Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
as a group there are far more people on the lower earning tier than on the top tier so the lower tier gets more free government services as a gruop because we all know the bottom 50% of earners pay less taxes than the top 10% as a groupno the poor get more servicesBut does everyone get the same amount of services? No
It's like going into a restaurant and everyone pays the same to eat. Yet one person gets a great meal, and someone else gets rubbish.
but hey if you want to go to an a la carte government service menu I'm all for it because it would cut my taxes
No, they don't.
You think with a menu you'd cut taxes? Some might, but the rich certainly wouldn't.
so the people who pay ZERO income tax don't get more from the government than someone in the 39.6% bracket
sorry not buying it
That's not what I said. There are people who get more from the government than they put in. However I wasn't talking about individuals. I was talking about people as a group.
the income tax does not tax the labor it taxes what the man is paid when he sells his laborTaxing a man's labor is akin to slavery. It is immoral and antithetical to the notion of a free society.
So there's that...
you can labor all you want and never get taxed on it
Could you define "their fair share" please? If someone had $100,000 of income, what is their "fair share"? What of a company that has net income of $10 million? Saying someone, or something, isn't "paying their fair share" is another way of saying this:The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.
wealth and income are not the same thingAs a rule.... simplified tax rates help the rich and force the poor and middle class to make up the difference
Haven't seen a simplified tax plan that doesn't
yeah and it's "fair" to let 10% of earners pay more than the bottom 50% of earners combined
It is fair when that ten percent has 90 percent of the wealth
It shows where the money is and who is most capable of contributing to our society....also who is benefitting the most
as a group there are far more people on the lower earning tier than on the top tier so the lower tier gets more free government services as a gruop because we all know the bottom 50% of earners pay less taxes than the top 10% as a groupno the poor get more services
but hey if you want to go to an a la carte government service menu I'm all for it because it would cut my taxes
No, they don't.
You think with a menu you'd cut taxes? Some might, but the rich certainly wouldn't.
so the people who pay ZERO income tax don't get more from the government than someone in the 39.6% bracket
sorry not buying it
That's not what I said. There are people who get more from the government than they put in. However I wasn't talking about individuals. I was talking about people as a group.
Potentially. Then again Trump managed to get $900 million out of New York State govt, millions out of Chicago, probably millions out of New Jersey and Florida. Then there's his not paying federal taxes. How many poor people would it take to get the money just one rich person managed to squeeze out of government?
One cannot, legally, deprive another of life. Simple. How is that unfair? You make a blanket statement, and provide NOTHING to back it up with.The answer isn't lowering taxes any more than the answer is raising taxes...
The answer is a fair and simple tax code.
I'll know that we're close when H & R Block is no longer a household name.
The resources we spend to do the fucking yearly paperwork to live in this country makes us look stupid.
Fair and simple? Simple isn't fair
you labor is not taxed.the income tax does not tax the labor it taxes what the man is paid when he sells his laborTaxing a man's labor is akin to slavery. It is immoral and antithetical to the notion of a free society.
So there's that...
you can labor all you want and never get taxed on it
Akin to saying you can chew all the food you like, but government says you can't swallow. That makes you dead, the exact same result as "choosing" not to labor for compensation.
There's a reason this country outlawed income tax for more years than it's been in place. It is immoral.
When a man labor today, which he must do to survive, our governments force a portion of the fruits of that labor to be given to another person. Is that not the essence of slavery? Forcing one man to work for the benefit of another?
Why yes, yes it is.
Hence, income tax is immoral.
As do those on welfare. What's your point? That the government shouldn't be in the wealth re-distribution racket? I agree.define "fair share"The people and corporations currently not paying their fair share.
Many rich and corporations get a lot from government but end up not paying for what they get.
Evan Obama knows that. "...You didn't build that." Remember?wealth and income are not the same thingAs a rule.... simplified tax rates help the rich and force the poor and middle class to make up the difference
Haven't seen a simplified tax plan that doesn't
yeah and it's "fair" to let 10% of earners pay more than the bottom 50% of earners combined
It is fair when that ten percent has 90 percent of the wealth
It shows where the money is and who is most capable of contributing to our society....also who is benefitting the most
yes because there's no way a person can acquire wealth without the fucking government
wealth and income are not the same thingAs a rule.... simplified tax rates help the rich and force the poor and middle class to make up the difference
Haven't seen a simplified tax plan that doesn't
yeah and it's "fair" to let 10% of earners pay more than the bottom 50% of earners combined
It is fair when that ten percent has 90 percent of the wealth
It shows where the money is and who is most capable of contributing to our society....also who is benefitting the most
yes because there's no way a person can acquire wealth without the fucking government
wealth and income are not the same thingyeah and it's "fair" to let 10% of earners pay more than the bottom 50% of earners combined
It is fair when that ten percent has 90 percent of the wealth
It shows where the money is and who is most capable of contributing to our society....also who is benefitting the most
yes because there's no way a person can acquire wealth without the fucking government
Pretty much right
The wealthy rely on Government for:
Stable monetary system, legal protections, security at home and abroad, providing an educated workforce, infrastructure, economic protections
wealth and income are not the same thingIt is fair when that ten percent has 90 percent of the wealth
It shows where the money is and who is most capable of contributing to our society....also who is benefitting the most
yes because there's no way a person can acquire wealth without the fucking government
Pretty much right
The wealthy rely on Government for:
Stable monetary system, legal protections, security at home and abroad, providing an educated workforce, infrastructure, economic protections
and the so called rich don't have sole access to any of that do they?
No
anyone can increase their wealth any time they so choose
wealth and income are not the same thing
It shows where the money is and who is most capable of contributing to our society....also who is benefitting the most
yes because there's no way a person can acquire wealth without the fucking government
Pretty much right
The wealthy rely on Government for:
Stable monetary system, legal protections, security at home and abroad, providing an educated workforce, infrastructure, economic protections
and the so called rich don't have sole access to any of that do they?
No
anyone can increase their wealth any time they so choose
Move that Goal Post..
You claimed the wealthy do not need Government....It is obvious they do
That is why we have "The Golden Rule"
He who has the gold...makes the rules
And the educated worker is paid for that education by the company that employs them. It is utterly daft (and shows that you have a preconceived notion rather than following the facts) to make a claim that the 'rich' benefit from that education more than the individual that actually receives it. This is even more true when you consider the fact that you STILL cant stop conflating rich with business. I also notice that you ignored the reality that not all rich people fall into your pigeon hole.Well, no that really is false. The rich tend to pay for their education while the poor use the government for it. You shifted gears again though - you went from the rich to business.You really cant base tax on service. If you really wanted to base the tax code on that you would have the poor who use the vast majority of government services paying far more than the rich were.of course it is.
everyone pays the same percentage of their income period
But does everyone get the same amount of services? No
It's like going into a restaurant and everyone pays the same to eat. Yet one person gets a great meal, and someone else gets rubbish.
And no, it is a false narrative that the rich use more government than the poor.
A simple tax code is the only way that it can be fair. There is no measure for government services like access to protected rights, national security and jails. Right now we have the poor paying a larger share of their income than the rich to the federal government. True simplification of the tax code will benefit not only the middle class but the poor as well. It will hose the uber rich as they are the ones that have been manipulating the code to benefit special interests.
It always amazes me that some claim simplifying the tax code will hurt the middle class and poor but then complain that Romney pays a smaller percentage than his secretary. The two concepts are entirely at odds.
But the poor don't use the vast amount of services.
You have to remember that BOTH the poor and rich use things like education. You get given an education, the country gets given an educated worked, and a business gets educated workers. So, education isn't all about the individual, it's about the country and it's about making money.
The fact is that the poor use more government services.
Again conflating 2 concepts.What about infrastructure? Perhaps a person will use the road twice in a day, maybe a little more sometimes. How much are big corporations using the roads? Probably thousands of times a day to ship products, having employees get to work, having managers going from one place to another. All of this benefits business too.
So now we have moved the goal post from using government services to benefitting from them.You think about Iraq, how much did the war and post war period cost the US?
One estimate is $1.1 trillion. Who benefited from this? It certainly wasn't the poor. The poor got shot at and killed or maimed. So who made money? Defense contractors, oil companies and shareholders. So, who should be paying for such things?
Who benefits from the stability of the country? Everyone, but the rich are able to get rich from it, so they should be paying their fair share, which is a larger share than your average Joe.\
Look at Somalia, hard to make money and become rich there. Why? There's no security, there's no decent infrastructure.
In Russia in the 1990s the Mafias were basically taking about 30-40% of a company's income just to provide for security. The smaller people needed it less, they had less to steal from, they had less reason to be a target for the mafias. In the US most companies will pay a lot less for security and get everything else for free, basically.
What fair is isn't easy to come by. However it damn well isn't everyone paying the same percentage.
This is the problem with trying to base a tax rate on 'benefit' or 'use' of government - the amount of government that one uses is literally impossible to calculate particularly when you start making broad claims that simply being rich means that you benefit more. Do you want a different tax rate for the person that gets rich trading in international commodities? How about a different tax rate for those that came here after making their fortune somewhere else? In your version of 'fair' you certainly would have to.
Simple would be fair for one reason - it would not allow the wealthy to abuse the tax code to get out of paying taxes.
The rich use private education for their own children. However a business will probably, on the whole, use those educated in schools paid for with tax money. Education isn't just about your own children. Society benefits from an educated workforce. This is why countries that have mass education at higher levels have higher levels of GDP. You can't make money in a country with low levels of education because these people can't do the work needed on things that make a lot of money, like high tech businesses.
It is a fact. You disagree because it does not follow your narrative. You have declared over and over that the rich use more services simply because they are rich.You state that it's a "fact" that the poor use more government services. Again, I disagree. You're ignoring huge swaths of things the govt pays for.
No, the people USING that service benefit. I know it does not fit your narrative but it is nonsensical to demand the one getting the service is the lesser beneficiary because some vapid concept rather than fact.Let's look. Number one is healthcare. Who benefits?
Well the rich benefit.
Firstly they benefit from having healthy workers.
I would go into defense but there really is no point - you simply declare that who uses the service or who receives the money is meaningless because the rich are, well, rich.Secondly they benefit because of lot of this money will end up going to profits for healthcare companies. Insurance companies take about 7% of healthcare spending, some hospitals make about 25% of the healthcare spending that goes through them, others don't make much money at all, that depends.
Social Security is more likely to go to the poor.
Defense is likely to go mostly to the rich. You have soldiers pay, but that doesn't make up that much, with spending on the defense industry taking up a large chunk of that. However it is the rich that benefit the most from the security the military gives, and the ability to go into places like Iraq and stop OPEC from controlling oil prices and to get shareholders massive amounts of money in oil companies that are taking oil out of Iraqi oilfields.
Non-Defense discretionary is on government departments which it is hard to show how it benefits.
When you get down to state level, you're looking at states giving away huge amounts of money to businesses to pay them off to work in the state itself, and at local level.
Yes it has worked thus far. Do you know nothing about this nation?Well, no. Here the government cannot do 'whatever the people want them to.' That is the point of the constitution - it limits what the government can do.of course it is.
everyone pays the same percentage of their income period
But does everyone get the same amount of services? No
It's like going into a restaurant and everyone pays the same to eat. Yet one person gets a great meal, and someone else gets rubbish.
Then "services" (spending) should be limited to what is common.
The government has no business micromanaging the economy by giving tax breaks to industries and business they think deserve an advantage and the government has no business doling out welfare via a the tax code.
Talk about an invitation to fraud, corruption and abuse!
What do you mean "government has no business micromanaging the economy"? I mean, it's not that I don't agree with you, it's just that govt is there, and the people elect them, and the govt can do whatever the people want them to do.
Tax breaks in the US have become a massive joke, and shouldn't be the way they are. The EU has it right. Each country can set a tax level, but ALL companies must adhere to that tax rate. Ireland got stuffed in court because they were giving Google an easy ride.
Does it? Hasn't worked so far, has it? Also the constitution can be changed in various ways.
How you propose funding the government then?the income tax does not tax the labor it taxes what the man is paid when he sells his laborTaxing a man's labor is akin to slavery. It is immoral and antithetical to the notion of a free society.
So there's that...
you can labor all you want and never get taxed on it
Akin to saying you can chew all the food you like, but government says you can't swallow. That makes you dead, the exact same result as "choosing" not to labor for compensation.
There's a reason this country outlawed income tax for more years than it's been in place. It is immoral.
When a man labor today, which he must do to survive, our governments force a portion of the fruits of that labor to be given to another person. Is that not the essence of slavery? Forcing one man to work for the benefit of another?
Why yes, yes it is.
Hence, income tax is immoral.
Except that is illegal without the proper fines paid to the government for licensing.you labor is not taxed.the income tax does not tax the labor it taxes what the man is paid when he sells his laborTaxing a man's labor is akin to slavery. It is immoral and antithetical to the notion of a free society.
So there's that...
you can labor all you want and never get taxed on it
Akin to saying you can chew all the food you like, but government says you can't swallow. That makes you dead, the exact same result as "choosing" not to labor for compensation.
There's a reason this country outlawed income tax for more years than it's been in place. It is immoral.
When a man labor today, which he must do to survive, our governments force a portion of the fruits of that labor to be given to another person. Is that not the essence of slavery? Forcing one man to work for the benefit of another?
Why yes, yes it is.
Hence, income tax is immoral.
You can cut down trees mill the lumber build a house and live in it and your labor will never be taxed
Again, illegal without paying uncle sam for tags. For the garden you need land - land that will be taxed.You can plant a garden grow and can fruits ad veg hunt for your meat and your labor will never be taxed
I can actually agree here but it is false to say that you can avoid taxes.if you sell your labor to another the proceeds of that sale is taxed
Your labor is a commodity that is all
and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with morality
I said your labor will never be taxed I never said anything about avoiding all taxesExcept that is illegal without the proper fines paid to the government for licensing.you labor is not taxed.the income tax does not tax the labor it taxes what the man is paid when he sells his laborTaxing a man's labor is akin to slavery. It is immoral and antithetical to the notion of a free society.
So there's that...
you can labor all you want and never get taxed on it
Akin to saying you can chew all the food you like, but government says you can't swallow. That makes you dead, the exact same result as "choosing" not to labor for compensation.
There's a reason this country outlawed income tax for more years than it's been in place. It is immoral.
When a man labor today, which he must do to survive, our governments force a portion of the fruits of that labor to be given to another person. Is that not the essence of slavery? Forcing one man to work for the benefit of another?
Why yes, yes it is.
Hence, income tax is immoral.
You can cut down trees mill the lumber build a house and live in it and your labor will never be taxed
Again, illegal without paying uncle sam for tags. For the garden you need land - land that will be taxed.You can plant a garden grow and can fruits ad veg hunt for your meat and your labor will never be taxed
I can actually agree here but it is false to say that you can avoid taxes.if you sell your labor to another the proceeds of that sale is taxed
Your labor is a commodity that is all
and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with morality
you labor is not taxed.the income tax does not tax the labor it taxes what the man is paid when he sells his laborTaxing a man's labor is akin to slavery. It is immoral and antithetical to the notion of a free society.
So there's that...
you can labor all you want and never get taxed on it
Akin to saying you can chew all the food you like, but government says you can't swallow. That makes you dead, the exact same result as "choosing" not to labor for compensation.
There's a reason this country outlawed income tax for more years than it's been in place. It is immoral.
When a man labor today, which he must do to survive, our governments force a portion of the fruits of that labor to be given to another person. Is that not the essence of slavery? Forcing one man to work for the benefit of another?
Why yes, yes it is.
Hence, income tax is immoral.
You can cut down trees mill the lumber build a house and live in it and your labor will never be taxed
You can plant a garden grow and can fruits ad veg hunt for your meat and your labor will never be taxed
if you sell your labor to another the proceeds of that sale is taxed
Your labor is a commodity that is all
and taxes have absolutely nothing to do with morality
How you propose funding the government then?the income tax does not tax the labor it taxes what the man is paid when he sells his laborTaxing a man's labor is akin to slavery. It is immoral and antithetical to the notion of a free society.
So there's that...
you can labor all you want and never get taxed on it
Akin to saying you can chew all the food you like, but government says you can't swallow. That makes you dead, the exact same result as "choosing" not to labor for compensation.
There's a reason this country outlawed income tax for more years than it's been in place. It is immoral.
When a man labor today, which he must do to survive, our governments force a portion of the fruits of that labor to be given to another person. Is that not the essence of slavery? Forcing one man to work for the benefit of another?
Why yes, yes it is.
Hence, income tax is immoral.
