Tyrants in Maryland do it again

[forestal]

Sorry, that was mostly sarcasm.

You only 'own' your land as long as you pay your taxes. Do you want your government to protect you for free?

Hello? The government confiscates someone's private property that they paid for, and *I'M* a Communist?????

 

[forestal]

Sounds like you're for the creation of a new Robber Baron class, or American Nobility. That's something the founding fathers wanted to prevent at all costs.

Maybe you'd be more comfortable living in Europe?

Say that when you are old enough to earn your own way and not have mommy and daddy pay your bills.

 

[forestal]

You can't equate equal percentages as being fair. Someone earning minimum wage certainly shouldn't be expected to pay the same percentage of their income to taxes as Warren Buffet.

The rich should pay more than the poor and middle class.

How can you look at nine trillion dollars of debt and just shrug your shoulders?

Congratulations, it sounds like you are planning on being dead before the $h1T hits the fan for everone else. That certainly is a viable, if selfish, to our mounting national debt problem.

Yeah, I guess expecting the government to spend less is out of the question.



Yeah, the top 5% of wage earners paying over 53% of the federal taxes isn’t their fair share. The top 50% of wage earners pays over 96% of the federal taxes just isn’t quite enough. Perhaps of the top 50% were paying 100% so the lower 50% pays nothing would probably fit your bill right? I mean what’s another 4%?



I can remember the adults saying, when I was a kid, "I don’t want to leave this mess to our kids". Well, here I am and we’re still saying it.

 

[PsyOps]

You can't equate equal percentages as being fair. Someone earning minimum wage certainly shouldn't be expected to pay the same percentage of their income to taxes as Warren Buffet.

The rich should pay more than the poor and middle class.

You’re kidding right?

If I earn $100,000 at 15% I pay $15,000 in taxes. If you earn $50,000 at 15% you pay $7,500. So the rich still pay more under an equitable tax base.

How can you look at nine trillion dollars of debt and just shrug your shoulders?

I don’t shrug my shoulders at anything. I don’t know if you are old enough to remember the big debt counter of the 70s. It showed, by the second the national debt. I was simply stating that my parents were screaming about the same thing we are now screaming about. It’s still here, and we are still here. We survived it. That’s not to say it shouldn’t be solved but it certainly doesn’t mean the world is coming to an end…

Congratulations, it sounds like you are planning on being dead before the $h1T hits the fan for everone else. That certainly is a viable, if selfish, to our mounting national debt problem.

The $h1T hit the fan a long time ago. And, yes, I will probably be dead before it gets solved. I voted for those that promised they would solve the problem. They took control in 94 and they failed. What else do you want me to do? We are both in this game of survival. I expect ME to solve my problems, you expect the government (who has disappointed us time and time again) to solve yours. Let’s see who leaves what for their children. If you're waiting for the government to solve it, I think you are going to be very disappointed.

 

[PsyOps]

...I'm talking about the power of pols; not the people. Did I miscommunicate that?

I misunderstood it when you wrote "My point is we expect an awful lot of people who really have a good deal less power, rightly so, than we think they do." I took that as the people having "a good deal less power" not any politician.

Regardless of the power any politician wields I still hold them accountable for their promises that got them elected. From that aspect, while they are in office, they hold far more power than you or I ever could.

 

[awpitt]

You’re kidding right?

If I earn $100,000 at 15% I pay $15,000 in taxes. If you earn $50,000 at 15% you pay $7,500. So the rich still pay more under an equitable tax base.

On the surface, your illustration makes since; however, it’s not taking the big picture into consideration. Your illustration shows that the person making $100K is paying more taxes but that’s because they make more. The truth is that, dollar for dollar, both tax payers are paying the same, 15 cents on the dollar. This may seem fair but it doesn’t account for the whole economic picture.

Both tax payers have to pay for basic food, housing and clothing needs. The fact is that these basic needs take up a larger portion of the income of the person who makes $50K per year than that of the person who makes $100K per year. The disparity grows as the income grows. Someone making $200K per year will spend an estimated 10-15% of the income on housing where as someone making $50K per year probably has to spend at least 25-30% of their income on housing. In an age where a basic townhouse costs $1000-$1500 per month, the housing portion of the budget for the $50K earner is probably more. If you don’t believe me, here’s a nice one bedroom one bath apartment for $945 per month. http://www.equitymgmt.com/parkvillas.cfm This is why a straight “flat” income or sales tax isn’t as fair as it seems on the surface.

During the Truman era, the “standard deduction” that people could claim was at an amount that equated to the median cost of living at that time. This meant that people were taxed only on income over and above what was considered the income necessary to meet basic housing, food, and clothing needs. Unfortunately, the amount of the standard deduction has not kept pace with inflation.

I was a fan of Rep. Richard Armey’s plan for a flat tax on all income over set deductions. He proposed that married couples filing jointly could deduct $26,200, single adults could deduct, $13,100, and, $5,300 could be deducted for each child. Any income above the deducted amount would be taxed at 17%. Businesses would pay a flat 17% rate on all profits. So the tax payer making $50K would pay $6273 and the tax payer making $100K would pay $14773. The main reservation I had with Armey’s proposal was that he would only tax salary, wages, and pensions. He excluded capital gains and other investment income. This puts lower and middle class people at a disadvantage to wealthier people because income of lower and middle class people is primarily derived from earned income whereas; wealthier people derive a larger portion of their income from investments. This would mean a big tax loophole that lower and middle income people would miss out on.

 

[forestal]

YES!!!! My thoughts exactly. The wealthy could affort to pay 50% income taxes and still barely sneeze, but someone making minimum wage would be destitute if they tried the same thing.

On the surface, your illustration makes since; however, it’s not taking the big picture into consideration. Your illustration shows that the person making $100K is paying more taxes but that’s because they make more. The truth is that, dollar for dollar, both tax payers are paying the same, 15 cents on the dollar. This may seem fair but it doesn’t account for the whole economic picture.

Both tax payers have to pay for basic food, housing and clothing needs. The fact is that these basic needs take up a larger portion of the income of the person who makes $50K per year than that of the person who makes $100K per year. The disparity grows as the income grows. Someone making $200K per year will spend an estimated 10-15% of the income on housing where as someone making $50K per year probably has to spend at least 25-30% of their income on housing. In an age where a basic townhouse costs $1000-$1500 per month, the housing portion of the budget for the $50K earner is probably more. If you don’t believe me, here’s a nice one bedroom one bath apartment for $945 per month. http://www.equitymgmt.com/parkvillas.cfm This is why a straight “flat” income or sales tax isn’t as fair as it seems on the surface.

 

[awpitt]

YES!!!! My thoughts exactly. The wealthy could affort to pay 50% income taxes and still barely sneeze, but someone making minimum wage would be destitute if they tried the same thing.

Please do not get me wrong. I’m not advocating punitive taxes on the rich. I was just trying to point out that the tax picture is not as fair and simple as mentioned in PsyOps’ 15% example.

 

[Bird Dog]

YES!!!! My thoughts exactly. The wealthy could affort to pay 50% income taxes and still barely sneeze, but someone making minimum wage would be destitute if they tried the same thing.

First: Someone making minimum wage pays 0% taxes only FICA and Med.

Some of us not so well off as Buffett but doing ok now pay 58%.

Also, remember the ones that are doing ok pay for the expansion of our economy by investing in equities that create jobs, profits and more taxes.

You sound like a typical worker bee who does not understand the risk your employer had to take to start his business or are probably employed by a union or government entity.
The ones with the least investment want to "soak" the ones who took the risks and became sucessful.
There is a thread on the forum about ticks. You should read it.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Sounds like you're for the creation of a new Robber Baron class, or American Nobility. That's something the founding fathers wanted to prevent at all costs.

Maybe you'd be more comfortable living in Europe?

My family has been in the U.S. before there was a U.S. My ancestors are some of the founders and original colonists. You are the one that wants a socialist government. Why don't you move where socialism is the norm; Great Britain, France, China all come to mind.

Your understanding of the Founders and history is so distorted you would have to start from scratch to try to unlearn the crap that infests what you call a brain.

 

[Wilona]

Way to go MD!!...now I can eat my meals in peace without having to smell smoke!!,,only problem now will be having to pass those outside smoking..

 

[PsyOps]

On the surface, your illustration makes since; however, it’s not taking the big picture into consideration. Your illustration shows that the person making $100K is paying more taxes but that’s because they make more. The truth is that, dollar for dollar, both tax payers are paying the same, 15 cents on the dollar. This may seem fair but it doesn’t account for the whole economic picture.

Why should someone that makes more money be punished just because you have the false notion that they aren’t paying enough? Here’s another part of the “whole economic picture”. The rich make more, therefore they spend more, therefore they pay more in taxes through their spending. They typically own bigger houses, which means they pay more in property taxes. They buy bigger cars more often which means they pay more in taxes titles and tags.

I gave you a simple flat tax rate which doesn’t exist. The rich, through our punitive tax code, pay considerably more percentage-wise, as I stated earlier based on what the top 5% and 50% pay. The lower 50% of wage earner only pay 4% of the federal taxes. Yet you folks think the rich should pay more. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Why should someone that makes more money be punished just because you have the false notion that they aren’t paying enough? Here’s another part of the “whole economic picture”. The rich make more, therefore they spend more, therefore they pay more in taxes through their spending. They typically own bigger houses, which means they pay more in property taxes. They buy bigger cars more often which means they pay more in taxes titles and tags.

I gave you a simple flat tax rate which doesn’t exist. The rich, through our punitive tax code, pay considerably more percentage-wise, as I stated earlier based on what the top 5% and 50% pay. The lower 50% of wage earner only pay 4% of the federal taxes. Yet you folks think the rich should pay more. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

Tax the rich enough, and they will move themselves and their assets and their companies out of the U.S. and then watch what happens to the economy.

 

[awpitt]

Why should someone that makes more money be punished just because you have the false notion that they aren’t paying enough?

I have no false notions and I didn’t say anything about, nor do I advocate punitive taxes on anyone. I do advocate the proposal made by Richard Armey which applies equal deductions to everyone and income over and above those deductions is taxed at the same rate for everyone.

He proposed that married couples filing jointly could deduct $26,200, single adults could deduct, $13,100, and, $5,300 could be deducted for each child. Any income above the deducted amount would be taxed at 17%. Businesses would pay a flat 17% rate on all profits.

Steve Forbes had a similar proposal. Neither man could be considered liberal socialists.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>