Fixing Tax Loopholes, 51% of Americans Pay NO Incomes Taxes

[MikeK]

The problem is those aren't my only choices but your later option shows what a slave to government people like you have become. Option C anyone? How about you get a pair and provide those things for yourself.

Specifically what "things" should I provide for myself? Rather, what things do you presume I didn't, or don't, provide for myself?

Could be you do a lot of presuming and it's affected your thinking.

You should provide everything for yourself that your capabilities allow.

Does this mean you advocate a means test to collect Social Security or to utilize Medicare?

It is not the job of others to provide ANYTHING for you.

In the example of someone under age 65, a child for example, who is impoverished and becomes seriously ill, rather than provide the benefits of Medicaid, what do you suggest the alternative should be?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

If there are no taxes how do we run the government?

Check history, we did for a very long time without income tax.

I didn't ask how do we run the government with no income tax. I asked how do we run the government with no taxes

 

[saveliberty]

If there are no taxes how do we run the government?

Check history, we did for a very long time without income tax.

I didn't ask how do we run the government with no income tax. I asked how do we run the government with no taxes

Yes, very silly of you. I decided to make you look smarter and rephrased the question.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Check history, we did for a very long time without income tax.

I didn't ask how do we run the government with no income tax. I asked how do we run the government with no taxes

Yes, very silly of you. I decided to make you look smarter and rephrased the question.

No, you're the one who's the damned idiot. The original statement was that taxation is stealing. It didn't say only income tax was stealing, it said taxes, with no modifiers.

 

[saveliberty]

I didn't ask how do we run the government with no income tax. I asked how do we run the government with no taxes

Yes, very silly of you. I decided to make you look smarter and rephrased the question.

No, you're the one who's the damned idiot. The original statement was that taxation is stealing. It didn't say only income tax was stealing, it said taxes, with no modifiers.

If you bothered to read for content, you would understand that was the subject. I have to laugh at the bold print. Just what psychological issues do you have?

Try to link taxes with redistribution and you should end up at income tax.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Again, This isn't as complex as both sides make it out to be. I own a business. If I need more revenues and I am currently giving billions in discounts to a customer who will pay full price, guess what? No more discounts (that would be corporate handouts). If I'm spending money on NPR because I want an extra tv station, guess what? No more money to NPR.
Both sides bicker about BS that amounts to almost nil in the budget but they wiggle around the obvious.

We also need to increase revenues through personal taxes (this will piss off some people!). We need to increase taxes and not just on the rich. Hell, I'd probably go all the way down to $100K and just add two percent from there up. If I'm making $10K a month and can't get by on $9800, my problem isn't money.
We need to cut expenses and we already blew that one. The biggest mitake we could have made, was just made by BOTH parties - the Defense Budget. We needed to cut that spending not increase it. So now, neither side has ANY credibility with all their bullsht about "We're the ones who will do something about the deficit." There is no way we need to spend more on defense than China, Russia, GB, France, Germany COMBINED. Are we THAT F-cked up??? Please. We need to just get rid of a bunch of government. Didja know we spend hundreds of millions on the "Rural Electrification Agency" (another pet that the GOP for some reason, adores), founded in like, 1920 to make sure rural America got electricity? I think it's outlived its purpose by now. We need to cut a lot of our social programs. Not WIC, Vet benefits etc... so much but people, we have 5th generations of welfare all over the place. WTF?
We need to create some government jobs (Oh Sh1t! ConservaRepubs will attack THIS one!) for two reasons.
1. A construction worker won't CARE if it's a "temporary" 2 year job fixing a freeway. It will feed his family. Hell, the private sector sure isn't hiring anyone and when he gets a check, he might spend some of that money. You know, help the economy.
2. We actually have stuff that needs to be fixed. Our freeways, bridges etc... are falling apart in some places. Why not fix them.
Increase revenues. Cut expenses. Simple stuff but neither side likes it when it goes against what the talking heads from their ideology are selling right now.

Oh yeah. I'd legalize pot too. It's not like we don't need the BILLIONS in taxes that would generate and it would hurt the cartels.

 

[saveliberty]

Bridges aren't shovel ready.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

You gave me two choices implying that if government doesn't make me happy and healthy I will wind up dieing on the streets. Well that isn't so. Instead of government providing those things for me, I can keep my freedom and decide to provide for my basic neccessities myself.

In keeping with your analogy; were I a dog who lived in a comfortable home where all my needs were satisfied by a kind human and all I had to do in return was not shit on the floor, tear up the furniture or bark too much, I would be happy to regard that human as my "master" and to go along with the program. Considering the alternative I would be a damn fool not to.

But I'm not a dog. I'm a human who lives in an organized society wherein there are many requirements to perform and many rules to follow in order to qualify as a member and to keep the system functioning. Does my willingness to perform my obligations and follow the rules make me less than free?

If you think so then we need to discuss your concept of freedom.

 

[Google]

Again, This isn't as complex as both sides make it out to be. I own a business. If I need more revenues and I am currently giving billions in discounts to a customer who will pay full price, guess what? No more discounts (that would be corporate handouts). If I'm spending money on NPR because I want an extra tv station, guess what? No more money to NPR.
Both sides bicker about BS that amounts to almost nil in the budget but they wiggle around the obvious.

We also need to increase revenues through personal taxes (this will piss off some people!). We need to increase taxes and not just on the rich. Hell, I'd probably go all the way down to $100K and just add two percent from there up. If I'm making $10K a month and can't get by on $9800, my problem isn't money.
We need to cut expenses and we already blew that one. The biggest mitake we could have made, was just made by BOTH parties - the Defense Budget. We needed to cut that spending not increase it. So now, neither side has ANY credibility with all their bullsht about "We're the ones who will do something about the deficit." There is no way we need to spend more on defense than China, Russia, GB, France, Germany COMBINED. Are we THAT F-cked up??? Please. We need to just get rid of a bunch of government. Didja know we spend hundreds of millions on the "Rural Electrification Agency" (another pet that the GOP for some reason, adores), founded in like, 1920 to make sure rural America got electricity? I think it's outlived its purpose by now. We need to cut a lot of our social programs. Not WIC, Vet benefits etc... so much but people, we have 5th generations of welfare all over the place. WTF?
We need to create some government jobs (Oh Sh1t! ConservaRepubs will attack THIS one!) for two reasons.
1. A construction worker won't CARE if it's a "temporary" 2 year job fixing a freeway. It will feed his family. Hell, the private sector sure isn't hiring anyone and when he gets a check, he might spend some of that money. You know, help the economy.
2. We actually have stuff that needs to be fixed. Our freeways, bridges etc... are falling apart in some places. Why not fix them.
Increase revenues. Cut expenses. Simple stuff but neither side likes it when it goes against what the talking heads from their ideology are selling right now.

Oh yeah. I'd legalize pot too. It's not like we don't need the BILLIONS in taxes that would generate and it would hurt the cartels.

The issue that the country is facing is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem. The economy, facing another round of mass layoffs (Return of Mass Layoffs a Grim Sign for U.S. Workers | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance), cannot afford the burden of additional taxes when economic growth is stunted at less than 1% annually, and this is something that Obama himself has said.

Do you remember the promises that Obama made concerning what the Stimulus Act was going to achieve? $666 billion dollars spent that was supposed to address your 1 & 2 points. So now you are suggesting since that $666, a number larger than the military expenditure that year, didn't achieve any of this that perhaps we need another massive spending program?

The government runs up billions a month in deficits and you want everyone to believe the problem is that people aren't getting taxed enough? Gallup polls have consistently shown that a large majority of Americans blame spending not a lack of taxes for the debt, and there's a reason for that: it's true.

 

[thereisnospoon]

i think sales taxes and consumption taxes are just stupid...why in the heck don't we abolish them all in the States that have them.....

How in the world does taxing what people buy, help anyone? It has to slow down the purchase of goods, less going towards the gdp of the nation if "things" are taxed.....? don't we want to sell more "things" to improve our economic position?>

the people spending their money buying "things" should be rewarded for contributing to the overall economic health of this nation and not punished, by taxing what they spend? No????

Our earnings are taxed 15 times over.
Why is this? We allowed it to happen. Some of us elected politicians that never saw a tax they didn't like.
Sales taxes are a money grab. Plain and simple.
Every one of these "creative" taxes ( sin taxes, excise taxes, real estate transfer taxes, etc) were invented to make up for idiotic spending on the part of greedy politicians who needed to fund pet projects and programs that would get them re-elected.
Now we have this swirl of social entitlements and other subsidies that we can never be rid of.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The one we were talking about above.

Everyone gets taxed 10% of their income. Everyone gets to deduct the first 20,000 of income. In other words, the first 20,000 is not taxable.

With a tweak of maybe just the first 15k being none taxable. I say that because I bet you would be surprised at the number of people who make less than 20k a year but still have a reasonable standard of living. A single guy can live fairly comfortably on 20k a year and I'm saying that from personal experience. The point is not to burden those who are truly destitute with extra expenses right? So I think the number should be a bit lower, because believe it or not 20k a year would exclude an awful lot of people who certainly have the capacity to pay. Think about it. 20k a year is a $9.60/hr job. That's entire labor classes that would be exempt from taxes, like wait staff for example. And I know 20k a year seems like it would be tough to live on, but you have to remember not all of these people are trying to support families. They are teenagers, whos needs are being really being met by their parents or they are husbands and wives who's spouses are taking in more income. And frankly if you are a parent AND single AND making less than 20k a year, you are in need of some serious life reevaluation. I don't have a problem with your concept, but I also believe that if taxes are a necessary burden then EVERYONE needs to pay them thus an income exempt from taxes is going to have to be pretty low.

It all depends on where you live! In my area, rent alone will set you back $1,000 a month not including utilities. There is no mass transportation, so no one will hire you without reliable transportation, which not only involves the cost of the vehicle, but also gas, insurance and maintenance. Then you have food, clothing, and don't you dare get sick!

If one cannot find sufficient income to afford a certain standard of living in a given area that person should consider relocating to another area.
No one is entitled to complain if they are unwilling to do something to help themselves.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If true, it looks like the largest tax collected in Michigan is gasoline tax. How regressive is that? As the price of a gallon goes up, the state collects more tax.

NC's fuel tax formula works the same way. As the wholesale price rises, the per gallon tax is adjusted upward.
On July 1st our gas tax rose to 35 cents per gallon. That is the THIRD highest gas tax in the country!!!
NC drivers who cannot duck across the state line ( where ALL border states have significantly lower fuel tax rates) now pay 53 cents per gallon in taxes.
For example. South Carolina where I try to buy my gas is 20 to 30 cents per gallon lower.
SC's gas tax is 16 cents per gallon.
Georgia's gas tax is 7 cents per gallon plus 3.5% sales tax. Virginia's is 14 cents per gallon.
The libs run around whining about how the tax cuts for the rich hurt the poor. Those idiots should look inward at their own liberal politicians because THEY are the ones who invented these taxes in the first place.

 

[Nosmo King]

I almost started a thread about this because its so funny.

Half of Americans pay no federal income taxes, conservatives have picked up on this and are outraged (ironically)

and, more ironcially, that can't be changed because the Republicans have signed a pledge not to raise ANY taxes ANY time for ANY reason.

It's not raising taxes as much as ending grants if all you do is give them back what they paid in. It's a start.

Of course the best way is to go to a 10% or so flat tax with no exemptions, and move election days to tax days so they always associate taxes with who they vote for. You'd increase revenue and end so much social engineering bullshit.

If raising taxes on the "rich" tamps down the economy by providing fewer dollars for consumer spending, what will raising taxes on the poor, who do most of the consumer spending because there are so many more of us than the 'rich', effect the engine that drives our economy?

you're advocating a massive tax cut on the rich and a massive tax increase on the poor.

I wonder how Conservatives came to be seen as 'mean spirited'?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I don't believe that taxation is stealing. I find that argument just ridiculous.

That's because you're immune to facts and logic. What is the moral difference between taxation and stealing?



Wrong. It would be in better shape.

I believe we should see that our country gets back in shape and we never again have to see a bridge fall due to neglect.

"Getting back in shape" means cutting government until it's a shell of its former self.

If there are no taxes how do we run the government?

Nice try. No one is arguing for the elimination of taxation. That idea is absurd yet the Left keeps using this as a straw man argument.
The objection we have is to runaway spending, fraud and waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Again, This isn't as complex as both sides make it out to be. I own a business. If I need more revenues and I am currently giving billions in discounts to a customer who will pay full price, guess what? No more discounts (that would be corporate handouts). If I'm spending money on NPR because I want an extra tv station, guess what? No more money to NPR.
Both sides bicker about BS that amounts to almost nil in the budget but they wiggle around the obvious.

We also need to increase revenues through personal taxes (this will piss off some people!). We need to increase taxes and not just on the rich. Hell, I'd probably go all the way down to $100K and just add two percent from there up. If I'm making $10K a month and can't get by on $9800, my problem isn't money.
We need to cut expenses and we already blew that one. The biggest mitake we could have made, was just made by BOTH parties - the Defense Budget. We needed to cut that spending not increase it. So now, neither side has ANY credibility with all their bullsht about "We're the ones who will do something about the deficit." There is no way we need to spend more on defense than China, Russia, GB, France, Germany COMBINED. Are we THAT F-cked up??? Please. We need to just get rid of a bunch of government. Didja know we spend hundreds of millions on the "Rural Electrification Agency" (another pet that the GOP for some reason, adores), founded in like, 1920 to make sure rural America got electricity? I think it's outlived its purpose by now. We need to cut a lot of our social programs. Not WIC, Vet benefits etc... so much but people, we have 5th generations of welfare all over the place. WTF?
We need to create some government jobs (Oh Sh1t! ConservaRepubs will attack THIS one!) for two reasons.
1. A construction worker won't CARE if it's a "temporary" 2 year job fixing a freeway. It will feed his family. Hell, the private sector sure isn't hiring anyone and when he gets a check, he might spend some of that money. You know, help the economy.
2. We actually have stuff that needs to be fixed. Our freeways, bridges etc... are falling apart in some places. Why not fix them.
Increase revenues. Cut expenses. Simple stuff but neither side likes it when it goes against what the talking heads from their ideology are selling right now.

Oh yeah. I'd legalize pot too. It's not like we don't need the BILLIONS in taxes that would generate and it would hurt the cartels.

The issue that the country is facing is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem. The economy, facing another round of mass layoffs (Return of Mass Layoffs a Grim Sign for U.S. Workers | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance), cannot afford the burden of additional taxes when economic growth is stunted at less than 1% annually, and this is something that Obama himself has said.

Do you remember the promises that Obama made concerning what the Stimulus Act was going to achieve? $666 billion dollars spent that was supposed to address your 1 & 2 points. So now you are suggesting since that $666, a number larger than the military expenditure that year, didn't achieve any of this that perhaps we need another massive spending program?

The government runs up billions a month in deficits and you want everyone to believe the problem is that people aren't getting taxed enough? Gallup polls have consistently shown that a large majority of Americans blame spending not a lack of taxes for the debt, and there's a reason for that: it's true.

I guess I wasn't clear. I am not talking about another stimulus. I mentioned government jobs for things that are needed - I'm watching bridges being seperated due to heat on tv right now.

As far as spending goes, I've acknowledged that we need to cut it but of course since I don't agree with you in every possible way... LOL not unpredictible.
And yes we need to increase revenues IN ADDITION to cutting spending. But I get it. Only one side is right in all ways.

Oh and Gallup and Rasmussen are consistently ConservaRepub slanted. Quinnepac and MSNBC are consistently LibDem slanted. I would cite a poll that shows 64% of Americans want a combination but since that differs from your view, I'm certain you'll say it's just Liberal disinformation anyway.

 

[bripat9643]

That's because you're immune to facts and logic. What is the moral difference between taxation and stealing?

Since you need to ask; the moral difference is the same as the moral difference between paying for something you buy at a store and shoplifting it. Or paying for a meal at a restaurant and slipping out the door without paying the check.

Bunk. There is no such distinction. Just like stealing, taxation is money taken by force from the person it belongs to. In both cases, something is taken without the consent of the owner. How does government "buy" the taxes it forces you to pay?

[In the example of taxes, the price one pays for living in America is based on each individual's share of America's wealth resources. If one's share is greater than another's, that one's tax burden will be proportionally greater.

ROFL! Why should anyone born in American be obligated to pay for it? When did anyone incur this obligation? Even if there was such an obligation, how does that include paying for welfare, Social Security and Medicare? There is nothing called "America" that has a legal or moral title to the "resources" that exist withing the borders of the United States. Abstractions don't have rights. Property is owned by individuals, corporations or the government, not "America," and most of what the latter owns is retained illigitimately.

You don't pay taxes to "America." You pay taxes to the federal government, which then disburses them to useless parasites who pay nothing for the privilege of living in this country.

[If you cannot understand the difference between settling an obligation and stealing you are in need of re-education.

I do understand the difference. You don't incur an obligation simply by being born. Check with the Supreme Court. They will confirm my position on the matter.

 

[bripat9643]

What is the moral difference between taxation and stealing?

Representation.

So taxation is stealing by your representative?

How does that make it moral?

 

[bripat9643]

That's because you're immune to facts and logic. What is the moral difference between taxation and stealing?

Representation.

Best answer!

So, you admire idiocy?

 

[Kuros]

What is the moral difference between taxation and stealing?

Representation.

So taxation is stealing by your representative?

How does that make it moral?

You are truly pathetic.

 

[bripat9643]

Representation.

So taxation is stealing by your representative?

How does that make it moral?

You are truly pathetic.

"Pathetic" meaning I don't swallow your imbecile logic.

How does having a representative do the stealing turn it into non-stealing?

Only those lacking the capacity to reason would be satisfied without your lame one-word justification.