Taxes, time to pay your fair share
-
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 -
24valvenotak;190856 wrote:
do you honestly think this country would be a better place if everyone had an extra 10% of their income in the bank? or would everyone just have a bigger tv, a louder civic, or a bigger mcd's fat ass? if you ask me, mr jihad will just hate us more, in turn blow up more of the things we hold so dear, and we will have to re-learn all the colors of the rainbow and to which level of terror they correspond to.Great points, however isn't having a 'bigger tv, louder civic, or bigger ass' mean that they SPENT more money to get those things? Doesn't it mean that the quality of life for those people seem....better? Doesn't spending contribute to a stronger economy and a stronger dollar? Doesn't spending that extra 10% mean more sales tax is taken in from the government for help with improvements on necessary roads and bridges, instead of robbing from your paycheck?
-
if anyone quotes my post before i deleted it poo on you, 4 hours of sleep in the last 48 hours = dyslexia.
-
FG2;190863 wrote:
Great points, however isn't having a 'bigger tv, louder civic, or bigger ass' mean that they SPENT more money to get those things? Doesn't it mean that the quality of life for those people seem....better? Doesn't spending contribute to a stronger economy and a stronger dollar? Doesn't spending that extra 10% mean more sales tax is taken in from the government for help with improvements on necessary roads and bridges, instead of robbing from your paycheck?totally agree.. see previous post of mine.
i guess, in my defense, my definition of "quality of life" is different then others but at the same time the govt is already taking in that 10% from other people so, whats the difference? you pay it in sales tax or they rob it from your paycheck, either way they are going to get it. from you, from him, from me, whoever. I understand that the higher earners dont want to pay for it but it is simply a vicious cycle... if the rich dont pay for it, the poor do which means the poor have less to spend because they are being taxed more. the rich go under because nobody shops at their stores since the poor dont have enough left in their paychecks after they pay a higher tax base?
now no income tax and a flat sales tax? i could get on board...
but then we are just jumping back on that ferris wheel. the rich make more and have more to spend so they end up paying more in taxes.... im either missing something here due to lack of sleep, extreme stupidity, or we are all arguing over something out of alice and wonderland
-
24valvenotak;190866 wrote:
totally agree.. see previous post of mine.i guess, in my defense, my definition of "quality of life" is different then others but at the same time the govt is already taking in that 10% from other people so, whats the difference? you pay it in sales tax or they rob it from your paycheck, either way they are going to get it. from you, from him, from me, whoever. I understand that the higher earners dont want to pay for it but it is simply a vicious cycle... if the rich dont pay for it, the poor do which means the poor have less to spend because they are being taxed more. the rich go under because nobody shops at their stores since the poor dont have enough left in their paychecks after they pay a higher tax base?
no you are forgetting the point that 'they' already have a 'bigger tv, louder civic, fatter ass'...The government is just getting their 6% of your 'extra 10% income'. So you make 30,000 annually with the extra 10% you get $3,000 more, in turn the 6% sales tax will give the government $180 and you $2820.
-
DaveH;190859 wrote:
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.
I guess I should have rephrased this. People who utilize the things taxes go towards to make more money should be taxed more. Let's look at it this way...
DMI Industries DESTROYS main ave carrying bazillion pound wind towers, shutting down public roads, etc. Is it fair that Mcdonalds across the street pays the same yearly taxes even though they don't use the roads for their business at all. This is why I think someone should push for more specific, specialized taxes... to target the people utilizing the services our tax dollars pay for. -
FG2;190867 wrote:
no you are forgetting the point that 'they' already have a 'bigger tv, louder civic, fatter ass'...The government is just getting their 6% of your 'extra 10% income'. So you make 30,000 annually with the extra 10% you get $3,000 more, in turn the 6% sales tax will give the government $180 and you $2820.agreed, but you make a million a year and no matter how big your tv already is 10% of a million is a hell of a lot more then 10% of 30k so you are still paying a majority of the taxes are you not?
i am missing how a flat tax will equal the playing field in terms of who pays what % of our nations taxes?
your supposed to learn something every day, apparently i was gone the day they were handing out flat tax is bomb pamphlets, so fill me in.
-
24valvenotak;190871 wrote:
agreed, but you make a million a year and no matter how big your tv already is 10% of a million is a hell of a lot more then 10% of 30k so you are still paying a majority of the taxes are you not?i am missing how a flat tax will equal the playing field in terms of who pays what % of our nations taxes?
your supposed to learn something every day, apparently i was gone the day they were handing out flat tax is bomb pamphlets, so fill me in.
Mitch, the way the tax system is set up right now, rich people pay a higher percentage of THEIR income. Flat tax is a proposal to make everyone pay the same percentage of their money. Yes, the rich would still be paying the majority of the country's taxes, but, they would be paying LESS on their earned dollars, ultimately leaving the government with one choice which would be raising everyone else's taxes.
-
yea, ive got that part, which is why i fail to see why it is such a wonderful idea for the majority of the people?
-
Because technically it is unfair to charge a more wealthy person a higher percentage of their income as taxes just because they have become more successful. The current tax system is borderline communist IMO. The truth is though, that tax money has to come from somewhere.
-
wannabe;190876 wrote:
Because technically it is unfair to charge a more wealthy person more taxes just because they have become more successful. The current tax system is borderline communist IMO. The truth is though, that tax money has to come from somewhere.Mitchell needs a nap before allowing is open mind to be further cluttered with nonsense. I understand the principle of a flat tax. I guess I just fail to see the christmas miracle of it all. I agree it is unfair to punish the wealthy for being wealthy. I agree taxes are lamesauce. That is all before more exhaustion and alcohol clouds my train of thought, or lack thereof
go bison.
-
Didn't I run the numbers a few months back and determine that ~12% income tax FLAT across the board would pay for EVERY current gov't program, including SS, Welfare, SCHIPS, etc.... I'll see if I can't find the thread, a quick search did not yield any quick results
-
I was wrong, I figured it at 20% http://www.fargostreet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9510&highlight=flat
for those that don't want to dig:
http://www.fargostreet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=151840&postcount=37
For those that don't want to click:
The GDP of the US is $12,980,000,000,000 with a labor force of 151,800,000 (thanks wikipedia!!) and our gov't spent $2,600,000,000,000 last year.
so, 2,600,000,000,000 / 12,980,000,000,000 = 20% which is 5% lower than I paid this year.
I guess I didn't need the labor force total number for that equation, but I found it so I thought I'd post it.
-
lol @ Jason. But you're right, President Bush is the "decider" by his own admission.
-
DaveH;190859 wrote:
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.Word, that pretty much sums it up.
-
wait...you'd rather see the bottom of the middle class pay proportionally a higher percentage of taxes? Tell me what is wrong with "If you make $1 you pay $.20; if you make $10, you pay $2; you make 1000, you pay 20; etc; etc; etc..."
And for the record, I'm fairly certain I'd pay less with the method Dave presented, so its not a personal issue for me.
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