The Great Tax Lie

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jreeves, Feb 17, 2008.

  1. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    I have heard a lot of class warfare these days. I thought I would make this posting to show who pays the most in this country. I believe under our current system, that we all pay too much. But the most successful are penalized unfairly and forced to pay for governmental charities in the tune of 680 billion for social programs according to www.federalbudget.com. Here's the facts. So before you criticize the Rich for not paying enough look at this.
    http://money.aol.com/kiplingers/tax/canvas3/_a/how-do-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer/20061211141809990001

    The top-earning 50% pays 97% of all federal income taxes.

    The bottom 50% of earners pay just 3% of those taxes.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    The next time you hear a liberal saying, the rich don't pay enough show them this. What do they want the top 50% do pay the other 3%?
     
  3. ronpaul2008
    Offline

    ronpaul2008 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    80
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +14
    This is a regressive tax system. People are in essense punished for their success. The democrats want everyone to be equal, and want the more compentant people to pay for the incompentant people to be on the same level. It is ironic that Democrats are so insistant on the teaching of evolution and if one small community in Kansas doesn't want to teach high school evolution democrats across the country are irate and outraged. Thanks to their beloved evolution theory I can see that their policies cause us to deevolve. If people cannot raise their children properly they should not be having children its as simple as that. People who cannot succeed in todays world should not be rewarded for having children. Edwards went on an on about a person who died because they did not recieve a liver transplant. Not only was would this have been an experimental surgery but it would cost millions of taxpayer dollars to keep a human with defective genetics alive. The more we do this the more these defective genetics are allowed to propogate instead of as its been throughout the years where the problematic mutations were weeded out naturally.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,818
    Thanks Received:
    4,499
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,103
    the only air tax is a flat tax

    just think if everyone paid 15% of their gross income with no deductions and no tax breaks we would be able to get rid of the fucking IRS and realize billions of dollars in savings from that alone. not to mention the ease of paying. just think you would have more $$$ in your paycheck and you wouldn't have to file income taxes if you has your employer send in your cut every week.

    this is such a no brainer that of course the idiots in Washington can't figure it out
     
  5. indago
    Offline

    indago VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +180
    Skull Pilot wrote:
    A Constitutional Amendment would have to be passed to grant government the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,570
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,989
    Already done. Ohh by the way what would you call income tax? Further there were and still are many Constitutional scholars that claim the amendment that WAS passed was not needed, that the Constitution all ready allows the Federal Government to tax Income.

    Amendment 16 to the Constitution.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html
     
  7. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    And it would be one way to get rid of the ever-encroaching Nanny State because a 15% tax on everyone wouldn’t generate enough money to pay for all those ever-increasing social programs. Government would have to shrink by necessity. Wouldn’t that be a great benefit of the flat tax?
     
  8. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,771
    Thanks Received:
    11,058
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,106
    No, but maybe another 1% or 2%.

    Did you know that if you are a white male with less than a grade 12 education, your real income has fallen by 13% over the past 40 years?

    Broad structural forces over the past four decades, particularly the effects of globalization and the advents of technology, have benefited the wealthiest the most and have hurt some of the lowest income earners the hardest. For example, the opening of China has been enormously beneficial to the owners of capital and has put pressure on a very significant portion of society, but that has absolutely nothing to do with how hard you work.

    This wouldn't be so bad if social mobility hasn't been falling over the past decade or two, but it has. Why? Because those with the most education are the ones benefiting the most. This creates structural impediments for anyone wishing to climb the ladder because 100% of those who want cannot continue to earn ever-higher education because there is not enough capacity in the country to do so.
     
  9. indago
    Offline

    indago VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +180
    RetiredGySgt wrote:
    I would call it "income tax".

    I agree! The Supreme Court has categorized the sixteenth amendment "income tax" in the indirect tax, or excise tax category, and explained that excise taxes are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges ...the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges". Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.
     
  10. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,793
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,306
    Not sure I understand the logic of these sort of posts? Why would anyone spend time defending the rich or arguing about whether they pay enough taxes? Are you rich and feel you want to keep more?

    The rich must laugh at this sort of stuff, if you have millions there is not much need to worry about taxes at all. Does the poster know lots of rich people who are suffering under this great burden? I know many and I gotta say they ain't suffering. And if your income is several million or even a measly million 10% of that is a great deal more than 10% of 30K, so yes, they pay more and a higher percentage - SO WHAT!

    "If you believe the conservative rhetoric on economics, this combination of high taxes, a large public sector, and lavish welfare benefits ought to be killing the Danish economy. But it's not. In fact, Denmark's economy has thrived. And nowhere is that more apparent than in the job market. By the time Rasmussen left office in 2001, the unemployment rate had fallen from a 1994 peak of 9.6 percent to 4.3 percent; in 2002, it fell below the U.S. rate, where it has remained ever since. For the most recent quarter of 2006, Denmark's standardized unemployment rate was 3.6 percent, compared with 4.7 percent in the United States. Moreover, while Europe has a reputation for fostering cadres of idle youth (a reputation that, in countries like France, has at least some basis in reality), in Denmark, a mere 3 percent of its 15- to 19-year-olds are neither in school nor working--the second-best rate in the developed world. (Tiny Luxembourg is first.) In the United States, by comparison, the figure is about 7 percent.

    Another important measure of overall economic health is GDP per capita, which in effect approximates the wealth generated per person per year. Here, the United States remains near the top of the developed world, at $39,732. Denmark, though also in the top fifth of the oecd, is at just $31,932. It's a significant difference, but one that reflects, in part, the fact that Americans simply work more hours, don't get as much vacation, and can't take such generous pregnancy or sick leaves. GDP per capita is also an average, pulled up by the extraordinary wealth of America's elite. Once you consider the distribution of income and material goods, it becomes apparent that typical citizens in Denmark are doing as well as--and quite possibly better than--their American counterparts."

    http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/wf010507.htm


    "There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm
     

Share This Page