Who Pays the Taxes? Who Should?

[JoeB131]

My tax system:

1) Flat tax.
People who do not pay taxes at all:
1) Active Military
2) College Students
3) Everybody else pays taxes.

No tax credits, no loopholes, no EIC...no IRS.

but the rw, blowhard- koshergirl used/uses the EIC

Of course she does...

And she'll still vote for ROmney, who has called her a moocher.

 

[Foxfyre]

Only industrialized country in the world with a flat tax system.......Russia

Never thought I would see conservatives say.....Lets be more like Russia

Tax Code of Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, I haven't read a great deal on Russia's flat tax that has been in place for a little over a decade now--they also lowered their corporate taxes too--but whatI have read is that there is far less tax evasion and revenues have increased substantially and they have enjoyed a much more stable economy with a steady GDP since that system went in. Other countries that followed suit have also had good results.

I don't want us to be like Russia. I believe in American exceptionalism and I don't want us to be like anybody else. I want us to again be a role model for the world again. But I think Russia could teach us a thing or two about taxes because their system for taxes is working.

There are several countires in eastern Europe who have adopted the flat tax, some are doing well and some are doing awful. Iceland went to the flat tax in 07, it did so poorly that they have since changed.

Hmm, I like the flat tax, but the more I read about it the more it seems to work great on paper, and very poorly irl....

The sources I read, the credible ones anyway, show that certainly the flat tax in Russia and Albania has yielded good things. Of course the tax code cannot correct all the things that are wrong in either country, but I have been impressed with the favorables related to a flat tax in both countries.

Iceland went in with a flat tax at 35.7% across the board, an amount that would be terribly oppressive for lower income people. That was the highest flat tax in the world and of course would not be sustainable and it was a factor in other economic woes in that country. They went back to a three-tier progressive tax that is still a hefty burden on Icelanders. Which is probably why immigration is not a problem for that country and why the revamp of their tax code hasn't helped much. Had they initiated a flat tax that was more reasonable and conducive to growth, they probably would have netted far greater revenues. Oppressive taxes always inhibit econoic growth.

 

[Obamanation]

Sorry, but this thread is ridiculous. The fed gov't should stop spending so much damn money...

When they cut fed spending in half - we can talk about how we want to spend our own money again.

I selected "everyone should pay less".

As a conservative who mostly aligns with the Tea Party, I see some problems with a flat tax --- some benefits too though. I'd sure love to see the end of the IRS --- talk about gov't waste. The biggest problem I see with a flat tax is that $20 out of every hundred sure hurts the middle and lower class a lot more than upper middle and rich.

Now, that said, I'd personally be fine with a flat tax for myself - but I think everyone should pay fed income tax as long as there is a fed income tax - and taking $200 out of some guy trying to take care of a family on $1000 pay check would really hurt...

The reason that I keep using 20% is that IMO, the gov't should be able to run just fine on less than that, providing enough overflow to pay back the debt.

I personally believe that more power should be given back to state gov't and the feds should handle only the most basic functions. If Liberal states want to provide for liberal causes and they can raise the interest enough to hike taxes then let them go for it.

I don't want to hear whining about how far in debt these liberal state already are --- that was their doing. Let liberals live among their own kind and conservatives live among their own kind.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, but this thread is ridiculous. The fed gov't should stop spending so much damn money...

When they cut fed spending in half - we can talk about how we want to spend our own money again.

I selected "everyone should pay less".

As a conservative who mostly aligns with the Tea Party, I see some problems with a flat tax --- some benefits too though. I'd sure love to see the end of the IRS --- talk about gov't waste. The biggest problem I see with a flat tax is that $20 out of every hundred sure hurts the middle and lower class a lot more than upper middle and rich.

Now, that said, I'd personally be fine with a flat tax for myself - but I think everyone should pay fed income tax as long as there is a fed income tax - and taking $200 out of some guy trying to take care of a family on $1000 pay check would really hurt...

The reason that I keep using 20% is that IMO, the gov't should be able to run just fine on less than that, providing enough overflow to pay back the debt.

I personally believe that more power should be given back to state gov't and the feds should handle only the most basic functions. If Liberal states want to provide for liberal causes and they can raise the interest enough to hike taxes then let them go for it.

I don't want to hear whining about how far in debt these liberal state already are --- that was their doing. Let liberals live among their own kind and conservatives live among their own kind.

The guy making $1,000 a month shouldn't be geting married at all and certainly shouldn't be having kids. He should be focusing on mastering marketable skills and building references so that he can support a family. If his situation is not of his own doing and is temporary, there will be help for him. There always has been.

But nobody should be exempt from paying taxes that he or she can vote that everything else pays.

 

[edthecynic]

Sorry, but this thread is ridiculous. The fed gov't should stop spending so much damn money...

When they cut fed spending in half - we can talk about how we want to spend our own money again.

I selected "everyone should pay less".

As a conservative who mostly aligns with the Tea Party, I see some problems with a flat tax --- some benefits too though. I'd sure love to see the end of the IRS --- talk about gov't waste. The biggest problem I see with a flat tax is that $20 out of every hundred sure hurts the middle and lower class a lot more than upper middle and rich.

Now, that said, I'd personally be fine with a flat tax for myself - but I think everyone should pay fed income tax as long as there is a fed income tax - and taking $200 out of some guy trying to take care of a family on $1000 pay check would really hurt...

The reason that I keep using 20% is that IMO, the gov't should be able to run just fine on less than that, providing enough overflow to pay back the debt.

I personally believe that more power should be given back to state gov't and the feds should handle only the most basic functions. If Liberal states want to provide for liberal causes and they can raise the interest enough to hike taxes then let them go for it.

I don't want to hear whining about how far in debt these liberal state already are --- that was their doing. Let liberals live among their own kind and conservatives live among their own kind.

The guy making $1,000 a month shouldn't be geting married at all and certainly shouldn't be having kids. He should be focusing on mastering marketable skills and building references so that he can support a family. If his situation is not of his own doing and is temporary, there will be help for him. There always has been.

But nobody should be exempt from paying taxes that he or she can vote that everything else pays.

And now we see what the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood means by freedom and liberty. The poor should not be free to get married and have children, that is a liberty reserved only for the rich.

 

[AmyNation]

Poor people shouldn't have kids or get married!

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, but this thread is ridiculous. The fed gov't should stop spending so much damn money...

When they cut fed spending in half - we can talk about how we want to spend our own money again.

I selected "everyone should pay less".

As a conservative who mostly aligns with the Tea Party, I see some problems with a flat tax --- some benefits too though. I'd sure love to see the end of the IRS --- talk about gov't waste. The biggest problem I see with a flat tax is that $20 out of every hundred sure hurts the middle and lower class a lot more than upper middle and rich.

Now, that said, I'd personally be fine with a flat tax for myself - but I think everyone should pay fed income tax as long as there is a fed income tax - and taking $200 out of some guy trying to take care of a family on $1000 pay check would really hurt...

The reason that I keep using 20% is that IMO, the gov't should be able to run just fine on less than that, providing enough overflow to pay back the debt.

I personally believe that more power should be given back to state gov't and the feds should handle only the most basic functions. If Liberal states want to provide for liberal causes and they can raise the interest enough to hike taxes then let them go for it.

I don't want to hear whining about how far in debt these liberal state already are --- that was their doing. Let liberals live among their own kind and conservatives live among their own kind.

The guy making $1,000 a month shouldn't be geting married at all and certainly shouldn't be having kids. He should be focusing on mastering marketable skills and building references so that he can support a family. If his situation is not of his own doing and is temporary, there will be help for him. There always has been.

But nobody should be exempt from paying taxes that he or she can vote that everything else pays.

And now we see what the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood means by freedom and liberty. The poor should not be free to get married and have children, that is a liberty reserved only for the rich.

Did I say they shouldn't be allowed to? I don't believe I did. But having the privilege of doing something stupid and counter productive and choosing to do that or choosing to be smart are two separate things. And certainly nobody should feel a right to get married and have a family that everybody else is expected to support.

It is a matter of values and what is the right thing to do. Not a matter of how the eeeeeeeevul conservatives are somehow denying the poor freedom and liberty.

I think you should be free to jump off a cliff or drink all the liquor you can hold or smoke yourself to death. That doesn't mean that it would be a smart thing for you to do. And I don't want to be stuck with your funeral bill if you choose the stupid route either.

 

[AmyNation]

There will also be a need for the poor. They do those shit jobs, like flipping your burger, and bringing your paper in the morning.

 

[edthecynic]

The guy making $1,000 a month shouldn't be geting married at all and certainly shouldn't be having kids. He should be focusing on mastering marketable skills and building references so that he can support a family. If his situation is not of his own doing and is temporary, there will be help for him. There always has been.

But nobody should be exempt from paying taxes that he or she can vote that everything else pays.

And now we see what the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood means by freedom and liberty. The poor should not be free to get married and have children, that is a liberty reserved only for the rich.

Did I say they shouldn't be allowed to? I don't believe I did. But having the privilege of doing something stupid and counter productive and choosing to do that or choosing to be smart are two separate things. And certainly nobody should feel a right to get married and have a family that everybody else is expected to support.

It is a matter of values and what is the right thing to do. Not a matter of how the eeeeeeeevul conservatives are somehow denying the poor freedom and liberty.

I think you should be free to jump off a cliff or drink all the liquor you can hold or smoke yourself to death. That doesn't mean that it would be a smart thing for you to do. And I don't want to be stuck with your funeral bill if you choose the stupid route either.

I guess someone else wrote your post.

 

[DiamondDave]

And now we see what the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood means by freedom and liberty. The poor should not be free to get married and have children, that is a liberty reserved only for the rich.

Did I say they shouldn't be allowed to? I don't believe I did. But having the privilege of doing something stupid and counter productive and choosing to do that or choosing to be smart are two separate things. And certainly nobody should feel a right to get married and have a family that everybody else is expected to support.

It is a matter of values and what is the right thing to do. Not a matter of how the eeeeeeeevul conservatives are somehow denying the poor freedom and liberty.

I think you should be free to jump off a cliff or drink all the liquor you can hold or smoke yourself to death. That doesn't mean that it would be a smart thing for you to do. And I don't want to be stuck with your funeral bill if you choose the stupid route either.

I guess someone else wrote your post.

Saying someone SHOULDN'T is not saying they should be FORBIDDEN or deprived of the freedom to...

It is like telling your kid you should not wear those underoos outside your pants to school... You may think it is great, but you have to live with the consequences...

So no.. if you are not in a financial situation to take care of a kid, it is not wise to really have a kid... but hey, you really want to, knock yourself out... but be prepared to work those 2 or 3 jobs, live with mom and dad, or whatever else it takes on your own

 

[AmyNation]

Did I say they shouldn't be allowed to? I don't believe I did. But having the privilege of doing something stupid and counter productive and choosing to do that or choosing to be smart are two separate things. And certainly nobody should feel a right to get married and have a family that everybody else is expected to support.

It is a matter of values and what is the right thing to do. Not a matter of how the eeeeeeeevul conservatives are somehow denying the poor freedom and liberty.

I think you should be free to jump off a cliff or drink all the liquor you can hold or smoke yourself to death. That doesn't mean that it would be a smart thing for you to do. And I don't want to be stuck with your funeral bill if you choose the stupid route either.

I guess someone else wrote your post.

Saying someone SHOULDN'T is not saying they should be FORBIDDEN or deprived of the freedom to...

It is like telling your kid you should not wear those underoos outside your pants to school... You may think it is great, but you have to live with the consequences...

So no.. if you are not in a financial situation to take care of a kid, it is not wise to really have a kid... but hey, you really want to, knock yourself out... but be prepared to work those 2 or 3 jobs, live with mom and dad, or whatever else it takes on your own

The problem with that line of thinking, is our upward mobility is not what it used to be.

Should we just expect the poor to never fall in love? To never want children of their own, simply because they know they can never afford the burden?

 

[DiamondDave]

I guess someone else wrote your post.

Saying someone SHOULDN'T is not saying they should be FORBIDDEN or deprived of the freedom to...

It is like telling your kid you should not wear those underoos outside your pants to school... You may think it is great, but you have to live with the consequences...

So no.. if you are not in a financial situation to take care of a kid, it is not wise to really have a kid... but hey, you really want to, knock yourself out... but be prepared to work those 2 or 3 jobs, live with mom and dad, or whatever else it takes on your own

The problem with that line of thinking, is our upward mobility is not what it used to be.

Should we just expect the poor to never fall in love? To never want children of their own, simply because they know they can never afford the burden?

Constitution is to guarantee outcome or ease of outcome?? And that is written where??

Nobody said anything about people not wanting kids... what people don't seem to want is to do what it takes to take care of them after they have them

 

[AmyNation]

No one said anything about guaranteed outcome or ease of outcome.

However when discussing national policy, you can't just discuss things in a vacuum. We have some of the worst upward mobility compared to other industrialized nations, if you're born poor in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada you have a better shot of raising above your socioeconomic class than the US.

You can't just say "poor people shouldn't be having families".

 

[Foxfyre]

And now we see what the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood means by freedom and liberty. The poor should not be free to get married and have children, that is a liberty reserved only for the rich.

Did I say they shouldn't be allowed to? I don't believe I did. But having the privilege of doing something stupid and counter productive and choosing to do that or choosing to be smart are two separate things. And certainly nobody should feel a right to get married and have a family that everybody else is expected to support.

It is a matter of values and what is the right thing to do. Not a matter of how the eeeeeeeevul conservatives are somehow denying the poor freedom and liberty.

I think you should be free to jump off a cliff or drink all the liquor you can hold or smoke yourself to death. That doesn't mean that it would be a smart thing for you to do. And I don't want to be stuck with your funeral bill if you choose the stupid route either.

I guess someone else wrote your post.

Still taking things out of context, hey Ed? But maybe you aren't totally hopeless. Do you are do you not see a difference in the meaning and intent of these two sentences?:

1. Ed should not post on subjects he obviously does not understand.
2. Ed should not be allowed to post on subjects he does not understand.

 

[Foxfyre]

No one said anything about guaranteed outcome or ease of outcome.

However when discussing national policy, you can't just discuss things in a vacuum. We have some of the worst upward mobility compared to other industrialized nations, if you're born poor in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada you have a better shot of raising above your socioeconomic class than the US.

You can't just say "poor people shouldn't be having families".

Poor is relative. And no, people in most of those countries are not as able to nor usually do move between income classes as we in the United States do because their more socialist systems and high tax rates tend to limit opportunities.

I did not say that poor people should not be having families. My husband and I were certainly 'poor' when we got married, but we were quite capable of supporting ourselves and the children who came along and we did. Without expecting you or anybody else to pay our bills.

I said the guy making $1,000 should not get married and have a family because he will struggle just supporting himself on that kind of money, let alone anybody else. But he should be preparing himself to rise above his immediate circumstances so that he can afford a family. A tax system that promotes opportunity and economic growth gives him the best shot to do that.

 

[SuMar]

No one said anything about guaranteed outcome or ease of outcome.

However when discussing national policy, you can't just discuss things in a vacuum. We have some of the worst upward mobility compared to other industrialized nations, if you're born poor in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada you have a better shot of raising above your socioeconomic class than the US.

You can't just say "poor people shouldn't be having families".

Why would anyone struggling financially bring a child in the situation? That's irresponsible.

 

[edthecynic]

Did I say they shouldn't be allowed to? I don't believe I did. But having the privilege of doing something stupid and counter productive and choosing to do that or choosing to be smart are two separate things. And certainly nobody should feel a right to get married and have a family that everybody else is expected to support.

It is a matter of values and what is the right thing to do. Not a matter of how the eeeeeeeevul conservatives are somehow denying the poor freedom and liberty.

I think you should be free to jump off a cliff or drink all the liquor you can hold or smoke yourself to death. That doesn't mean that it would be a smart thing for you to do. And I don't want to be stuck with your funeral bill if you choose the stupid route either.

I guess someone else wrote your post.

Still taking things out of context, hey Ed? But maybe you aren't totally hopeless. Do you are do you not see a difference in the meaning and intent of these two sentences?:

1. Ed should not post on subjects he obviously does not understand.
2. Ed should not be allowed to post on subjects he does not understand.

Do you not see that you are suggesting a restriction on my posting in both?

 

[davidlee]

Just to let everyone know the rich pay 70% of the taxes now.

 

[MisterBeale]

Just to let everyone know the rich pay 70% of the taxes now.

And your point is? I really don't get it, is there a point?

You know, you can't really get blood from a stone. If the poor have no money, than getting money from them is impossible.

What people fail to understand, is that a flat tax, is, in essence, a regressive tax. It sounds fair, but 50% of a million dollars still leaves you with half a million. 50% of ten dollars is five bucks left.

Who cares if the rich pay 70% of the taxes, they own everything, who else is going to pay, the trees? The sky?

Bear in mind, these charts are from 2007, five years ago. It's not like the wealth has trickled down any, it hasn't. Wealth as only become more concentrated since then.

Do I think we should tax the rich? No. Do I think we should tax anyone? No. But we do need to deal with this problem. But we need to quit worrying so much about the money changers in the temple and start worrying about the people that are doing the real work of running the nation. The farmers, the laborers, the builders, the teachers, and the entrepreneurs. We need to give them a real currency, one that the founders gave congress the right to issue. What we have is fobbed of on a cartel of bankers the illusion of an authority to issue funny money. Now we are paying for it. When I was little, deficits, as everyone knew, mattered. They have brain washed and conditioned everyone with their controlled media that it doesn't matter anymore. Now you are arguing about the wrong issue. Arguing about funny money. It's all fake.
http://www.24hgold.com/francais/contributor.aspx?article=3180997226G10020&contributor=Eric+de+Carbonnel

(If the US is the world's reserve currency, what would happen if all that currency came back home? They never ever talk about that do they?) Taxation is that least of our problems now, measuring legitimate production when our currency is worthless, that is the problem.

And we need to stop using our nation's army as a goon squad to carry out the orders of international banking and corporate cartels to ensure monopolies over resources, whether it be oil, uranium, or whatever other energy, food, water, or manufacturing resource they think the public's army and pocket book should pay to requisition and protect. Certainly not land for client states. We would save a lot of money right off by quit paying off private centralized banking and goon squads. War is a racket, and elites controlling the world economy is a racket. Oh, and don't forget the latest craze for the elites in money making schemes, death-care rackets; choose one - pharmaceuticals, insurance, GMO foods, controlled water fluoridation systems, mandatory vaccine programs, etc. . . . .

 

[Foxfyre]

I guess someone else wrote your post.

Still taking things out of context, hey Ed? But maybe you aren't totally hopeless. Do you are do you not see a difference in the meaning and intent of these two sentences?:

1. Ed should not post on subjects he obviously does not understand.
2. Ed should not be allowed to post on subjects he does not understand.

Do you not see that you are suggesting a restriction on my posting in both?

But in the first example, the choice is left to you. You can choose to post or not. I am only giving an opinion on whether you should. It's a value issue, not a mandate.

In the second example, however, the choice is taken fro you. Big difference.