------------------ "One reason I like to highlight reading is, reading is the beginnings of the ability to be a good student. And if you can't read, it's going to be hard to realize dreams, it's going to be hard to go to college. So when your teachers say, read--you ought to listen to her." ~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States
posted
JK: "I'm the richest person on the face of the earth, and it doesn't have to do with bonds or checking accounts. It has to do with the people who love me."
Easy tiger.
------------------ "And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!" -Bubbles
posted
Bushy-boy wants to get more working-class people into the middle-class catagory? That sounds, well, wrong. Mainly because it's forcing people into man-made catagories of perceived wealth, but also for other reasons that I'm sure are really evil. If I could think of them.
[This message has been edited by PsyLiam (edited February 13, 2001).]
I'm simply saying, that if you really do believe in God and follow the Bible like you claim too, then being greedy would be ... hypocritical? No, not you.
Okay, here we go.
Rich guy makes $100 ka-billion-million dollars. He pays 20% in taxes, so that's 20 ka-billion million dollars he pays.
Bush's tax cut will decrease the Fed budget by ... I dunno, let's say 10%. Of the 100% of that cut, Mr. Rich Guy gets a 43% cut of it. So he is now only paying 57% of the 20 ka-billion million dollars he paid last years in taxes. Clear? That's not fair. He should get a 20% cut.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
Now, I may be reading outdated materials, but I just looked at a magazine article about Bush's tax plan that says that the taxation bracket for people with incomes is what changes, and not by much: (This is for married couples, though)
Will someone tell me how this is a 43% tax cut? Looks like around TWENTY Percent to me...
Whereas I, according to this same article, will see my taxes reduced, at worst, from 15% to 10%, (possibly further) which is a THIRTY percent or more tax cut.
(Reader's Digest New Choices, October 2000)
------------------ "My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited February 13, 2001).]
In 2000, the wealthies 10 percent of taxpayers - a group whose income begins at $100,000 - paid 66 percent of federal taxes (including payrool and excise taxes), estimates the Joint Committe. In that group, the wealthiest 1 percent - incomes generally above $300,000 - paid 34% of income taxes and 19 percent of all taxes
and
43 percent of benefits (including the estate-tax repeal) flows to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans
--Newsweek, Feb 19, 2001
So, they pay 34% of taxes and get 43% of the tax cut benefits, huh? I do call that unfair. They should only get 34% of the tax cut. What is so fucking hard to understand about this?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
Unless you believe that it's already unfair to make the people who earn more pay more percentagewise as WELL as simply pay more cashwise, the logic behind the fact of which I have yet to be shown by any tax proponents.
And, of course, that wealthiest 10% generates HOW MUCH of the ancillary wealth of the rest of the country by being the driving forces behind industries, production, and employment?
You know, some rich guy whose name escapes me has just donated a huge amount of money to my hometown (he's from there, too) for the construction of a library/science technology and reference center. This is cash we'd never have gotten from the government, without jumping through 50-odd hoops or so. I know this, because the city council's been trying for years to do just that thing.
Of course, he couldn't have donated that money if he'd had to pay it to the Feds as taxes. How much could he have donated if he'd had 20, 30, or even 40% more, over several years?
I can tell you what, as an impoverished county with a small fraction of people with old 'coal money' and 'steel money,' we see a lot more coming our way from donations from those rich residents and companies than we EVER see from the federal government. (State, yes. We at the library get some state aid. But not Federal. I think the last Federal project in this area was the building of the National Road. (back in the mid 1800's)
------------------ "My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q
Look, it's real simple here. I don't think people should get a larger percent tax break than what they pay. I really don't get what's so hard to understand about this.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
What's hard to understand about it is that it ain't so. You can't get a break larger than you pay. Nobody is. Nobody's even close. 43% of 33% isn't the same as 33%.
If I'm making 1,000,000, and I'm paying 33% in taxes, I'm paying 333,333. Even if I get a 43% tax cut, I'm still paying upwards of 170,000, because that's 57% of what I'm ALREADY paying. I'm NOT getting the whole enchilada back, far from it.
And as I said before, I don't see how a drop in the income tax bracket rate from 39.6% to 33% is a 43% drop. Do you?
------------------ "My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q
posted
JK's entire argument seems based on the (false) precept that the tax burden is fairly distributed to begin with. Why should the rich pay a greater percentage of what they earn? And don't give me, "They don't need it." Whether they need it or not is irrelevant. It's still theirs, and you have no right to take it unless you treat others equally.
Also, why should the "rich" have their estates taxed? This harms the economy, and is simply taxing the income for the second or third time. Again, unfair.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited February 13, 2001).]
posted
Here is the tax rates given for 2000. This is from the Small Business Resource Guide 2000 that the IRS sent me when I started my business last year. ****The gifs are large, so I won't post them, 725x967 pxls**** If you want a copy go to the IRS and get a CD sent to you. This has all kinds of tax info, reguarding dependents, health and life insurance deductions, and much more.
------------------ "One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant Star Trek: Legacy Read them, rate them, got money, film them
"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV
[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited February 13, 2001).]
DUH. Didn't I make it clear that I understand that 43% of the tax cut is much less than 33% of the taxes they're paying? Hello?! Anyone home?! The point is, no tax cut of a percentage GREATER than that they're already getting. Re-read some of my examples.
Omega, I'm not even going to respond to that. They're taxed unfairly? You wanna show examples? No, you use cute sound bites and don't back yourself up. Be quiet, or contribute something to the debate. The rich are taxed unfairly? Prove it!
Speaking of which, I did my taxes today. I'm getting about $700 back in Federal and State. I don't need a tax cut of any kind whatsoever, and speaking for myself, I like getting refund checks.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
I'm fairly certain, that in higher pay exchelons, the amount they pay as compared to what they earn is a higher ratio than what you pay in regards to your earnings.
------------------ "...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.
The more you make, the more you are expected to contribute back to society, both in taxes and other services that Republicans in here have listed.
Besides which, if I'm in the top 1%, I'm not going to need to buy another sports car. Honestly, if I can't make it without that extra $50k I'd save, I don't deserve to be in the top 1%.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
The more you make, the more you are expected to contribute back to society
Again, this is why we use percentages. Someone making $1,000,000 would pay 100 times the taxes that someone making $10,000 would pay. Sounds like he'd be contributing more to society.
The rich are taxed unfairly? Prove it!
The rich are treated worse than the poor by the government. They are effectively punished for doing no wrong. The tax code is thus unfair.
Gee, that was easy.
You've got three basic possible tax systems.
A: Everyone pays the same dollar amount in taxes. The percentage of income paid increases as total income paid increases as total absolute income decreases.
B: Everyone pays a certain ratio of their income in taxes. The percentage of total income paid remains the same across the board.
C: Everyone ends up with the same total income after taxes. The percentage paid increases with income.
"A" is obviously unfair. "C" is obviously unfair, and socialistic/communistic on top of that. "B" is the very definition of fairness, as everyone is treated equally.
I support "B". You support, what, some hybrid?
Tell me what you'd think of this: we ditch the income tax and go to a sales tax. The rich still pay more, because they buy more, but people like you can't discriminate based upon success.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited February 14, 2001).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
