to say.

When you go to the movies, do the rich people pay a different ticket price than you because they have so much money? Do they pay a different price for the same car you drive because they have too much money? Do they pay a higher rate in utilities for their home because they have a lot of money?

Of course not. Everybody pays the same rich, poor, or anything in between. So why shouldn't taxes be the same way?

That's exactly how it should be.

I think the fairest way to raise federal revenues would be twofold:

1) Where the fed gov can identify a particular user of a particular service, it should charge that individual for that service. For example, a post office customer should be charged for the service provided. A post road user should be charged a toll to use that road. Someone who wants their money coined by the government should be charged a fee for that service, etc.

2) For true public goods (non-excludable and non-rivalrous), such as the navy, for example, the cost of these services should be shared equally by all. Each state in the union should be billed, proportional to its population.

No, because that's more paperwork and more bureaucracy.

What we need is a federal consumption tax. It doesn't have to be much, say five cents on the dollar. Everybody pays, rich, poor and anything in between. The more you buy, the more you pay into the system.

A federal consumption tax could be used to replace Commie Care. It could be used specifically to pay down our national debt. But it is fair because the wealthy buy more things and more expensive things at that. The poor don't buy all that much but at least they are contributing to society in a small way.

Plus with a consumption tax, there is no way around it. It doesn't matter if you're an honest hard working guy, or you are selling drugs or prostitutes out in the street. Everybody still pays.

Actually, a consumption tax would require a heck of a lot more bureaucracy than a capitation levied on the states. Think of how many businesses would have to file consumption tax returns and how many auditors would be required to ensure compliance and accuracy. Contrast that with the simplicity of the fed gov simply issuing fifty tax bills and collecting fifty tax payments.

I don't think so. This is what we have in Cuyahoga county. Anything you buy here has an 8 cents on the dollar tax. It goes to various places like public transportation and a new Medical Mart that just got erected, but I've never read where it was a bureaucratic nightmare or accounting problem. The vendor just sends the county a check at the end of the month.

Yeah, every business has to collect the tax and submit a return to the state. The state also audits businesses to ensure they are complying.

If we enacted a federal consumption tax, every single business in the country would have to file a return. That's a lot of returns. And of course the feds would have to audit some percentage of businesses in order to ensure compliance. That's a lot of audits.

Much simpler to simply send fifty bills to the fifty states and receive fifty checks.

Well all you would be doing then is passing the paperwork and bureaucracy problems to the state. I have yet to read of any problems the way we are doing in here in the Cleveland area, that is outside of those who travel out of the county to save themselves a few bucks on big purchases where the sales taxes are lower. No law that states if you live in this county, you have to purchase in this county.

 

[Centinel]

That's exactly how it should be.

I think the fairest way to raise federal revenues would be twofold:

1) Where the fed gov can identify a particular user of a particular service, it should charge that individual for that service. For example, a post office customer should be charged for the service provided. A post road user should be charged a toll to use that road. Someone who wants their money coined by the government should be charged a fee for that service, etc.

2) For true public goods (non-excludable and non-rivalrous), such as the navy, for example, the cost of these services should be shared equally by all. Each state in the union should be billed, proportional to its population.

No, because that's more paperwork and more bureaucracy.

What we need is a federal consumption tax. It doesn't have to be much, say five cents on the dollar. Everybody pays, rich, poor and anything in between. The more you buy, the more you pay into the system.

A federal consumption tax could be used to replace Commie Care. It could be used specifically to pay down our national debt. But it is fair because the wealthy buy more things and more expensive things at that. The poor don't buy all that much but at least they are contributing to society in a small way.

Plus with a consumption tax, there is no way around it. It doesn't matter if you're an honest hard working guy, or you are selling drugs or prostitutes out in the street. Everybody still pays.

Actually, a consumption tax would require a heck of a lot more bureaucracy than a capitation levied on the states. Think of how many businesses would have to file consumption tax returns and how many auditors would be required to ensure compliance and accuracy. Contrast that with the simplicity of the fed gov simply issuing fifty tax bills and collecting fifty tax payments.

I don't think so. This is what we have in Cuyahoga county. Anything you buy here has an 8 cents on the dollar tax. It goes to various places like public transportation and a new Medical Mart that just got erected, but I've never read where it was a bureaucratic nightmare or accounting problem. The vendor just sends the county a check at the end of the month.

Yeah, every business has to collect the tax and submit a return to the state. The state also audits businesses to ensure they are complying.

If we enacted a federal consumption tax, every single business in the country would have to file a return. That's a lot of returns. And of course the feds would have to audit some percentage of businesses in order to ensure compliance. That's a lot of audits.

Much simpler to simply send fifty bills to the fifty states and receive fifty checks.

Well all you would be doing then is passing the paperwork and bureaucracy problems to the state. I have yet to read of any problems the way we are doing in here in the Cleveland area, that is outside of those who travel out of the county to save themselves a few bucks on big purchases where the sales taxes are lower. No law that states if you live in this county, you have to purchase in this county.

Actually, I don't think you'd be passing anything to the state. All states already have existing systems of raising revenue. These could remain unchanged. The states would simply have another expense (their federal tax bill) that they would pay out of their treasury.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Man is it GREAT that you two spend so much time and energy worrying about something that will never ever happen.

Why bother? Is it just mental masturbation for you two?

Or will you 'll be running for political office soon?