|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 03/11/04 - 23:35 Post subject:
[quote="elkid"] | sonnylax wrote: | | elkid wrote: | | To that end, they SHOULD pay more. |
Ahh.... Finally, we get to the crux of the discussion!
Someone thinks that a certain class of citizens should pay more in taxes then another class of citizens. Good ole class warfare at it's finest.
Please enlighten me why citizen A who earns $100,000/year should pay more then Citizen B who earns $50,000/year. |
I said nothing about class.  Reread, please - I said HIGH INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. But here's your enlightment: A earns $100K, B earns $50K. A is in the 33% tax bracket, B in the 28% one. A pays $33K, B pays $14K. A pays more, simply because A earns more than B. Pretty straight forward concept.
So, yes, the rich should pay more. But what is your argument of why they should pay proportionately more???? The only reason I can come up with is to support people in lower income brackets. There is no basis of why one household should pay 34% and another 25%.
If things made sense and were "fair" all taxes would be usage taxes. You buy more, you pay more-use more, pay more. No, we will fight about no green space and overcrowding.....but we give tax breaks for having kids, it's actually beneficial to be in debt, and pretty pathetic that for the wealthy it's better to own a couple homes. This country is whack and I'm still saving my $$ for NZ if things get worse.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/11/04 - 23:49 Post subject:
| runaroundsue wrote: | | So, yes, the rich should pay more. |
Why should those that are more successful and earn correspondingly more money... pay more in taxes?
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/11/04 - 23:51 Post subject:
| purple hayes wrote: | | sonnylax wrote: | | Please enlighten me why citizen A who earns $100,000/year should pay more then Citizen B who earns $50,000/year. |
Because if each paid a percentage of their income in taxes (say 25%), the person making $100,000 / year would pay $25,000 while the person making $50,000 / year would only pay $12,500. So, according to my thinking, he should pay more. |
I don't have an issue with this. I do have a problem with the progressive nature of income taxes (i.e. someone in the 100k bracket pays a higher percentage then someone in the 50K bracket).
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/12/04 - 00:05 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | But here's your enlightment: A earns $100K, B earns $50K. A is in the 33% tax bracket, B in the 28% one. A pays $33K, B pays $14K. A pays more, simply because A earns more than B. Pretty straight forward concept. |
In ain't just because A makes more than B. A pays more in taxes proportionally due to them being placed in a higher tax bracket. Why should they be in different tax brackets?
| elkid wrote: |
My point was that jrjo said the top 50% pay 96% of federal income taxes. My point was that they should, because they MAKE 96% of gross income. Sounds pretty damn proportional to me. |
That isn't what jrjo said. Here is his quote:
| Quote: | | In the year 2000, there were 128,227,143 income tax returns filed and out of those returns, 96.09% of the taxes paid came from the top 50% wage earners. So really, when half the people filing taxes pay less than 4% of the tax dole and when you add in kids and people either not filing or not earning enough to file, the vast majority of Americans in actuality really don't pay income taxes. |
The top 50% pay 96% of the taxes collected due to the progressive nature of the current federal tax system. The top 50% do not earn 96% of the gross income. Because they are taxed at a higher (progressive) rate, they earn less then 96% of the combined gross income.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/12/04 - 00:06 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | runaroundsue wrote: | | So, yes, the rich should pay more. |
Why should those that are more successful and earn correspondingly more money... pay more in taxes? |
we're on the same page. If everyone is taxed the same % the rich still pay more....why should they pay progressively (I called proportionately) more? ......and I'm waiting for our liberal friends to answer that question.
If household A was bigger and polluted more air and used more resources, I could buy it. But I yet to hear why they should pay more percentage wise than another househould......yet you will hear "the rich aren't paying their share". They always seem to come up with that these "rich" have all kinds of tax shelters. In reality, that nice little rebate that everyone got....well, some of us didn't get it (other than the people that didn't pay in to begin with, that is)...what's a few hundred less to the rich....afterall, they have too much money anyway 
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/12/04 - 06:43 Post subject:
| runaroundsue wrote: | | sonnylax wrote: | | runaroundsue wrote: | | So, yes, the rich should pay more. |
Why should those that are more successful and earn correspondingly more money... pay more in taxes? |
we're on the same page. If everyone is taxed the same % the rich still pay more....why should they pay progressively (I called proportionately) more? ......and I'm waiting for our liberal friends to answer that question.
|
Amen Sue, bring on the flat tax, everyone no matter what income level pays the same rate
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/12/04 - 08:23 Post subject:
heck while we are at it make it a straight tax with no deductions and stuff. That would put millions of lawyers and accountants out of business.
Just because people make more should not mean they pay proportionally more. That is regressive taxes. They already pay more because of where they live and what they buy also (although I know that is a choice).
for the record. We have a medicade, access card. It is absolutely humiliating to go to a store and purchase items with WIC checks. People often judge me without even knowing the circumstances.
I once called someone on it who was giving me an attitude. They did not feel so good after I told them, this is for my critically ill daughter who is entitled by law to have these items. Not one item was for me. If poor people are entitled to the benefit why cannot I. Even though I hardly use the benefit because of the perception that people have.
There is no more humiliating thing then walking into the welfare office and their staff treating you like a bum because you are handing an application in. I was never so rudely treated in my lilfe.
When I called my local state legislator office about the problems I was having, it was amazing the service I got from a supervisor who handled my case quickly.
I used to be a bit quicker on judgement for that stuff, but now, without knowing circumstances I give the benefit of the doubt no.
|
|
|
|
|
Maddies Wench
Flailing Homosapiens
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Jun 2003
Posts: 6103
Location: Seeking out the poorer quarters where the ragged people go.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/12/04 - 08:55 Post subject:
Well, any aid workers that I have had the privilege to meet with have been kind, understanding people who do they best they can to get the client what they need.
That's not the humiliating part.
The humiliating part is whipping those food stamps or I guess the cards now, out in front of everyone at my small town grocery store where the person behind you in line is your kid's teacher or the wife of someone you work with.
And again, church groups and private service agencies are not necessarily confidential. For instance, John never laid a hand on me, but I needed the assistance of a Women's Advocacy group to get out of that house. Well, small towns being small towns someone in the Advocacy group talked to her sister who works with John, it got around that John was abusing us. He wasn't. It was more about his control issues.
And I hate to say it, but the Pastor can preach all he wants about the sin of gossip, but CHURCHES ARE GOSSIP CAULDRONS!! They always have been and they always will be.
At the very least, a government agency is sworn to client confidentiality.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/12/04 - 09:13 Post subject:
| Maddie's Wench wrote: | | And I hate to say it, but the Pastor can preach all he wants about the sin of gossip, but CHURCHES ARE GOSSIP CAULDRONS!! They always have been and they always will be. |
| Quote: | | At the very least, a government agency is sworn to client confidentiality. |
Never make that assumption. Government is as bad as 'the' church, business, or any other organization - it comes down to individual people. Whether information about you is spread around is solely in the hands and conscience and integrity of the person who's handling it. Just because it has the stamp or aura of legitimacy means jack cheese.
|
|
|
|
|
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/12/04 - 09:29 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | | Maddie's Wench wrote: | | And I hate to say it, but the Pastor can preach all he wants about the sin of gossip, but CHURCHES ARE GOSSIP CAULDRONS!! They always have been and they always will be. |
| Quote: | | At the very least, a government agency is sworn to client confidentiality. |
Never make that assumption. Government is as bad as 'the' church, business, or any other organization - it comes down to individual people. Whether information about you is spread around is solely in the hands and conscience and integrity of the person who's handling it. Just because it has the stamp or aura of legitimacy means jack cheese. |
Oh the irony of you lumping all people that go to church into a big group of gossips and then writing the following...
| I'm quoting you here wrote: | | Never make that assumption. |
| I'm quoting you here again wrote: | | it comes down to individual people. Whether information about you is spread around is solely in the hands and conscience and integrity of the person who's handling it. |
Although I'm a regular given of time and resources to my church, I never know who is getting the aid unless it's a specific project at someone's house.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/12/04 - 09:39 Post subject:
What I was trying to say was that Maddie felt that because government is the legal authority, there's some assumption that an individual's private records are kept private. It ain't necessarily so. It's a bunch of people with a common connection - their work. And being people, if you come across an odd, disturbing, or humorous thing in a person's file, the instinct is to share that with others. Again, it comes down to the integrity of the individual.
If I'm clear as mud on this, I apologize. My mind often has great stuff in it, but it gets lost en route to the keyboard or the mouth.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/12/04 - 09:50 Post subject:
RAS - I didn't say I agreed with progressive taxes. You want to know why they exist? Ask the freakin' IRS.
sonny - Yes, the top 50% made 96% of the gross adjusted income. LOOK AT THE STATISTICS I POSTED that came from the last census in 2002. Oh, forget it. If you couldn't read it the first time, I certainly can't expect you to do it now. I'm out of this stick in the mud argument. Can't have a "civil disagreement" with someone who doesn't bother to read or research before spouting rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
|
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/12/04 - 09:57 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | Oh, forget it. If you couldn't read it the first time, I certainly can't expect you to do it now. I'm out of this stick in the mud argument. Can't have a "civil disagreement" with someone who doesn't bother to read or research before spouting rhetoric. |
Please don't directly attack other members.
|
|
|
|
|
pokychick
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 5640
Location: City of Dis
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/12/04 - 11:30 Post subject:
| purple hayes wrote: | | elkid wrote: | | Oh, forget it. If you couldn't read it the first time, I certainly can't expect you to do it now. I'm out of this stick in the mud argument. Can't have a "civil disagreement" with someone who doesn't bother to read or research before spouting rhetoric. |
Please don't directly attack other members. |
however snide innuendos and stereotyping are apparently perfectly acceptable
|
|
|
|
|
RunsLikeAGirl
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 01 Apr 2003
Posts: 1499
Location: Upstate.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 03/12/04 - 11:38 Post subject:
| pokychick wrote: | | purple hayes wrote: | | elkid wrote: | | Oh, forget it. If you couldn't read it the first time, I certainly can't expect you to do it now. I'm out of this stick in the mud argument. Can't have a "civil disagreement" with someone who doesn't bother to read or research before spouting rhetoric. |
Please don't directly attack other members. |
however snide innuendos and stereotyping are apparently perfectly acceptable |
As are comments such as:
| Quote: | | Anyone who doesn't agree with her POV from what I can tell. |
I'm not calling you out, robp. Just making an observation.
|
|
|
|
