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

[thanatos144]

He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?

No deduction. Stop making all of us pay your bills.

I'm not sure this will satisfy you but I've paid more in taxes than you have earned in your life. Feel better now?

You don't know that. Don't make assumptions.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[SAYIT]

He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?

No deduction. Stop making all of us pay your bills.

I'm not sure this will satisfy you but I've paid more in taxes than you have earned in your life. Feel better now?

You don't know that. Don't make assumptions.

You mean like the a-hole who admonished me to "Stop making all of us pay your bills?" You mean assumptions like that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.

No he shouldn't.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?

No deduction. Stop making all of us pay your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No deduction.

What is your definition of deduction?

 

[danielpalos]

Sorry, that was not the point. If you had been paying attention, Wry made a claim that taxes were not forced, he was proven wrong. Thanks for concurring that taxes are forced.

Not sure what an angel on earth is but it sounds like you have been hitting your crack pipe again.

Wrong, not really. But if it makes you feel good to want others to believe you've proved something, more power to you. You seem to desperately need it.

Force:

the definition of force

Your claim and that of the Libertarian set that taxes are force is to frame force into an emotion laden argument. I won't explain again the nuances of force beyond posting a dictionary definition; I have a problem with the use of words used as weapons to justify an ideology, a practice quite common among members of the crazy right wing.

enforce
[en-fawrs, -fohrs]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
verb (used with object), enforced, enforcing.
1.
to put or keep in force; compel obedience to:
to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
2.
to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.
3.
to impose (a course of action) upon a person:
The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
4.
to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force:
to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
5.
to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon:
He enforced his argument by adding details.

The government enforces the law. They use force to collect taxes. If you do not pay taxes they will take you to court and force you to obey the law or imprison you.

Thanks for being so funny.

I suggest you get a law dictionary, therein you'll find more exact legal definitions of the word. For example: Actual Force; excessive force; armed force; force and violence; fresh force; irresistible force; superior force.

Yanno, you're like a petulant 11 year old. Our gov't has given itself the right to tax and collect and should we refuse to pay, to arrest us at gunpoint, try us in gov't courts and imprison us in gov't jails. If you can't admit there is force in all that, you are either lying or waaaay dimmer than I ever imagined.
BTW, I'm one of those people who understands the need for gov't taxes and the need to enforce those laws, even by force.

Keep up, I have acknowledged force, but the meaning of force does not include being arrested by gun point. Most tax scofflaws are summoned to court and given their day to plead their case. Due Process is not violence, nor physical force, it is a process respected by government (except in Texas) and The People, as well as a constitutional right for all accused.

The force of law is not a force of violence, though those who resist will meet an opposite force many times more powerful. The force you and other ideologues want to have acknowledged does not include due process and the right to a hearing, one heard by a trier of facts - either a judge but most often by citizens on a jury.

You want others to believe government is evil, notwithstanding your asserted belief that we are a nation of laws.

Q. Why push the issue and make force = to violence, something it is not in the issue before us.
A. Cause you are a member of the fringe, a set unwilling to consider anything which questions the dogma you have been told to hold dear.

What do you mean by force; the social Power to tax is clearly delegated.

 

[thanatos144]

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

Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.

No he shouldn't.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?

No deduction. Stop making all of us pay your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No deduction.

What is your definition of deduction?

Means no deduction. Means no breaks on taxes. Thus why a flat or fair tax is better then any other.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really? A grocer spends 95% of his revenue on restocking his shelves. Do you really think he should not be able to deduct his expenses and be forced to pay taxes on revenue? Frankly, I think both you and Ray are a bit confused on how this works and are talking past each other.
Oh, and BTW, Ray is not an idiot.

No he shouldn't.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?

No deduction. Stop making all of us pay your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No deduction.

What is your definition of deduction?

Means no deduction. Means no breaks on taxes. Thus why a flat or fair tax is better then any other.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Means no breaks on taxes

Don't we normally tax business profit?

 

[thanatos144]

No he shouldn't.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?

No deduction. Stop making all of us pay your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No deduction.

What is your definition of deduction?

Means no deduction. Means no breaks on taxes. Thus why a flat or fair tax is better then any other.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Means no breaks on taxes

Don't we normally tax business profit?

Simple things seem to escape retarded communists

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He shouldn't what, be allowed to deduct his COGS? Are you really suggesting that a biz with a 2% profit margin be made to pay a 20% flat tax, thus incurring an 18% loss on every sale? Really?

No deduction. Stop making all of us pay your bills.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No deduction.

What is your definition of deduction?

Means no deduction. Means no breaks on taxes. Thus why a flat or fair tax is better then any other.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Means no breaks on taxes

Don't we normally tax business profit?

Simple things seem to escape retarded communists

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

But enough about you.

 

[danielpalos]

why not start with simple issues; simplifying unemployment taxes into a general tax should lower our tax burden and those costs for the private sector.

 

[thanatos144]

why not start with simple issues; simplifying unemployment taxes into a general tax should lower our tax burden and those costs for the private sector.

How about we make it even more simple.... no unemployment tax no income tax . Just a small sales tax and government HAS to live within its means

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

All you progressives need to stop stealing from my kids and grandkids

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

why not start with simple issues; simplifying unemployment taxes into a general tax should lower our tax burden and those costs for the private sector.

How about we make it even more simple.... no unemployment tax no income tax . Just a small sales tax and government HAS to live within its means

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

How are you going to manipulate people's behavior that way?

 

[thanatos144]

why not start with simple issues; simplifying unemployment taxes into a general tax should lower our tax burden and those costs for the private sector.

How about we make it even more simple.... no unemployment tax no income tax . Just a small sales tax and government HAS to live within its means

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

How are you going to manipulate people's behavior that way?

Your not. But we both know that is the point. To bad they don't

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Flat tax would never go through.
The left wants to not pay tax and have the total burden put on others. A flat tax would make everyone pay. ( think fair share )
Those that pay the least are also the ones that create the highest cost to society.

Maybe.

The left loves to talk about the glory days before Reagan, when the tax rates went up to 70%. Of course, they fail to mention that the poor and middle class paid a higher percentage of the income tax than they do today.

Yeah, it was the "poor and middle class" whose taxes were cut *shaking head*

EFFECTIVE tax rates

 

[Dad2three]

[

What are the federal government's sources of revenue?

The thing that is hidden in that chart is the reality of the payroll tax, the income tax, and the corporate tax.

The payroll tax is really not a tax at all in the strictest sense of the word because the money theoretically goes into a retirement fund that an individual can recoup.

The income tax, on the other hand, is a trillion dollars honest to goodness tax that is paid out mostly by the top wage earners. 50% of the revenue comes from the top 1% of income earners. 80% of the revenue comes from the top 20%. About half the people in the country don't pay anything into the fund at all but yet they are the ones that gets the welfare payments, which makes that tax legalized stealing.

The corporate tax is actually a very cruel tax on all Americans. Corporations really don't pay the tax. They collect the revenue from the American people for the tax with their sale of goods and services and then pass it to the government as an expense of doing business. Those taxes are hidden in the cost of food, fuel, goods, services and most of the things that we buy. When you buy a box of cereal made by General Mills you are providing the revenue to pay General Mill's income tax. The money comes out of your pocket.

Weird, you mean the $3+ trillion "borrowed" the past 35 years as Reagan gutted the riches tax rates, didn't fund Gov't?

20 percent of the corporate income tax burden as falling on labor, 20 percent
on the normal return to all capital, and 60 percent on the super normal returns to corporate equity (shareholders)
.
Previously, we had treated the entire corporate income tax burden as
being borne by the total returns to all capital.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412651-tax-model-corporate-tax-incidence.pdf


OVER HALF OF CAPITAL GAINS/DIVIDENDS GOES TO THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1% IN THE US!!!


Top 25% pay 86% of the INCOME tax burden, yet "make' 70% of income. THAT'S unfair? lol


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

 

[Dad2three]

[


Yep, YET taxes increased under Reagan for the middle 40% WHILE he gutted it for the "job creators". Go figure

WHILE increasing SS taxes 60%! You know what revenues are right Bubs

That is a good reason not to vote for any big government Progressive, whether they be Democrat or Republican.

The Democrats promises to raise your taxes and they usually do it.

Republicans promises not to raise your taxes but they usually do it some way or another. Reagan is a great example.

Good reason not to vote for anybody in either one of those big government parties,

Perhaps stop electing guys who say "Gov't doesn't work" then gets elected and proves it? Hint that's the GOPers!

 

[Dad2three]

Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax

he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax

Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
That's awful!
What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?

Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!

RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)

Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!

That's awful! Personally, I'd like SS to be privatized.
I'm not sure why a big gov lib like you is whining about higher taxes.

You mean higher taxes on the working guys AS you gut the tax burden to the top job off shorrers? Nah, what's bad about that? lol

You mean higher taxes on the working guys AS you gut the tax burden to the top job off shorrers?

Taxes were cut for everybody.

Sure Bubba, ignore the evidence AND links


Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined

The Myths of Reaganomics

 

[Dad2three]

Yet THAT wasn't what happened Bubba, what he did was, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich ("supply side") he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax

he had ALL self employed pay both sides of the SS tax

Rich self-employed people had to pay more SS?
That's awful!
What about the rest of us? How much did the rate increase?

Nope, the self employed stop paying taxes at the cap, currently about $115,000. Back then it was MUCH less. The rich didn't pay more SS, But the avg working guy did as well as small Biz owners!

RATE? No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%. You know ON SS TAX INCREASES that hit the middle class/poor? AS he gutted tax rates for the rich and did away with things like credit card interest rate deductions that ALSO hurt the middle class (as he upped the deducibility of home interest rate deductions, that benefited the rich more!)

No Bubs, Ronnie increased REVENUES 60%

Well, if 100 workers paid in 1981 and 160 workers paid in 1989, that would increase revenues by 60%.

Wishful thinking. Or as I call it, the current state of right wing "reality"

Wishful thinking is your claim that Reagan screwed workers with a huge hike in the payroll tax rate.
I've noticed you still haven't posted the numbers.
Why is that?

Sure I did Bubba, he increases SS taxes 60%, he doubled the self employed *SMALL BIZ OWNER)SS taxes!

 

[Dad2three]

Why would I do that? I want the government to provide provide services consistent with the vision statement, aka, the Preamble to the COTUS.

I want local police and fire, special districts to make sure water and air are clean, vector control and sewage removal, flood controls and the dozens of other things done by local and state workers.

You don't and I find that insane.

Who said I didn't? You said that taxes aren't force, and nothing you said makes it otherwise. If you don't pay taxes you will find out that they are forced.

The force of law is quite different than violence. So, if you are not an anarchists, you understand that the force of law is legitimate, and violence is generally not.

By inference I have taken the Libertarian meme of force to mean violent force, if I'm mistaken let me know.

What makes our law "legitimate?" Nothing that I can discern.

There's no distinction between force and violence.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

YOU IGNORING THE FACT I BACKED UP MY POSIT, THE BOTTOM 50% OF US WENT FROM NEARLY 18% OF GDP IN INCOME IN 1980 TO 11% BY 2012, IS NOTED BUBBA!


LOL

What does that have to do with whether our laws are "legitimate?"

You didn't CLAIM that Bubba, you called me a liar to say the bottom 50% lost almost $5,000 PER FAMILY under Reaganomics. To put it exactly, the bottom 50% went from nearly 18% (1980) of ALL US income to 11% (2012)

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

 

[Dad2three]

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?

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households


Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

• The top fifth of the population receives 66 percent of tax-expenditure benefits (compared to 10 percent of entitlement benefits).
• 
  
• The middle 60 percent of the population receives a little over 31 percent of tax-expenditure benefits (compared to 58 percent of entitlement benefits).
• 
  
• The bottom fifth receives just 2.8 percent of tax-expenditure benefits (compared to 32 percent of entitlement benefits)

The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.

• 
  
  

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities