The truth about taxes

[ScienceRocks]

Taxes are a necessary part of civilization...

That's debatable...but that's not the issue here, snowflake. The primary issue here is how the left was caught lying about taxes. The secondary issue is how the left illegally/unconstitutionally spends tax dollars.

Projection and "catching" red herrings while claiming learning how to fish is important, is not very convincing.

Both terms, promote and provide, are used in regard to the general welfare, but not the common defense.

I support learning how to fish but some people need government loans in order to do that.

 

[P@triot]

Both terms, promote and provide, are used in regard to the general welfare, but not the common defense.

And all apply to their 18 enumerated powers only. Thanks for playing.

 

[P@triot]

I support learning how to fish but some people need government loans in order to do that.

That's what banks are for (loans). And charity is for anyone who needs a hand up. So stop being such a lazy, greedy, selfish douchebag and start one.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Yeah and they have 18-24% of income, and 33-42% of the wealth, you ignorant dupe.

Everything you post is an egregious lie born out of your greed. You're too lazy to earn for yourself but too greedy to do without.

Another study conducted in December 2014 found a similar gap between reality and perception in personal income taxes.

That year, the top 10% of American earners making $120,000 per year or more earned 41% of all income, but paid 68% of all income taxes.

Americans were fairly accurate when it came to who earns what: They guessed on average that the top 10% of Americans earned 41% of American money, when in fact they made 45% of American money.

But they were pretty far off when it came to guessing the proportion of the nation’s taxes they pay. They guessed the top 10% pays 38% of all taxes, and they were off by 30 points. The top 10% pays 68% of all U.S. taxes.

You are the ignorant that the article speaks about. Why is the group that earns 41% of the wealth paying 68% of all federal taxes? They should be paying 41% of all federal taxes.

New Data: Leftward Views on Taxes Often Fueled by Ignorance

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

Except state and local taxes are not a constant, of you live near New York City your taxes are going to be higher than someone living in the middle of Colorado. That means those living in New York City are considered rich, by your definition, because their income HAS to be higher to compensate for their standard of living. So naturally if you work at a Mc Donald's or a Walmart you are going to be struggling to make a living there. So that eradicates your local taxes argument as it's not a constant like federal taxes, incomes naturally need to change to meet a local standard of living. Delaware also doesn't have the same state taxes as say California, so while one pays little to no state taxes the other must compensate for a higher standard of living. Any way you slice it, state and local taxes are not a constant to which to base a person as rich or poor based on income level, as you have to consider how much is needed to maintain the area's cost for maintaining that standard of living.

What Franco also doesn't address regarding taxes is the difference between small business with business assets and costs, from someone who is to be considered as rich based on personal income alone. Small businesses make up the majority of the driving force of jobs in the private sector, and that's what a lot of these higher taxes hurt. The democrats don't really have a clue as to how to encourage job growth in the private sector, apart from having the federal government dumping money to do it. They don't know what it takes to actually encourage small businesses to thrive or even expand. How successful do you think it really is to start a small business amidst these taxes and increasing government regulations, pay your employees, cover a mandated health care, add the expense of unemployment costs per employee, and still manage to maintain a big enough profit while covering your materials, equipment expenses, and rent to keep your business afloat for greater than 3 years? All Franco goes by is his tax bracket chart and thinks he knows all there is about who is rich ... without considering location with their cost of living, and the small business assets and their costs that I've only given a small sample of above. In short francoHFW doesn't have a clue.

BS- Regular people's taxes are higher than they should be EVERYWHERE because of the GOP duh. Forget your divide and conquer GOP BS. We need to tax the rich more and cut the rest DUHHHH. And invest in the nonrich and infrastructure.

Do you actually take the time to think before you post? Taxes are higher everywhere because of republicans? Just how many red states and republican controlled state legislatures do you think we have in this country? New York and California are controlled by republicans who want to raise taxes on the middle class. THAT'S who you believe the liberals voted for and wanted. Wow! Throw a little basic common sense piece of information and francoHFW becomes a babbling idiot.

 

[danielpalos]

The thing I will never understand about the Left is how they can possibly think that raising taxes on the rich can be done without any consequences, as though nothing will change. Changes in tax rates will ALWAYS result in changes in behavior; raise rates and you get less investment, lower them and you get more if all else remains the same.

And they always use a static calculation to arrive at how much extra revenue the gov't will get, which never happens. Time after time we've seen states and other countries raising taxes but not getting nearly the amount of expected revenue. Why? Because there is a change in behavior when you raise taxes, the wealthy people will find ways to avoid paying the higher rate even if it means moving that money offshore. And if you rise taxes enough they'll relocate themselves offshore too, and take their money with them. It may be politically smart, but economically speaking it's usually unwise unless maybe your economy is overheating or inflation is rising too fast.

Raising taxes on the rich means change; it should mean, the one percent will start insisting their public servants purchase Only the finest solutions money can buy for our Republic.

 

[danielpalos]

Taxes are a necessary part of civilization...

That's debatable...but that's not the issue here, snowflake. The primary issue here is how the left was caught lying about taxes. The secondary issue is how the left illegally/unconstitutionally spends tax dollars.

Projection and "catching" red herrings while claiming learning how to fish is important, is not very convincing.

Both terms, promote and provide, are used in regard to the general welfare, but not the common defense.

I support learning how to fish but some people need government loans in order to do that.

Somebody has to make money stocking fish in private ponds.

 

[danielpalos]

Both terms, promote and provide, are used in regard to the general welfare, but not the common defense.

And all apply to their 18 enumerated powers only. Thanks for playing.

Here are the specifically enumerated general powers:

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

 

[P@triot]

Both terms, promote and provide, are used in regard to the general welfare, but not the common defense.

And all apply to their 18 enumerated powers only. Thanks for playing.

Here are the specifically enumerated general powers:

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Yep. See? Just as I said...they are explicitly restricted to their 18 enumerated powers. They "General Welfare" is in regards to those 18 enumerated powers only.

 

[danielpalos]

Both terms, promote and provide, are used in regard to the general welfare, but not the common defense.

And all apply to their 18 enumerated powers only. Thanks for playing.

Here are the specifically enumerated general powers:

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Yep. See? Just as I said...they are explicitly restricted to their 18 enumerated powers. They "General Welfare" is in regards to those 18 enumerated powers only.

Where did you come up with your right wing fantasy? I cited the general powers: to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; It is the whole and entire reason for the power to Tax.

 

[P@triot]

It is the whole and entire reason for the power to Tax.

And the "whole and entire reason for the power to tax" is for the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states.

 

[danielpalos]

It is the whole and entire reason for the power to Tax.

And the "whole and entire reason for the power to tax" is for the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states.

No, it isn't. That one line I gave you, is the whole and entire reason for the social Power to Tax the People.

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

 

[P@triot]

It is the whole and entire reason for the power to Tax.

And the "whole and entire reason for the power to tax" is for the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states.

No, it isn't. That one line I gave you, is the whole and entire reason for the social Power to Tax the People.

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Yep....for their 18 enumerated powers. The federal government doesn't have one single power beyond those 18 enumerated powers. Sorry chief - welfare doesn't mean what you think it means. It's welfare of the United States. Not FDR welfare for the individual. Thanks for playing.

 

[P@triot]

"The tax code is a monstrosity and there's only one thing to do with it. Scrap it, kill it, drive a stake through its heart, bury it and hope it never rises again to terrorize the American people."

- Steve Forbes

 

[ScienceRocks]

What I find funny about loserterians that call them self's "constituionalist" is they probably never studied law, case law or even the constitution that they bitch about but they're all experts. Fake experts! They all bitch about how we shouldn't use tax dollars to maintain our own country and how much they hate this country for advancing beyond the fucking 8th century...

90% of real constitutional experts would laugh at their idiocy and would agree with me and Obama that the constitution allows through case law quite a bit of legal frame work through time. Conservatives want to live on their ranch and hate the idea of modern civilization so they attempt to argue that everything is unconstitutional without having really any idea wtf they're talking about....It is like anything these idiots attempt to argue for or against....

The truth is when you're going up against a real constitutional expert, legal scholar or any other real law expert you pig shit scoopers are a joke.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Both terms, promote and provide, are used in regard to the general welfare, but not the common defense.

And all apply to their 18 enumerated powers only. Thanks for playing.

Here are the specifically enumerated general powers:

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Yep. See? Just as I said...they are explicitly restricted to their 18 enumerated powers. They "General Welfare" is in regards to those 18 enumerated powers only.

Where did you come up with your right wing fantasy? I cited the general powers: to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; It is the whole and entire reason for the power to Tax.

The main reason for the current constitution is our founders seen that the articles didn't allow the federal government the ability to tax. This meant the federal government would have to beg states in order to fund the military, print currency or do anything...It wasn't working. Adams was quite big government and Washington placed Hamilton as our first treasure that believed in the first national bank so they weren't disbelievers in big government.

Sure there was a debate on scale of the government as Madison disagreed but to say that all our founders believed in your uncivilized crap shows how uneducated you're.

 

[P@triot]

What I find funny about loserterians that call them self's "constituionalist" is they probably never studied law, case law or even the constitution that they bitch about but they're all experts.

Hey genius....what constitutional conservative "bitches about" the U.S. Constitution?

That's what you do. It's you progressive fascists that bitch about the U.S. Constitution because it prevents you from enforcing your fucked-up views on others.

 

[P@triot]

They all bitch about how we shouldn't use tax dollars to maintain our own country and how much they hate this country for advancing beyond the fucking 8th century...

No such claim has ever been made. Ever. The fact that you have to resort to lying says it all snowflake.

 

[P@triot]

90% of real constitutional experts would laugh at their idiocy and would agree with me and Obama

I assure you Matty...you couldn't find 0.9% of any population that would agree with you. You are genuinely 13-shades of fuck'n crazy. You hit the bottle at night and you start going crazy on this board. Instead of screaming like a lunatic on USMB, why don't you seek out help for your issue?

 

[P@triot]

Sure there was a debate on scale of the government as Madison disagreed but to say that all our founders believed in your uncivilized crap shows how uneducated you're.

Not all founders agreed with it - the asshole Alexander Hamilton was the United States first progressive. He lied 24x7 and desired a massive federal government with unlimited power.

But here is the thing snowflake - the overwhelming majority of the founders agreed with our views. That's why the U.S. Constitution was written the way it was written and that's why it was ratified by the states.

It's just a simple fact that you can't deal with (because you're a fragile little snowflake).

 

[P@triot]

They all bitch about how we shouldn't use tax dollars to maintain our own country and how much they hate this country for advancing beyond the fucking 8th century...

The problem is that unethical pigs such as yourself lie and claim that "maintaining" the nation means spending tax dollars on "The National Endowment for the Arts". You lie and claim that "maintaining" the nation means spending tax dollars on "The National Wild Horse and Burro Program". You lie and claim that "maintaining" the nation means spending tax dollars on the "Healthy Marriage Initiative".

The bottom line, you're drunk (again) and acting like an asshole (again)