Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[Ernie S.]

It seems to me that if they have enough extra money to waste on worthless crap like tihis...

I'm Taxed Enough Already!

Gotta spend money to make money.

And taxed enough? Very doubtful, especially since we aren't paying our bills.

I don't know about you, but I'm paying my bills.

I pay mine as well, but the US doesn't because it doesn't tax enough.

Hey, PMS! Pay as much as you want. That is your right. Just leave my wallet alone.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I am...

You cannot discuss privately held wealth ... it isn't yours to be shared.

Reality is a prickly thing, isn't it? You can't use it to justify your blather.

The wealth isn't shared but the national debt is? Interesting.

Tell you what, let's adjust the national debt shares based on income. Go...

The national debt was incurred, in the name of ALL the people, with your permission. Sorry --- you owe the same amount I do.

My wealth, on the other hand, was earned by my actions - you don't get any, because you don't deserve it.

Debt you want shared evenly, but not income. Got it.

What a deal for the rich eh? As usual...

My wealth is of my doing, not yours. YOU have no claim to it and it is irrelevant to your situation. If you want wealth comparable to mine, earn it yourself.

You make it here, we allow that, you owe some of it back to us. It's a pay to play game so stop bitching about the bill, it should be far higher.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It seems to me that if they have enough extra money to waste on worthless crap like tihis...

I'm Taxed Enough Already!

Gotta spend money to make money.

And taxed enough? Very doubtful, especially since we aren't paying our bills.

I don't know about you, but I'm paying my bills.

I pay mine as well, but the US doesn't because it doesn't tax enough.

Hey, PMS! Pay as much as you want. That is your right. Just leave my wallet alone.

Not a chance in hell. See above.

And should you wish to leave because you feel it's unfair, we'll help you pack. See ya.

 

[Missourian]

With that long rant, what you're admitting is everyone receives the same services and protections.

Debt you want shared evenly, but not income. Got it.

What a deal for the rich eh? As usual...

And we are right back to "what extra services do the rich get that you do not from the federal government"?

Why should they get anything at all? What do they need, besides an army and the infrastructure we paid for that they use to make the big bucks. Do you want us to name a stealth bomber after them? The bill on that is two bil a piece. That two million they pay doesn't pick up the gas tab in that case.

What gave you the idea that because you pay more you should get more? How many apples can you eat? Same as a poor man right. So, how many government services can you suck up when you can pay for better yourself? Where did you little morons get this whole life should be fair idea, Ayn Rand books?

If they are not receiving more, why should they pay more? And some who are receiving the same protection and services pay nothing?

 

[skye]

When they start with "the rich paying theirs fares" and that....

I always think of Communism....

big government welfare and shit...

you know?

and I leave the country.

presto!

 

[skye]

Good Night USMB

 

[Ernie S.]

You cannot discuss privately held wealth ... it isn't yours to be shared.

Reality is a prickly thing, isn't it? You can't use it to justify your blather.

The wealth isn't shared but the national debt is? Interesting.

Tell you what, let's adjust the national debt shares based on income. Go...

The national debt was incurred, in the name of ALL the people, with your permission. Sorry --- you owe the same amount I do.

My wealth, on the other hand, was earned by my actions - you don't get any, because you don't deserve it.

Debt you want shared evenly, but not income. Got it.

What a deal for the rich eh? As usual...

My wealth is of my doing, not yours. YOU have no claim to it and it is irrelevant to your situation. If you want wealth comparable to mine, earn it yourself.

You make it here, we allow that, you owe some of it back to us. It's a pay to play game so stop bitching about the bill, it should be far higher.

You still refuse to justify why I should pay 500 times what you pay.
You saying so doesn't mean shit.

Convince me. Go ahead. I'll read your explanation.

 

[Darkwind]

The article said no such thing.

Look up the word 'you' in the dictionary.

I have no need. Show Me where the article is advocating for cutting taxes to the rich.

Listen fuckwit. I'm asking the Poster what he supports.

Which poster? The OP cited an article rebutting the notion of 'fair share' as defined by those who use the term as a means of controlling debate.

The author simply points out specific instances of alleged 'fairness' and the metrics in how they are used. No where did the OP or the author of the article advocate for the cuttting or raising of taxes.

My reply was to anther poster and was simply an exercise in mathemtaics, outlineing the fact that if (look up the word if you need to) everyone paid 20k in taxes, then the budget shortfall would go away and we'd achieve balance. At no time did I advocate that we should do this.

Any other deflections you wish to introduce?

I enthusiastically endorse the idea that Republicans should run on a platform of raising taxes on the poor and lowering taxes on the rich.

Which is not what the OP is about. That is just deflection.

 

[Papageorgio]

Would we even have our wasteful wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, if the wealthiest had to pay wartime Tax rates for them?

Why do you capitalize the t in tax?

 

[ninja007]

The middle class pays the highest percentage of their income to taxation. So, obviously the wealthy are not paying their fair share.

You are rich if you have one penny more than the nearest lefty...then you must be arrested and sent to a work camp for your greed, while that lefty lives off of the money confiscated from you.....

been doin it for 50 years; lib greed and envy.

 

[Spare_change]

You cannot discuss privately held wealth ... it isn't yours to be shared.

Reality is a prickly thing, isn't it? You can't use it to justify your blather.

The wealth isn't shared but the national debt is? Interesting.

Tell you what, let's adjust the national debt shares based on income. Go...

The national debt was incurred, in the name of ALL the people, with your permission. Sorry --- you owe the same amount I do.

My wealth, on the other hand, was earned by my actions - you don't get any, because you don't deserve it.

Debt you want shared evenly, but not income. Got it.

What a deal for the rich eh? As usual...

My wealth is of my doing, not yours. YOU have no claim to it and it is irrelevant to your situation. If you want wealth comparable to mine, earn it yourself.

You make it here, we allow that, you owe some of it back to us. It's a pay to play game so stop bitching about the bill, it should be far higher.

We ALLOW that?????? Interesting ....

 

[Spare_change]

It seems to me that if they have enough extra money to waste on worthless crap like tihis...

I'm Taxed Enough Already!

Gotta spend money to make money.

And taxed enough? Very doubtful, especially since we aren't paying our bills.

I don't know about you, but I'm paying my bills.

I pay mine as well, but the US doesn't because it doesn't tax enough.

Hey, PMS! Pay as much as you want. That is your right. Just leave my wallet alone.

Not a chance in hell. See above.

And should you wish to leave because you feel it's unfair, we'll help you pack. See ya.

But ... but .... if he leaves, who is going to pay YOUR 'fair share'?

You can't have it both ways ....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look up the word 'you' in the dictionary.

I have no need. Show Me where the article is advocating for cutting taxes to the rich.

Listen fuckwit. I'm asking the Poster what he supports.

Which poster? The OP cited an article rebutting the notion of 'fair share' as defined by those who use the term as a means of controlling debate.

The author simply points out specific instances of alleged 'fairness' and the metrics in how they are used. No where did the OP or the author of the article advocate for the cuttting or raising of taxes.

My reply was to anther poster and was simply an exercise in mathemtaics, outlineing the fact that if (look up the word if you need to) everyone paid 20k in taxes, then the budget shortfall would go away and we'd achieve balance. At no time did I advocate that we should do this.

Any other deflections you wish to introduce?

I enthusiastically endorse the idea that Republicans should run on a platform of raising taxes on the poor and lowering taxes on the rich.

Probably not a great idea. How about we start out eliminating tax refunds for people who pay no Income tax?

The earned income credit was a Republican idea to encourage work.

How about we replace most programs for the poor with a guaranteed income for everyone, at a basic level?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look up the word 'you' in the dictionary.

I have no need. Show Me where the article is advocating for cutting taxes to the rich.

Listen fuckwit. I'm asking the Poster what he supports.

Which poster? The OP cited an article rebutting the notion of 'fair share' as defined by those who use the term as a means of controlling debate.

The author simply points out specific instances of alleged 'fairness' and the metrics in how they are used. No where did the OP or the author of the article advocate for the cuttting or raising of taxes.

My reply was to anther poster and was simply an exercise in mathemtaics, outlineing the fact that if (look up the word if you need to) everyone paid 20k in taxes, then the budget shortfall would go away and we'd achieve balance. At no time did I advocate that we should do this.

Any other deflections you wish to introduce?

I enthusiastically endorse the idea that Republicans should run on a platform of raising taxes on the poor and lowering taxes on the rich.

Which is not what the OP is about. That is just deflection.

So I guess you disagree with the standard conservative line around here that everyone should have some 'skin in the game' when it comes to taxes,

meaning that all the households who are paying no federal income taxes should be paying at least some?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look up the word 'you' in the dictionary.

I have no need. Show Me where the article is advocating for cutting taxes to the rich.

Listen fuckwit. I'm asking the Poster what he supports.

Which poster? The OP cited an article rebutting the notion of 'fair share' as defined by those who use the term as a means of controlling debate.

The author simply points out specific instances of alleged 'fairness' and the metrics in how they are used. No where did the OP or the author of the article advocate for the cuttting or raising of taxes.

My reply was to anther poster and was simply an exercise in mathemtaics, outlineing the fact that if (look up the word if you need to) everyone paid 20k in taxes, then the budget shortfall would go away and we'd achieve balance. At no time did I advocate that we should do this.

Any other deflections you wish to introduce?

I enthusiastically endorse the idea that Republicans should run on a platform of raising taxes on the poor and lowering taxes on the rich.

Which is not what the OP is about. That is just deflection.

It's not?

This is straight out of the OP:

"Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on. "

That's a call for lowering taxes on the richer and raising them on the poorer.

Now **** off.

 

[Politico]

No......

 

[eagle1462010]

End the BS..............Flat Tax on income, everyone pays a flat rate.............All deductions gone and send in the Tax Return on a post card.................would increase Federal Revenues and would get rid of the thousands of pages of tax laws and red tape filing taxes now................Those in poverty or very low levels of income could pay reduced rates to pay for their S.S. and Medicare portions of the equation...........

Our tax laws are too complex...............allows too many loop holes and headaches at tax time. End it and stop bitching.

 

[Geaux4it]

Income is earned, debt is discretionary

-Geaux

 

[bripat9643]

Cut the rhetoric - deal in reality.

I am...

You cannot discuss privately held wealth ... it isn't yours to be shared.

Reality is a prickly thing, isn't it? You can't use it to justify your blather.

The wealth isn't shared but the national debt is? Interesting.

Tell you what, let's adjust the national debt shares based on income. Go...

The national debt was incurred, in the name of ALL the people, with your permission. Sorry --- you owe the same amount I do.

My wealth, on the other hand, was earned by my actions - you don't get any, because you don't deserve it.

Debt you want shared evenly, but not income. Got it.

What a deal for the rich eh? As usual...

LIke a genuine Nazi, you don't care who owns the wealth or who owns the debt.

 

[bripat9643]

End the BS..............Flat Tax on income, everyone pays a flat rate.............All deductions gone and send in the Tax Return on a post card.................would increase Federal Revenues and would get rid of the thousands of pages of tax laws and red tape filing taxes now................Those in poverty or very low levels of income could pay reduced rates to pay for their S.S. and Medicare portions of the equation...........

Our tax laws are too complex...............allows too many loop holes and headaches at tax time. End it and stop bitching.

That wouldn't get rid of the IRS or most of the IRS code, which is concerned with business deductions. The only way to do that is abolish the income tax.