Taxes, time to pay your fair share
-
DaveH - how much do you make anually (on average) would you say? And did you get paid for the overtime with a seperate check or was it included in the regular hours?
Also, How come you hate hilary so much? Think happy thoughts, didn't you ever watch "Hook"? I don't hate bush, I think there's no reason to hate someone you can't do anything about. (you can vote, yeah, but that's about it).
If you really want to complain, you need to lobby the government somehow. Like go to washington and see some senators.
Don't be angry when hillary wins, because you can be happy you voted for a republican and you made a difference, just not a winning one. lol, pwnt.
-
You gotta love MN state taxes. :icon_cheese:
I don't know if you are a econ major Jim, but even people who study this stuff for a living can't really tell for sure what tax cuts do or don't do for an economy. I don't see how you can positively say it did NOT help the economy. We had some tax cuts, the economy is doing very well (especially considering the circumstances around the world).
Jim;190727 wrote:
Between state and federal taxes, I paid ~50% of my total income last year.But bush's tax cuts did NOT help the economy despite what you may think....
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Tax Cuts always help the economy by definition.
Economics is the study of choice. Leaving more of their money in peoples hands gives them more choices. Ergo, they're better off.
Said somewhat differently, economics is a distributed intelligence problem. The more distributed the decision making, the more optimally the system functions and the faster it converges on an optimal allocation of investments towards goals.
Somewhat less abstractly, we usually see icnreased levels of spending, saving, investment, and charitable giving when there are tax cuts. The correlation-vs-causation disclaimer comes into play, but the theory is sound and the observations fit the theory.
Left leaning individuals tend to have a blatant disregard for economic theory since it paints them as head-in-the-sand ostriches in such vivid bright colors.
-
Tax breaks for the rich, to stimulate the economy is a false idea... the trickle down theory, by which data (and history.. think regan) proves does not work:
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html
More on failure of trickle down econ:
http://clyburn.house.gov/statements/cc010301bushsotu.html
More on supply side econ:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opinion/06bartlett.html
Well, a good portion of those circumstances that cuase economic instability around the world are caused by the US, but besides that, in terms of domestic policy, any growth in the economy, cannot be attributed to the tax cuts, as that growth (compared to similar periods) would have been higher without those tax cuts.
More from a VERY conservative publication:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/3/20/president-bushs-tax-cut-suicide.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/02/b1425171.html
Eitherway, don't get me wrong, I don't the government taking half my money to waste it on stupid shit, but I do think there are better solutions then what Bush has offered us...
-
Jim;190784 wrote:
Tax breaks for the rich, to stimulate the economy is a false idea...Right -- tax breaks for the rich are a false idea. Since the rich pay the majority of taxes, I encourage you to suggest any reduction in taxes that some fuckhead wont spin as "tax breaks for the rich"
The economy exploded under Reagan, and the income tax rates under Carter were atrociously high.
The links you offer speak only of "the highest" tax backet. When you find a peice of legislation that only discusses the absolute top-most bracket exclusively, do let me know.
But all of this is beating around the bush. High taxation is just plain immoral. The less taxation we do, the more just our government is.
-
Zero;190741 wrote:
DaveH - how much do you make anually (on average) would you say? What does it matter? And did you get paid for the overtime with a seperate check or was it included in the regular hours? I'm sure he gets paid on a single check w/ a seperate line item for OT.Also, How come you hate hilary so much? He's a republican...he has to Think happy thoughts, he's a republican, he can't didn't you ever watch "Hook"? I don't hate bush, I think there's no reason to hate someone you can't do anything about. (you can vote, yeah, but that's about it).
If you really want to complain, you need to lobby the government somehow. Like go to washington and see some senators. Good luck with that, you better have deep pockets if you think a single person can lobby gov't successfully
Don't be angry when hillary wins, because you can be happy you voted for a republican and you made a difference, just not a winning one. lol, pwnt. Not really, his vote will count in ND, since I am 99% sure that she won't carry this state
There, answered for Dave
-
Jim, I find these links hillary(ous). They are socialists, of course they don't believe in reducing taxes. Direct quotes from the actual site:
www.faireconomy.org - We envision an economy where the distinction between “labor” and “capital” is blurred — where everyone contributes to society with their labor and everyone benefits from society’s financial growth.
I don't have much time to browse the rest on my lunch break, but to think that a socialist is going to say anything good about the Reagan years is silly.
Jim;190784 wrote:
"Well, a good portion of those circumstances that cuase economic instability around the world are caused by the US...^^^ Did you write that? Please explain what you are talking about. What economic instability are you referring to? And what specifially did the US do to cause it? Please write in your own words.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
I SWEAR BY MY LIFE AND MY LOVE OF IT THAT I WILL NEVER LIVE FOR THE SAKE OF ANOTHER MAN, NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR MINE
-- The Oath, John Galt, "Atlas Shrugged"
Socialism is fundamentally broken. People that lean socialist are leaning towards brokenness. They are sad to listen to and watch, but tolerable so long as they wield no power. Unfortuneately, the practical aim of socialism is to concentrate power in the hands of the socialists -- one cannot acheive socialism without a centralized planning aparatus, and naturally those whom espouse socialism and are fucking stupid (ok: delusional) enough to think that it works at all are obviously delusional enough to think that they're the ones qualified to do the job.
Time and time this has shown to be false. It's not that "the wrong people" always get the power (they do), its that the system is completely unworkably broken. No matter who is "in charge" it will always fail, and always for the same reasons. But don't take my word for it, read "The Road to Serfdom", by F.A. Hayek, who shat out more economic knowledge than the average pundit website could ever hope to harvest or convey.
As an aside, if you've got a couple hours, this synopsis of Atlas Shrugged is a great way to get the gist of the story without reading the over 1000 pages of the actual book. The basic plot is that the hard working, thinking, enterprising, contributory members of society revolt against the lazy-in-power whom expect entitlement after entitlement. But it's not the kind of revolt you'd expect.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1709-AtlasShruggedSynopsis.aspx
-
tjamz;190713 wrote:
the top 1% control something like 60% of the money in the country (percentage may be off a bit, can't find the chart that actually breaks it out...had it bookmarked, but can't find it....grrrrr)If the top 1% control 60% then how could this government statistic be correct?
the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0 percent) of income
-
From Mr. Ron Paul,
"Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.
Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.
Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.
In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”
Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.
We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."
Taken from: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/
/thread
-
I don't have any political numbers, percentages or any of that bulshit. However I did write a paper on this in highschool. I came to the conclusions:
A. People who have more money should be taxed more.
B. No one will ever be happy.
C. Politicians don't do what is best for the country, they do what people want them to do, which is lower taxes.My resolution: A flat income tax <u>ALONG WITH</u> an increase in specialized taxes on other aspects of business' expenses.
-
The issue in the past is that the government doesn't follow what the constitution put in place for us. Without getting completely discounted by everyone on here as 'one of those guys', taxable income is defined in a different manner in the constitution vs. what has been implemented by our lovely government for MANY years...
-
StangerBanger96;190837 wrote:
If the top 1% control 60% then how could this government statistic be correct?Their earnings (after deductions, etc... ) were 32% of the total earned. That is not a measure of their worth nor a measure of the amount of money they have direct control of. Savings, aside from interest, do not get reported as earnings....figure the vast majority of the top 1% are invested in TSA's (tax sheltered annuities), 401k's, IRA's, Roth IRA's, Keogh plans, etc... All of which don't have their earnings taxed (different rules for each type of course, some pay tax up front, such as IRA's, others pay in the end, such as 401k's.) Heck, that is how I keep my taxes at bay, by using 401k's, IRA's, Roth IRA's, Equity Building (UL) Life Insurance plans, and annuities....I can't see why others wouldn't do the same.
-
tjamz;190847 wrote:
Their earnings (after deductions, etc... ) were 32% of the total earned. That is not a measure of their worth nor a measure of the amount of money they have direct control of. Savings, aside from interest, do not get reported as earnings....figure the vast majority of the top 1% are invested in TSA's (tax sheltered annuities), 401k's, IRA's, Roth IRA's, Keogh plans, etc... All of which don't have their earnings taxed (different rules for each type of course, some pay tax up front, such as IRA's, others pay in the end, such as 401k's.) Heck, that is how I keep my taxes at bay, by using 401k's, IRA's, Roth IRA's, Equity Building (UL) Life Insurance plans, and annuities....I can't see why others wouldn't do the same.
One word... Laziness... -
This post is deleted!
-
wannabe;190842 wrote:
I don't have any political numbers, percentages or any of that bulshit. However I did write a paper on this in highschool. I came to the conclusions:
A. People who have more money should be taxed more.How did you come up with that conclusion Joel? I don't follow this socialistic way of thinking. Because it's more "fair"?
A little analogy from the stats in my original post. If there are 100 people eating at Red Lobster, they all finish eating and the waiter comes out with the bill. The rich guy in the corner gets the tab for himself and 39 other people. He says wtf is this, the waiter says this is fair because you make $xx more money than everyone else. He give the next 5 wealthiest people the tab for the next 59 people for the same reason. The 50 people sitting there that are the poorest all pool their money together and pay for one persons meal. Seems pretty fair.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login