[vantrepes]

Originally Posted by EpShot

58% is not worse than 90%

Read twice, post once?
He said "the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes".
Told him to stop making up numbers.
You were rebuffed with the fact that the top 5% pay 58% of the taxes.
That leaves the next 5% to pay the 42% or so that the top 10% pay.

and of course they are the one paying the taxes, they have the money.
the concept of blood from a stone comes to mind

So much for your vaunted "fairness". They have it, someone else "needs" it, so let's steal it from them. But it's not stealing, no, it's taxes...

how is 70% close to 90%?

Those are 2005 numbers. Things may have changed since then. Why don't you look into it for yourself? You seem to have so much trouble believing what other people post, so maybe if you do the digging, you'll believe it.

[Not2FFU]

The new age witch hunt for those making over 250k a year is just sickening. For all the ****ing money they contribute they should get minority group status so people quit ****ing attacking them.

[EpShot]

Originally Posted by vantrepes

Read twice, post once?
He said "the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes".
Told him to stop making up numbers.
You were rebuffed with the fact that the top 5% pay 58% of the taxes.
That leaves the next 5% to pay the 42% or so that the top 10% pay.

the point was he didn't post number that showed the top 10% pay 90% he posted numbers showing what the top 5% paid. the top 10-5% do not pay 42% of the taxes.

Originally Posted by vantrepes

So much for your vaunted "fairness". They have it, someone else "needs" it, so let's steal it from them. But it's not stealing, no, it's taxes...

no i'm saying if someone has $100 and someone has $1 and they both get taxes, obviosuly the person who has $100 will be contributing more. nothing i said had anything to so with fairness, it had to do with math.

btw, Unlike some people, i'm not pulling those numbers out of my ***. top 1% - 380k/yr top 50% 30k/yr (that is, half the people being taxed earn less than 30k, so we're talking pure averages. not talking about the people earning 50 million/yr. They would be the guys with $131,000)


Those are 2005 numbers. Things may have changed since then. Why don't you look into it for yourself? You seem to have so much trouble believing what other people post, so maybe if you do the digging, you'll believe it.[/quote]
I did. i mean serious, 30 seconds on google
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Taxpayers_Union

[EpShot]

Originally Posted by Not2FFU

The new age witch hunt for those making over 250k a year is just sickening. For all the ****ing money they contribute they should get minority group status so people quit ****ing attacking them.

yes, this new age thing, cause they have it so bad now

[Seahawk6060]

Originally Posted by EpShot

58% is not worse than 90%; how is 70% close to 90%?

I reread the posts. Thanks, I stand corrected.

...and of course they are the one paying the taxes, they have the money. the concept of blood from a stone comes to mind.

So, steal from the rich and give to the poor. It doesn't sound like a healthy, growth encouraging, long-term economic plan.

[Not2FFU]

so the bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the taxes and then you have 47% of the population that either pays nothing/ gets more back than they contributed/or leeches solely on the backs of the tax payers.

That needs to end. Either everyone pays something or only those who pay income taxes should be able to vote.

[Bill Watterson]

If taxation is theft you're an anarchist. Or a masochist.

[Not2FFU]

I'm fine with paying taxes as long as everyone else pays them as well.

[Bill Watterson]

But everyone pays some taxes. Income taxes are one of thousands of different taxes. It's terrible, but it's reality. In fact, our tax code is so complicated that some here actually support the status quo (for our taxes) because simplifying the tax code would put (some) accountants out of work

[EpShot]

Originally Posted by Seahawk6060

So, steal from the rich and give to the poor. It doesn't sound like a healthy, growth encouraging, long-term economic plan.

If you want to give a serious response, I'm willing to answer serious question. To rephrase that: I in no way said or implied that. However, i invite you to look at previous revenue streams, in particular look at deficit findings regarding the Bush tax cuts. Again, i'm merely talking about deficit spending, look at deficit spending projected, with and with out them. As far as long term economic plans. how about 80 years worth of them being higher than they are now.

Originally Posted by Not2FFU

so the bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the taxes and then you have 47% of the population that either pays nothing/ gets more back than they contributed/or leeches solely on the backs of the tax payers.

the bottom 50% could pay 100% their money in taxes and sill not be contributing anywhere near the amount the top 5% do. If you think they have it so easy, feel free to drop your income level to join them. Sure you wouldn't be paying as much taxes, but its not so much fun when the simple cost of living eats up all your money.

[Bill Watterson]

Even if Obama let the bush tax cuts expire it wouldn't help the deficit. That's a myth. 10 years of expired tax cuts would account for (based on the projections given by Summers) one year's increase in the deficit.

Fact is we have a spending problem, and tax cuts won't be the answer to it.

[EpShot]

Originally Posted by Bill Watterson

Even if Obama let the bush tax cuts expire it wouldn't help the deficit. That's a myth. 10 years of expired tax cuts would account for (based on the projections given by Summers) one year's increase in the deficit.

Fact is we have a spending problem, and tax cuts won't be the answer to it.

so I'm confused, are we saying $2.5 trillion is an insignificant amount of money?


obviosuly its not going to fix it by itself. However, going back to the tax rates during times in which we didn't have a deficit combined with cuts in spending, would in fact eliminate the deficit, and base don the fact that we had good economic growth across the board during those times(and for the record, i don't think they need to be that high) i think its a good idea.

[Bill Watterson]

Originally Posted by EpShot

so I'm confused, are we saying $2.5 trillion is an insignificant amount of money?


obviosuly its not going to fix it by itself. However, going back to the tax rates during times in which we didn't have a deficit combined with cuts in spending, would in fact eliminate the deficit, and base don the fact that we had good economic growth across the board during those times(and for the record, i don't think they need to be that high) i think its a good idea.

So lets say we let the bush tax cuts expire. Where will the spending be cut? But letting them expire as part of a solution to solve deficit problems just creates a new problem: Where will we raise taxes the next time the government overspends? We'll also have to deal with the fact that expiring tax cuts only guarantee one thing: Increased revenue for the state. Why should we expect politicians to be responsible? The debt ceiling will also be increased, and that only erodes the rule of law. So really I'm not seeing anything all that positive in relation to allowing the Bush tax cuts expire, but I am seeing lots of potential for political mischief. Massive spending cuts are the solution.

Anyway, the point of my post is that yes, the tax cuts are insignificant when it comes to solving our deficit woes.

[Seahawk6060]

Originally Posted by Bill Watterson

If taxation is theft you're an anarchist. Or a masochist.

It's theft when taxation merely becomes a means of transferring wealth from one class of citizen to another, without the expectation that it be earned. I'm not against taxation as long as it's used to provide public services (e.g. military, infrastructure, and etc.) to which everyone receives common benefit.

[Pacystan]

The problem here is not the percentage of taxes that everyone pays. It is the Loop holes in the 67,000 page tax code that allow people like warren buffet to pay a smaller percentage of tax than his secretary does, and she only makes 60k a year. Make everyone pay a flat percentage of their income that varies from bracket to bracket and counts all income as the same (capital gains taxed at same rate as income).

[vantrepes]

Originally Posted by Pacystan

The problem here is not the percentage of taxes that everyone pays. It is the Loop holes in the 67,000 page tax code that allow people like warren buffet to pay a smaller percentage of tax than his secretary does, and she only makes 60k a year. Make everyone pay a flat percentage of their income that varies from bracket to bracket and counts all income as the same (capital gains taxed at same rate as income).

In that case, Mr. Buffet can forgo all his exemptions, and pay the stated tax rate for his bracket..... But, he'll claim them, keep the money, and call it unfair.

On that sarcastic note, I agree, a flat, across the board tax is a MUCH better solution. The hard part is going to be keeping Congress Critters from playing with the law to buy votes.
That's what got us into this mess in the first place. The original income tax was something like 3%, then they kept kicking it higher to spend more, but then the rate was too high for some people, so the Critters gave them discounts, and special deductions, which led to the massive, convoluted BS we call a tax code.

[Seahawk6060]

Originally Posted by Pacystan

Make everyone pay a flat percentage of their income that varies from bracket to bracket and counts all income as the same (capital gains taxed at same rate as income).

I'd like to see a flat tax too. Everyone pays into the system that they reap benefits from.

[Pacystan]

Originally Posted by Seahawk6060

I'd like to see a flat tax too. Everyone pays into the system that they reap benefits from.

The question is whether to do a flat income tax or a national consumption tax. A consumption tax couldn't be avoided and would still be somewhat progressive. The more you buy the more you pay. However, a consumption tax would have to replace all other federal taxes in my opinion.

[Not2FFU]

Originally Posted by EpShot

If you want to give a serious response, I'm willing to answer serious question. To rephrase that: I in no way said or implied that. However, i invite you to look at previous revenue streams, in particular look at deficit findings regarding the Bush tax cuts. Again, i'm merely talking about deficit spending, look at deficit spending projected, with and with out them. As far as long term economic plans. how about 80 years worth of them being higher than they are now.


the bottom 50% could pay 100% their money in taxes and sill not be contributing anywhere near the amount the top 5% do. If you think they have it so easy, feel free to drop your income level to join them. Sure you wouldn't be paying as much taxes, but its not so much fun when the simple cost of living eats up all your money.

That doesn't chnage the fact that 47% of those living the the US don't pay federal income tax.

[EpShot]

Originally Posted by Not2FFU

That doesn't chnage the fact that 47% of those living the the US don't pay federal income tax.

which matters.. unless you are trying to solve budgeting issues.
wait, even then it doens't matter, they have **** money. If you're so jealous, drop your income and tell us about how awesome it is.

[SuperSupra619 (Banned)]

Originally Posted by vantrepes

On that sarcastic note, I agree, a flat, across the board tax is a MUCH better solution. The hard part is going to be keeping Congress Critters from playing with the law to buy votes.
That's what got us into this mess in the first place. The original income tax was something like 3%, then they kept kicking it higher to spend more, but then the rate was too high for some people, so the Critters gave them discounts, and special deductions, which led to the massive, convoluted BS we call a tax code.

Try and tell the wealthy that they will be paying the same 25% tax (hypothetically) on their $10 million income as Farmer Joe will be paying on his $50,000 income.