Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Ray From Cleveland]

It astounding just how weak the leftist mind can be. The fact that you disagree with one means you don't want the gov't to provide necessary services and tax us to fund them. Pathetic.

You needed too many words to simply post an ad hominem, please try to be concise if not substantive.

Keep in mind taxes pay for more than sending our troops all over the world to protect the oil cartel, and other sources of material (an now labor) for corporate America.

Tax cuts need to targeted, and benefit those who need tax relief; the very wealthy have lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them, they don't need hoi polloi conservatives in their corner.

It's all good, Comrade W, and we do tax the big earners enough that the top 25% carry 86% of the total federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% of American earners contribute NOTHING to help pay for our interstate highways, our federal courts, our federal gov't and yes, our military which protects America, Americans and our interests (evidently much to your chagrin).

You can take your comrade and shove it up your ass, if your heads not to far in the way. This bullshit RED SCARE crap has gotten old, though it seems the crazy right wing has no better rebuttal. Sad, most seem to have never matriculated beyond the 8th grade level and need to echo the same meme ad nausea.

So can you prove taxes aren't forced?

Yes, taxes unpaid will result in a consequence. Yet the essence of this question suggests you have no need for government, or at least a government capable of building roads and hundreds of other activities which make life easier.

So the question really has no merit; there is no developed country which does not impose taxes on its citizens. Voluntary donations are't feasible, so paying taxes must be made mandatory.

Or in other words, forced.

People don't mind paying taxes so much. People get upset with how they are spent. The more you spend, the more you need to tax people, and that's where the problem is.

Our federal taxes should only be used for those itemized expenditures in the US Constitution. Yes, roads, bridges, postal department and so on. Outside of that, no, we shouldn't be funding things like Planned Parenthood, cowboy poetry, cash for clunkers, PBS and so on.

 

[SAYIT]

You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.

The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.

The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.

So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.

That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).

So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:

If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?

Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?

If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers, employees would have more choice and cause more problems.
The rich want the poor to be poor and to feel they don't have choices. So unemployment is necessary and they're prefer to pay taxes to keep them there than to have everyone working. However if they can get the unemployed and not pay the tax for them, even better.

Man, you are all over the place. First, not all employers are among "the rich" (I'd say most are not) and every biz owner wants people to have more money to spend on goods and services ... they just want you to EARN it.

 

[Papageorgio]

You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.

The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.

The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.

So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.

That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).

You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.

We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.

 

[thanatos144]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

What bullshit. If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[SAYIT]

You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.

The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.

The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.

So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.

That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).

You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.

We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.

It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.

 

[thanatos144]

Worked before

One thing we do know is that Supply Side Economics has been a failure

Says the idiot living in the end of progressive economy. every time true capitalism and free marketing is tried more and more people live better lives.... unfortunately assholes like you keep electing people who hate liberty because you are jealous and angry that you have to work you lazy ass

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system. Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.

How would this force you to raise rents?

Much of the rent collected goes towards bills. Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills. A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs. That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity. That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.

I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax. As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.

He is using tax write off to pay little to no taxes making all of us foot his bill.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

What bullshit. If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Never said I couldn't afford it. What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take. Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.

A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation. It has it's positives and it has it's negatives. A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial. It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.

 

[Papageorgio]

You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.

The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.

The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.

So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.

That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).

You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.

We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.

It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and the same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.

So basically anyone that dares to challenge is flawed thinking is of low moral character. The absolute absurdity and stupidity of his logic is just mind numbing. Talk about doubling down on dishonesty and stupidity.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.

The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.

The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.

So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.

That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).

So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:

If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?

Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?

If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers, employees would have more choice and cause more problems.
The rich want the poor to be poor and to feel they don't have choices. So unemployment is necessary and they're prefer to pay taxes to keep them there than to have everyone working. However if they can get the unemployed and not pay the tax for them, even better.

Man, you are all over the place. First, not all employers are among "the rich" (I'd say most are not) and every biz owner wants people to have more money to spend on goods and services ... they just want you to EARN it.

I didn't say all employers are among the rich, did I? No, no, no I did not. So why are you telling me that I did?

I'm talking about the rich, not employers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.

The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.

The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.

So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.

That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).

So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:

If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?

Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?

If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers, employees would have more choice and cause more problems.
The rich want the poor to be poor and to feel they don't have choices. So unemployment is necessary and they're prefer to pay taxes to keep them there than to have everyone working. However if they can get the unemployed and not pay the tax for them, even better.

Can you explain to me how one rich person would benefit by having people in poverty?

You have supply and demand backwards. The more the supply, the lower the cost. The less the supply, the higher the cost.

During a good economy is when wages increase--not a bad one. That's because good workers are more difficult to find and employers need to compete using higher salaries and benefits to attract them. It's during a bad economy when employers make out because they have a larger selection of potential employees to choose from.

 

[SAYIT]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system. Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.

How would this force you to raise rents?

Much of the rent collected goes towards bills. Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills. A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs. That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity. That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.

I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax. As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.

He is using tax write off to pay little to no taxes making all of us foot his bill.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You don't know that. Believe it or not, businesses have costs of doing biz. For a grocer the profit margin is very slim. It seems Ray thinks he would loss his biz expense deductions but that obviously would not be the case. As Eagle noted, the flat tax would be applied to the net profit (revenue minus COGS) not gross revenue.

 

[thanatos144]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

What bullshit. If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Never said I couldn't afford it. What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take. Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.

A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation. It has it's positives and it has it's negatives. A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial. It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.

I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system. Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.

How would this force you to raise rents?

Much of the rent collected goes towards bills. Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills. A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs. That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity. That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.

I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax. As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.

He is using tax write off to pay little to no taxes making all of us foot his bill.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You don't know that. Believe it or not, businesses have costs of doing biz. For a grocer the profit margin is very slim. It seems Ray thinks he would loss his biz expense deductions but that obviously would not be the case. As Eagle noted, the flat tax would be applied to the net profit (revenue minus COGS) not gross revenue.

They should pay thier own costs not make the tax payer. Theft is theft whether you steal or whether you get the government to do it for you

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[SAYIT]

You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.

The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.

The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.

So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.

That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).

So let me understand this from a liberal prospective:

If you feel you've given enough of your property that you worked for and made responsible decisions in order to have, and you try to hide some of your money, you should be executed, but if you are a welfare queen who games the system at every corner, doesn't work, and keeps irresponsibly having more children for the public to support, those are the people we should respect?

Did you ever consider that if every able bodied person who could work did, that maybe we wouldn't need all this tax money in the first place?

If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers, employees would have more choice and cause more problems.
The rich want the poor to be poor and to feel they don't have choices. So unemployment is necessary and they're prefer to pay taxes to keep them there than to have everyone working. However if they can get the unemployed and not pay the tax for them, even better.

Man, you are all over the place. First, not all employers are among "the rich" (I'd say most are not) and every biz owner wants people to have more money to spend on goods and services ... they just want you to EARN it.

I didn't say all employers are among the rich, did I? No, no, no I did not. So why are you telling me that I did?

I'm talking about the rich, not employers.

"If every able bodied person worked then the rich would have to pay higher salaries to those workers..."

Sure sounds like you are talking about rich employers but then I often get the impression you really don't know what you are saying.

 

[danielpalos]

You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.

The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.

The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.

So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.

That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).

You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.

We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.

It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.

The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.

 

[thanatos144]

You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.

The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.

The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.

So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.

That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.

In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).

You made a stupid claim. Why it matters to you, I don't give damn. It was wrong. Now you try to deflect by trying to be some self righteous ass.

We are forced, glad to show you that you were wrong. Take care nutter.

It's the socialist idiotology that drives them to post absurd declarations and that same idiotology keeps them from admitting just how absurd those declarations are.

The social Power to Tax is delegated by the People in Article 1, Section 8.

You need to read that again. Because it doesn't say what you think it does. It is the reason why you progressives had to amend the constitution

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

How would your receipts versus expenses change under a Flat Tax system?
You would still be able to account for costs versus revenues under a flat tax system. Unless you are using loop holes, which everyone does, to find ways of paying less tax.

How would this force you to raise rents?

Much of the rent collected goes towards bills. Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills. A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs. That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity. That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.

I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax. As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.

He is using tax write off to pay little to no taxes making all of us foot his bill.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You don't know that. Believe it or not, businesses have costs of doing biz. For a grocer the profit margin is very slim. It seems Ray thinks he would loss his biz expense deductions but that obviously would not be the case. As Eagle noted, the flat tax would be applied to the net profit (revenue minus COGS) not gross revenue.

Well if it did, then it would be no different than it is now. I would still have to file with the IRS, still have to list all my deductions, still be paying the same amount of tax that I would have to pay with or without a flat tax.

After I list my deductions, that's where the profit is at if there is any at all. Then I do get taxed on that profit.

 

[SAYIT]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

What bullshit. If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Never said I couldn't afford it. What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take. Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.

A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation. It has it's positives and it has it's negatives. A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial. It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.

As Eagle noted, your legit biz expenses (prop repairs, maintenance, management) would still be deductible. The flat tax would then be applied to your to your net profit, just as it is now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Due to the enormous corruption and cronyism in our federal government, many wealthy use their expensive lawyers to get out of paying taxes. The current tax code is 70k pages...time for a change.

Let's go to a simple flat tax. That would eliminate the political class' efforts to enrich their donors/owners.

I would be behind a progressive consumption tax, that way everybody has a dog in the race. A flat tax doesn't work for a lot of people. For instance, I'm a landlord and I have tons of expenses I have to write-off. Without those write-offs, I would be forced to sell because the property wouldn't produce any profit. Either that or I would have to raise rents so high that people wouldn't be able to afford to live here.

What bullshit. If you can't afford a flat tax then you are robbing all of us what are paying taxes for your own greed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Never said I couldn't afford it. What I said is that I would have to recoup the loss that I would take. Unfortunately, that loss may have to be paid by others which I wouldn't want to do.

A flat tax is not the utopia in taxation. It has it's positives and it has it's negatives. A progressive consumption tax would be more beneficial. It would not only include income tax so that everybody pays, but all payroll taxes that we currently contribute now.

I personally think all right offs are theft from all of us.... I should not be paying your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

LOL, you don't want my bills.

Yeah, people complain about write-offs all the time. But without them, think of what your groceries might cost, your gasoline, your mortgage payment or rent. How do cities and states attract businesses to their areas for their citizens to have jobs? That's right, they offer tax-free property or even subsidies.

"If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it."
Ronald Reagan