http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxe … /index.htmIn 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.
Yeah they get it oh so tough being in the top 20% and earning 52.4% of the total income in the US.lowing wrote:
Nothing like the liberal ideology of punishing achievement to bring down a society. Great job idiots
So what, they earned it, you didn't.AussieReaper wrote:
Yeah they get it oh so tough being in the top 20% and earning 52.4% of the total income in the US.lowing wrote:
Nothing like the liberal ideology of punishing achievement to bring down a society. Great job idiots
So you'd like your taxes to rise to help the rich get richer?lowing wrote:
Nothing like the liberal ideology of punishing achievement to bring down a society. Great job idiots
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-30 19:07:46)
How does my taxes help the rich get richer? I pay my taxes to fund govt. So do they. What you want is to take more money from them, not to fund govt. but to redistribute it to those that have not earned it. You want to punish them for being rich, and reward underachievement with their money. THAT is what I am sayingDilbert_X wrote:
So you'd like your taxes to rise to help the rich get richer?lowing wrote:
Nothing like the liberal ideology of punishing achievement to bring down a society. Great job idiots
Thats what you're saying.
You're not an underachiever simply because you aren't a millionaire! lollowing wrote:
How does my taxes help the rich get richer? I pay my taxes to fund govt. So do they. What you want is to take more money from them, not to fund govt. but to redistribute it to those that have not earned it. You want to punish them for being rich, and reward underachievement with their money. THAT is what I am saying
I make more than 30,000 a year, their money is not going to me. I pay taxesAussieReaper wrote:
You're not an underachiever simply because you aren't a millionaire! lollowing wrote:
How does my taxes help the rich get richer? I pay my taxes to fund govt. So do they. What you want is to take more money from them, not to fund govt. but to redistribute it to those that have not earned it. You want to punish them for being rich, and reward underachievement with their money. THAT is what I am saying
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-30 19:28:33)
Maybe if the conservatives had not started these ill planned, ill defined wars, you would not have to pay so much tax.lowing wrote:
Nothing like the liberal ideology of punishing achievement to bring down a society. Great job idiots
You're asking for the rich to have their taxes cut, while they are currently subsidising your low taxes.lowing wrote:
How does my taxes help the rich get richer? I pay my taxes to fund govt. So do they. What you want is to take more money from them, not to fund govt. but to redistribute it to those that have not earned it. You want to punish them for being rich, and reward underachievement with their money. THAT is what I am saying
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-30 19:33:08)
You use more government services than you think. Unless somehow you paid for all the roads, electricity grids, water works and various other infrastructure either owned by or subsidised by your government.lowing wrote:
I make more than 30,000 a year, their money is not going to me. I pay taxesAussieReaper wrote:
You're not an underachiever simply because you aren't a millionaire! lollowing wrote:
How does my taxes help the rich get richer? I pay my taxes to fund govt. So do they. What you want is to take more money from them, not to fund govt. but to redistribute it to those that have not earned it. You want to punish them for being rich, and reward underachievement with their money. THAT is what I am saying
The rich are the company builders that the rest of us build wealth around. Taking their money ( punishing them) prevents that growth and keeps the rest of us unemployed.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're asking for the rich to have their taxes cut.lowing wrote:
How does my taxes help the rich get richer? I pay my taxes to fund govt. So do they. What you want is to take more money from them, not to fund govt. but to redistribute it to those that have not earned it. You want to punish them for being rich, and reward underachievement with their money. THAT is what I am saying
Tax increases would be needed elsewhere to compensate.
Are you prepared to have YOUR taxes go up to see your ideology implemented?
Those things are exactly what taxes are for, not redistribution in an effort to make things "fair".AussieReaper wrote:
You use more government services than you think. Unless somehow you paid for all the roads, electricity grids, water works and various other infrastructure either owned by or subsidised by your government.lowing wrote:
I make more than 30,000 a year, their money is not going to me. I pay taxesAussieReaper wrote:
You're not an underachiever simply because you aren't a millionaire! lol
So don't say you pay taxes to cover yourself so forget everyone else.
So you're happy to get a tax rise so they can get a tax cut?The rich are the company builders that the rest of us build wealth around. Taking their money ( punishing them) prevents that growth and keeps the rest of us unemployed.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-30 19:36:43)
I would be. I want a flat tax with no exemptions. You live in this country? Pay your share.Dilbert_X wrote:
You're asking for the rich to have their taxes cut, while they are currently subsidising your low taxes.lowing wrote:
How does my taxes help the rich get richer? I pay my taxes to fund govt. So do they. What you want is to take more money from them, not to fund govt. but to redistribute it to those that have not earned it. You want to punish them for being rich, and reward underachievement with their money. THAT is what I am saying
Tax increases would be needed elsewhere to compensate.
Are you prepared to have YOUR taxes go up to see your ideology implemented?
They are not raising thier taxes to fund the function of govt. they are raising their taxes to redistribute it to others that did not earn it. They do not need their taxes raises, nor do I, what needs to happen is proper spending practices and forget all of these bullshit redistribution programsDilbert_X wrote:
So you're happy to get a tax rise so they can get a tax cut?The rich are the company builders that the rest of us build wealth around. Taking their money ( punishing them) prevents that growth and keeps the rest of us unemployed.
Its nothing to do with Obama's policies particularly.
Thats not the same as a flat tax, thats paying for what you use, which benefits the rich and loads the poor much more in fact.You live in this country? Pay your share.
Nothing wrong with a consumption tax. This is a fair, pay taxes on what you spend.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats not the same as a flat tax, thats paying for what you use, which benefits the rich and loads the poor much more in fact.You live in this country? Pay your share.
Or to reverse the insane tax cuts of the previous admin, pay for the Iraq war and address the colossal budget deficit.lowing wrote:
They are not raising thier taxes to fund the function of govt. they are raising their taxes to redistribute it to others that did not earn it.
What is fair is paying for the services you use.Nothing wrong with a consumption tax. This is a fair, pay taxes on what you spend.
It is not a realistic question.I am not advocating cutting taxes, I am advocating to stop increased taxes on the rich for the purposes of wealth redistibution. They pay plenty of taxes as it is, more than anyone else. to take their money for no other reason that because they have it to take is bullshit. Taking my money instead for the same reason is just as equally bullshit. Keep fucking the rich and they will leave to a more tax friendly state or country then you will really be fucked, unless you plan on counting on the worthless all of sudden to flip your bills.Dilbert_X wrote:
Or to reverse the insane tax cuts of the previous admin, pay for the Iraq war and address the colossal budget deficit.lowing wrote:
They are not raising thier taxes to fund the function of govt. they are raising their taxes to redistribute it to others that did not earn it.
Anyway, what taxes are spent on is irrelevant for the purposes of this argument.
Are you prepared to take a tax hike to help the rich get a tax cut.
Answer the question
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-30 19:46:39)
I agree, so why should the rich have to pay more to use the same fuckin road as a poor person? and how can you say this is not punishment for being rich?Dilbert_X wrote:
What is fair is paying for the services you use.Nothing wrong with a consumption tax. This is a fair, pay taxes on what you spend.
Flat tax, consumption tax, they are as arbitrary as sliding tax scales.
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-30 19:48:03)
Then you need to agree to have your taxes go up, since currently the rich are subsidising your low taxes.lowing wrote:
I am advocating to stop increased taxes on the rich for the purposes of wealth redistibution.
The govt. siezes plenty of money as it is, no need for taxes to go up for anyone. I will be more fucked by the rich packing up and telling the rest of us to fuck off while they go find some place else to put their money other than some Obama redistribution project so yup, paying a FAIR tax is more desireable to me than losing the rich.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then you need to agree to have your taxes go up, since currently the rich are subsidising your low taxes.lowing wrote:
I am advocating to stop increased taxes on the rich for the purposes of wealth redistibution.
Tax revenue needs to come from somewhere.
What the govt then spends it on is not relevant to this single point, and hypothecation has never really been a part of any tax policy.
Maybe the extra taxes the rich pay are used solely to fund the military, so to be 'fair' to the rich the military should be closed down and the US should stop meddling in the ME.
Does that make sense?
