Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Like Tree34Likes

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old April 14th, 2012, 12:14 PM   #51 (permalink)
New Member
 
Bearcat37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 13
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Sadly, I don't disagree with you. I'd love to disagree with you on all of that, but I can't. Politics in America is all about greed and power. Maybe not even in that order.



Ron Paul, much as I like him, would be a horrible President. He doesn't play the political game. His party dislikes him. The Democrats hate him. He would get absolutely nothing at all done because he wouldn't work with Congress and they wouldn't work with him. Paul is the guy in your office who insists on doing everything HIS way. Everyone hates that guy. His way might be right, but it doesn't matter. He doesn't play well with others and is convinced his way is right so everyone hates him. That's Ron Paul.

That right there is the problem. Going along with everyone else. No one is a leader and everyone follows. This is how we got to the overpowered government we are today because no one stood up to stop it. Please, No Obama Care.

Advertisements
Bearcat37 is offline  
sponsored links
Old April 14th, 2012, 04:28 PM   #52 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike114 View Post
And do you have any expectations that raising taxes will somehow pay off this debt? If you do, how much should taxes be raised to accomplish this? I could save you time by telling you that simply raising taxes will do nothing to reduce the debt we owe.

A combination of cuts across the board (like defense, which in case you haven't heard, we spend more than the next couple of nations COMBINED) regardless of whose pet project they are, AND tax hikes on those that profited most by eroding jobs overseas would be a 1-2 combination to help curb spending. Unfortunately, you have 1 side that doesn't care to compromise because they think compromise is a weakness, which also explains that party's failed foreign policy. I guess they have no idea what is meant by "Bend but don't break".
 
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
mms1946 (May 25th, 2012)
Old April 14th, 2012, 07:13 PM   #53 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,352
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 247 Times in 193 Posts
Default

how about a round of cuts across the board........ and cut every program by the same percentage desire to cut defense (which in case you havent heard, is one of the few spending areas specifically demanded under the constitution) followed by a round of tax increases...... and raise every person in the countries rate by the exact same percentage

and yes you are correct..... we have 1 side who refuses to compromise....... they believe compromise means increasing the spending by a smaller amount than they would like....... this is not a spending cut

I will gladly pay my fair share....... in fact I already pay quite a bit more than most (given that fact that about half the nation pays zero)....... when will everyone else pony up their fare share

as has been mentioned countless times throughout history...... eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend..... guess what........ youre running out
copestag is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to copestag For This Useful Post:
mms1946 (May 25th, 2012)
Old April 14th, 2012, 08:33 PM   #54 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Define "fair share".
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old April 14th, 2012, 11:08 PM   #55 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
9to5cynic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: /home/
Posts: 4,858
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (Verizon) Evo 4G - retired/rooted
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 3,066
Thanked 1,763 Times in 1,189 Posts
Send a message via AIM to 9to5cynic
Default

Is anyone concerned that really, it doesn't matter who wins because their views fall in similar pools, and the president still has to deal with congress...




9to5cynic is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to 9to5cynic For This Useful Post:
mms1946 (May 25th, 2012)
Old April 14th, 2012, 11:19 PM   #56 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearcat37 View Post
...Please, No Obama Care.
Without a mandate in the Affordable Care Act, people could just wait until they get sick to sign up for coverage. Then premiums would skyrocket to levels even more unaffordable than what we have now. To get the buy-in from insurance companies it requires delivering to the insurance companies millions of new customers.

The Act is good for business, especially small business and the country. Creates a more equal playing field for small business to compete for employees with big business.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Old April 15th, 2012, 01:51 AM   #57 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Define "fair share".

Typically this means "I'll overpay myself by millions so that when you tax me at a rate that I claim is "Fair", by default, I'll be paying a lower effective rate".

It's an argument I hear a lot from those that claim to bleed red, white, and blue, but ultimately are just trying to game the system (or those being gamed by those gaming the system). Sure, you can whine about paying a few percentage points higher than everyone else, but when you pay yourself EXPONENTIALLY more money than your position made back when we were a more prosperous nation (ironically the same period that the right wing have everyone convinced was more prosperous because spending was low and taxes were lower-- which actually the rate on the highest income is the lowest it's ever been) then you're still coming out ahead.
 
Old April 15th, 2012, 01:34 PM   #58 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Again, define "fair share". I've seen this argument made over and over again. People argue that people aren't paying their "fair share". That may or may not be a legit argument. The question remains what someone's "fair share" is. Once we determine what someone's "fair share" is, then we can determine if they're paying it or not.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old April 15th, 2012, 02:01 PM   #59 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Again, define "fair share". I've seen this argument made over and over again. People argue that people aren't paying their "fair share". That may or may not be a legit argument. The question remains what someone's "fair share" is. Once we determine what someone's "fair share" is, then we can determine if they're paying it or not.
My point was that it's subjective. Paying a "fair share" also would need to imply that people are being fairly compensated. There is no way everyone is being compensated fairly. If you've ever seen that TV show undercover boss, you'll generally see the CEO sucking wind and realizing that he/she has no idea what real hard physical labor is all about. Of course we as a society have no problem looking down our noses at people that do manual labor for a living, and then blasting them for not paying their "fair share".
 
Old April 15th, 2012, 03:54 PM   #60 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,352
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 247 Times in 193 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
My point was that it's subjective. Paying a "fair share" also would need to imply that people are being fairly compensated. There is no way everyone is being compensated fairly. If you've ever seen that TV show undercover boss, you'll generally see the CEO sucking wind and realizing that he/she has no idea what real hard physical labor is all about. Of course we as a society have no problem looking down our noses at people that do manual labor for a living, and then blasting them for not paying their "fair share".
youre just confused is all....... theres a difference between the government (which we...a small portion of we... pay taxes to) and PRIVATE industry (which pays the CEO of their company)

now if you want to complain about how much a CEO makes...... talk about the CEO of the company the tax dollars go to......... I believe Obama just reported earning an adjusted gross income of nearly $800K (I bet thats more than a lot of people make for working harder than he does)........ although in his defense as a family of four they paid $162K in taxes......well above their "fair share"

the exact definition of "fair share" in 2012 is 1/313,000,000 of the Federal Budget(this is of course if you forget the fact that businesses pay federal taxes as well just for the privilege of operating)........ this should apply to every man, woman, and child........ so if you have kids below working age who cannot provide for their "fair share" then as a parent its your responsibility to pay their share as well

so I as a parent who has a child under the working age and also a wife my "fair share" is 3/313,000,000 of the federal budget

whats your "fair share"? and have you ever come close to paying it?

wait you think fair is letting someone else pay your bills? you think freeloaders who dont pay a penny in taxes are paying their "fair share".... they are paying NO share.... how is that fair?

do you not receive the same benefits from the Federal Government that everyone else receives...... I would suggest that MANY receive more benefits than others and those are the people who dont pay any share at all while receiving money for nothing

so maybe you should rephrase your argument to say:

I want you to pay your "fair share" and my "fair share" as well....... because thats what you are arguing here....... you want someone else to pay the "fair share" of others

until every man woman and child pay an equal % in taxes then there can never be a "fair share"
copestag is offline  
Last edited by copestag; April 15th, 2012 at 03:56 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to copestag For This Useful Post:
mms1946 (May 25th, 2012)
sponsored links
Old April 15th, 2012, 04:23 PM   #61 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
My point was that it's subjective. Paying a "fair share" also would need to imply that people are being fairly compensated. There is no way everyone is being compensated fairly. If you've ever seen that TV show undercover boss, you'll generally see the CEO sucking wind and realizing that he/she has no idea what real hard physical labor is all about. Of course we as a society have no problem looking down our noses at people that do manual labor for a living, and then blasting them for not paying their "fair share".
So you think that what the CEO does on a daily basis is easy?

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
ylexot is offline  
Old April 15th, 2012, 04:28 PM   #62 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 752
 
Device(s): Samsung Epic 4G
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 77
Thanked 180 Times in 126 Posts
Default

tiered tax brackets are fair. oh wait....ummm...oh...ummm
batgeek is offline  
Old April 15th, 2012, 07:37 PM   #63 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
youre just confused is all....... theres a difference between the government (which we...a small portion of we... pay taxes to) and PRIVATE industry (which pays the CEO of their company)

now if you want to complain about how much a CEO makes...... talk about the CEO of the company the tax dollars go to......... I believe Obama just reported earning an adjusted gross income of nearly $800K (I bet thats more than a lot of people make for working harder than he does)........ although in his defense as a family of four they paid $162K in taxes......well above their "fair share"

the exact definition of "fair share" in 2012 is 1/313,000,000 of the Federal Budget(this is of course if you forget the fact that businesses pay federal taxes as well just for the privilege of operating)........ this should apply to every man, woman, and child........ so if you have kids below working age who cannot provide for their "fair share" then as a parent its your responsibility to pay their share as well

so I as a parent who has a child under the working age and also a wife my "fair share" is 3/313,000,000 of the federal budget

whats your "fair share"? and have you ever come close to paying it?

wait you think fair is letting someone else pay your bills? you think freeloaders who dont pay a penny in taxes are paying their "fair share".... they are paying NO share.... how is that fair?

do you not receive the same benefits from the Federal Government that everyone else receives...... I would suggest that MANY receive more benefits than others and those are the people who dont pay any share at all while receiving money for nothing

so maybe you should rephrase your argument to say:

I want you to pay your "fair share" and my "fair share" as well....... because thats what you are arguing here....... you want someone else to pay the "fair share" of others

until every man woman and child pay an equal % in taxes then there can never be a "fair share"

Like I said, you can't determine someone's "Fair share" when they are compensating themselves more than their fair share. Take a look here, find your employer, and ask yourself if your CEO makes the exponential amount of money listed more than you and if you believe that your contribution to the company is X/XXth (1/65th based on the example below) of his contribution. I'll give you an example if it's too much trouble.

Quote:
In 2010, Mark Aslett received $2,204,302 in total compensation. By comparison, the median worker made $33,840 in 2010. Mark Aslett made 65 times the median worker's pay.
So you're saying that Mark Aslett's "fair share" compensation-wise is 65 times MORE than the average employee and somehow he should be subject to paying the same "fair share"(1/313,000,000 of the Federal Budget per your definition of "fair share") that an average employee makes? Your assessment that I'm confused is rather humorous to me.




Quote:
Originally Posted by ylexot View Post
So you think that what the CEO does on a daily basis is easy?
How did you guess, that's EXACTLY what I said....

Most CEOs are overcompensated, but we're so programmed to believe that they earn every penny. To show you how programmed we are, it took the bailed out companies paying their executives insane bonuses immediately after being bailed out to outrage us.

This ties directly into why our political system is so corrupt. Why else would these large companies spend millions to buy politicians? Because they know BILLIONS are at stake. But, I guess as long as everyone is perfectly fine with believing that the "market will correct itself" and that these CEOs are compensating themselves "fairly", we'll continue to live out our sheep years until they decide that they can get more out of us at the slaughterhouse.
 
Last edited by TxGoat; April 15th, 2012 at 07:46 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
mms1946 (May 25th, 2012)
Old April 15th, 2012, 08:35 PM   #64 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,352
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 247 Times in 193 Posts
Default

yep..... youre very confused

what he does or doesnt contribute to his company as CEO vs what someone else contributes as the lowest rung on the ladder has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with the federal government

his fair share of paying to the federal government is exactly the same as everyone elses fair share of paying........ he receives exactly the same benefits from the federal government that everyone else does...... well perhaps less

why should he pay more to the federal government than anyone else exactly?

is it because of jealousy that he took the time to make something of himself and earn so much more money than someone else? he needs to be punished for doing something right?

Im sure others work hard at their job..... and Im sure they would like to have more money than they have........ guess what........ he also wanted to earn more money right before he decided to actually go out and earn more money

jealousy is one of the most basic of human emotions...... everyone experiences it at some point to some degree....... but that jealousy doesnt mean everyone else has to comply with the desires of others just to make them feel better about themselves

and class envy is among the most despicable forms of jealousy...... because its the fault of the jealous person that they dont have more
copestag is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to copestag For This Useful Post:
A.Nonymous (April 16th, 2012), IOWA (April 16th, 2012), mms1946 (May 25th, 2012)
Old April 15th, 2012, 09:36 PM   #65 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
9to5cynic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: /home/
Posts: 4,858
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (Verizon) Evo 4G - retired/rooted
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 3,066
Thanked 1,763 Times in 1,189 Posts
Send a message via AIM to 9to5cynic
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
I believe Obama just reported earning an adjusted gross income of nearly $800K (I bet thats more than a lot of people make for working harder than he does)........ although in his defense as a family of four they paid $162K in taxes......well above their "fair share"
And not to mention that there probably isn't much more stressful a job than President of the United States....
Quote:
the exact definition of "fair share" in 2012 is 1/313,000,000 of the Federal Budget(this is of course if you forget the fact that businesses pay federal taxes as well just for the privilege of operating)........ this should apply to every man, woman, and child........ so if you have kids below working age who cannot provide for their "fair share" then as a parent its your responsibility to pay their share as well
So, if everyone should pay 1/313.000.000, then shouldn't ever citizen make the same. I think you should factor in wealth into this equation. To me, this equation doesn't suit a free-market society.
9to5cynic is offline  
Last edited by 9to5cynic; April 15th, 2012 at 09:46 PM.
Old April 15th, 2012, 11:35 PM   #66 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,352
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 247 Times in 193 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9to5cynic View Post
And not to mention that there probably isn't much more stressful a job than President of the United States....
you dont believe being CEO of a company is stressful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9to5cynic View Post
So, if everyone should pay 1/313.000.000, then shouldn't ever citizen make the same. I think you should factor in wealth into this equation. To me, this equation doesn't suit a free-market society.
another confused person.....

how much wealth you have....... or how much money you make has NOTHING to do with "fair share" of taxes

free-market has nothing to do with the federal government either in regards to this matter

do you get to shop around and pay taxes to which government you feel like?

the federal government is an entity entirely seperate from PRIVATE BUSINESS

let me put this in terms you may understand a little better:

if 10 buddies all goto the local pub and run a single tab..... some of the buddies drink more than others....... some drink less....... but everyone is drinking some....... at the end of the night nobody knows for sure who drank how many....... but there is a bill to be paid........ who pays the bill?

do you all agree to split the bill evenly? or does the guy who drives a fancier car have to pay more?

what if the guy in the fancy car was one of the ones who only had 2 beers while the brokest guy of them all had 10 beers? is it really fancy car guy's "fair share" to have to pay evenly?...... no its not really his fair share but unless he kept track of exactly how many each drank he should just go ahead and pony up an even amount to be fair

the federal government is just a big pub....... each of us ... everyone of us.... is drinking on a tab....... and its pretty hard to say who is drinking exactly how much........ at the end of the year the bill is due........ should we all agree to split it evenly....... or should the guy who drives the fancy car pay more?

what if the guy in the fancy car drank less than the brokest guy of them all? is it really fancy car guy's "fair share" to pay more taxes than the broke guy?......nope he should pay evenly

the fact that we use % of income as a standard is in itself an inequality..... but we have to start somewhere since the freeloaders on this nation could never pony up their fair share in actual equal dollars

so to answer your question: no everyone shouldnt make the same...... you earn what you earn based on your own life choices......... that doesnt change the fact that another entity is wanting to collect on a bill that we all shared in creating and should all pay for equally

do you believe the "rich" receive an unfair portion of the federal government spending? perhaps you would better understand if I said we should create a system in which the federal government keeps exact records on who benefits from every dollar spent...... and those beneficiaries are then responsible for repayment of that dollar? since you want to compare it to free-market......... thats how it would work in a free market......... you receive $XXX in use out of federal spending, you now owe the federal government $XXX

but its not a free market... its the federal government...... and we all must accept that we have to share in paying for all federal expenditures.... even if we get nothing out of that spending........ this is how we share the burden for the cost of things like roads and education... even if we dont use every road or go to every school....... we share that burden equally...... or at least we should share it equally....... we are already at a huge imbalance on who carries the vast majority of that burden (reminder: about 50% pay absolutely zero for any of it.... and in fact a certain portion actually get additional funds given to them for no reason at all)

I havent looked at the 2011 rates to check the exact figures so I will use 2010 which I did look at:

a family of 4 using standard deductions had to earn more than $50K before they paid 1 red cent in federal taxes

if memory serves me without checking ..... at $49,900 that same family actually received about $42 additional from the federal government for absolutely no reason at all..... and that number increased as the income decreased

now can you tell me that a family earning $50K ...... which is middle class..... and actually not bad in some parts of this country....... is paying their "fair share" at $0
copestag is offline  
Last edited by copestag; April 15th, 2012 at 11:42 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to copestag For This Useful Post:
mms1946 (May 25th, 2012)
Old April 15th, 2012, 11:49 PM   #67 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 752
 
Device(s): Samsung Epic 4G
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 77
Thanked 180 Times in 126 Posts
Default

all that, and not a one is going to understand it.

good post.
batgeek is offline  
Old April 15th, 2012, 11:53 PM   #68 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
yep..... youre very confused

what he does or doesnt contribute to his company as CEO vs what someone else contributes as the lowest rung on the ladder has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with the federal government

his fair share of paying to the federal government is exactly the same as everyone elses fair share of paying........ he receives exactly the same benefits from the federal government that everyone else does...... well perhaps less

why should he pay more to the federal government than anyone else exactly?

is it because of jealousy that he took the time to make something of himself and earn so much more money than someone else? he needs to be punished for doing something right?

Im sure others work hard at their job..... and Im sure they would like to have more money than they have........ guess what........ he also wanted to earn more money right before he decided to actually go out and earn more money

jealousy is one of the most basic of human emotions...... everyone experiences it at some point to some degree....... but that jealousy doesnt mean everyone else has to comply with the desires of others just to make them feel better about themselves

and class envy is among the most despicable forms of jealousy...... because its the fault of the jealous person that they dont have more


So you think a CEO benefits the same from the average worker from a government's infrastructure? Are you serious? A company benefits from the infrastructure that tax dollars pay for more than the average worker. Just think of all the commerce that takes place on public roads. I guess I have as much commerce taking place as the CEO of a major corporation.....The sad part is that you're accusing everyone of being confused......
 
Old April 16th, 2012, 12:09 AM   #69 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 752
 
Device(s): Samsung Epic 4G
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 77
Thanked 180 Times in 126 Posts
Default

what he is saying is AS A CITIZEN what he owes to the government is EXACTLY what every other citizen should owe.

his job doesn't matter. his pay doesn't matter. the company he works for doesn't matter. etc, etc, so forth and so on.

not hard to understand. i bolded the important parts for you.
batgeek is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 01:49 AM   #70 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,352
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 247 Times in 193 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
So you think a CEO benefits the same from the average worker from a government's infrastructure? Are you serious? A company benefits from the infrastructure that tax dollars pay for more than the average worker. Just think of all the commerce that takes place on public roads. I guess I have as much commerce taking place as the CEO of a major corporation.....The sad part is that you're accusing everyone of being confused......

see you just keep getting yourself confused even more

do you think the CEO is provided with gold brick roads to drive on? these roads are resticted to CEO use only I guess.... of course you benefit EXACTLY the same from roads as the CEO..... he's an individual person who drives just like you

the company on the other hand of course may benefit more from the infrastructure than you as an individual....... it also may benefit more than the CEO as an individual......... you do realize you are BOTH just employees of the company

and yes as far as the company's commerce is concerned....... you do exactly the same amount of commerce as the CEO....... you both work there dont you

Im guessing youve never gone to the store to buy anything..... so you dont benefit from all the commerce taking place on those public roads at all.... or did you think magic ferries brought it there?

reminds me of the argument about hunters........ its wrong to be killing animals for food...... they should go to the store and buy their meat like everyone else

I cant speak about his individual commerce....... he hasnt invited me on any of his trips to the mall or the grocery store....... nor have you

and by the way...... that commerce that is taking place on public roads costs the company in the prices that the company has to pay for the shipping company........ which in turn has to pay very large fees to the federal and state governments to use those public roads
copestag is offline  
sponsored links
Old April 16th, 2012, 02:45 AM   #71 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 752
 
Device(s): Samsung Epic 4G
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 77
Thanked 180 Times in 126 Posts
Default

in summation:

the rich should pay more taxes. the poor should pay less. that is what is called fair.


disclaimer - that is not my stance
batgeek is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 02:54 AM   #72 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,352
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 247 Times in 193 Posts
Default

ahhh yes that is the stance they seem to have

my only question is.......

if the poor already pay zero...... and in fact get back more than they paid in as a bonus.......... how could they pay less?

I will take the liberty of revising the stance a bit:

the rich should pay more in taxes.... so the poor should never have to pay a penny
copestag is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 05:34 AM   #73 (permalink)
TxGoat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Default

Wow, so now the poor pay NO taxes? I think you're mistaking the "poor" with the money that Mitt Romney hides in other countries.

I'll say this one more time and I'll type it slower so you'll understand. If a citizen/corporation has MORE TO GAIN from a system that's in place then why is it so difficult to ask them to pay a little more into that system?

Now to bring this thread back on topic, if Romney pays his "fair share", why has he been so hesitant to release his tax records?

Joe the plummer had the same problem. He thought that his fight was the same fight as the top tier income earners. It's not. They pay more in taxes in one year than Joe the plummer would earn in more than a few years, and guess what? It's probably an even lower rate than he pays per year.
 
Old April 16th, 2012, 05:50 AM   #74 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 129
 
Device(s): GS2 Skyrocket
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 7
Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Perhaps 'fair share' of Federal income tax could be defined as paying an amount proportionate to the amount of Federal government provided services that a person uses?

Probably wouldn't be very popular though as many lower income people and higher ranking public officials would likely be burdened with a higher tax rate than they currently do.

I think one of the largest obstacles to overcome are in the form of the multitude of additional taxes and fees we all pay over and above the Federal income tax.

Another obstacle that will always remain lies with the criminal population that are not paying their fair share, whatever that fair share is deemed to be.

There can never be a perfect taxation system, but we can always strive for a better one. I think a good start would be to control government spending and waste.

As far as Obama vs Romney, I've never liked the Democratic Party's platforms and was once fooled into thinking the Republicans had the right idea for the most part. These days my views are mostly Libertarian but I identify with Ron Paul's ideas more than anyone else running for the office.

That said, I'm worried that Romney would bring back more of the Bush type policies with further increases to Homeland security, civil rights infringements and involvement in more foreign military actions.

I never thought I'd hear myself say that the country may well be better off with Obama in place for the next 4 years. That's reason enough to never say never
FJR1300 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to FJR1300 For This Useful Post:
mms1946 (May 25th, 2012)
Old April 16th, 2012, 07:46 AM   #75 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
Wow, so now the poor pay NO taxes?
Yes.
Who's not paying federal income tax? ? USATODAY.com
Quote:
Amid complaints that nearly half of tax filers in the U.S. won't pay federal income taxes this year, this has been lost: Those making $75,000-$100,000 a year are the fastest-growing share of people who don't pay federal income taxes.
...
The lowest-income Americans — those who make less than $25,000 a year — account for the largest number of those not paying any federal income tax: 76% as of 2009.
So, half of tax filers pay no taxes and ~3/4 of them are poor. Another way of saying that is ~3/8 of tax filers are poor people who pay no taxes.
ylexot is offline  
Last edited by ylexot; April 16th, 2012 at 07:49 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to ylexot For This Useful Post:
mms1946 (May 25th, 2012)
Old April 16th, 2012, 08:40 AM   #76 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batgeek View Post
in summation:

the rich should pay more taxes. the poor should pay less. that is what is called fair.


disclaimer - that is not my stance
And that is a conclusion that I disagree with. It basically encourages people to be poor because you will be financially punished by being rich. It amounts to little more than negative re-enforcement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
I'll say this one more time and I'll type it slower so you'll understand. If a citizen/corporation has MORE TO GAIN from a system that's in place then why is it so difficult to ask them to pay a little more into that system?
I would argue that the poor have more to gain from the system than the wealthy. The wealthiest of Americans are going to benefit from public roads and emergency services and probably not much more than that. Their kids are in private schools. They pay for their own medical services. If they get fired they've got millions in the bank (sometimes literally) so they don't get unemployment. They use very few government services. The middle class are going to benefit from public roads, emergency services, schools, federal disaster cleanup and probably unemployment as well if they lose their jobs. Move down to the poorest and they're going to utilize all of those services plus Medicare/Medicaid (which are very expensive programs) and other federally funded health programs. They are also likely to utilize government subsidized housing and food programs as well subsidized job training programs.

In short, the poor use far more government services than the wealthy do. If you want to use the logic that those using the services should pay and those who aren't shouldn't, then the tax burden is going to fall heavily on the poor. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm fairly sure that's not it.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 10:38 AM   #77 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Personally, I'm a proponent of the FairTax:
FairTax | American for Fair Taxation | Tax Reform Solutions | Consumption Tax - Americans For Fair Taxation
ylexot is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 10:46 AM   #78 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Consumption Taxes hurt the poor the most. I'm in favour of high consumption taxes for bad things like oil, coal, natural gas, alcohol, cigarettes etc as well as things like electricity and water. However I feel these must be balanced out to lessen the hit on those on lower incomes, i.e. tax credits and universal services.
A 23% federal sales tax is the same rate we pay in Ireland (There is no local VAT/Sales taxes here, and the European sales tax is taken from the national collection afterwards), which I think is a fair bit too high, and 23% for services?? Really?
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 10:50 AM   #79 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Consumption Taxes hurt the poor the most. I'm in favour of high consumption taxes for bad things like oil, coal, natural gas, alcohol, cigarettes etc as well as things like electricity and water. However I feel these must be balanced out to lessen the hit on those on lower incomes, i.e. tax credits and universal services.
A 23% federal sales tax is the same rate we pay in Ireland (There is no local VAT/Sales taxes here, and the European sales tax is taken from the national collection afterwards), which I think is a fair bit too high, and 23% for services?? Really?
Have you read anything about FairTax? Maybe this will help you out:
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxIsGoodForYoungAndLowIncomeFamilies.pdf
ylexot is offline  
Last edited by ylexot; April 16th, 2012 at 11:12 AM.
Old April 16th, 2012, 01:21 PM   #80 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ylexot View Post
Have you read anything about FairTax? Maybe this will help you out:
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxIsGoodForYoungAndLowIncomeFamilies.pdf
I have, although not a whole pile. Just read it there... and yeah, I dont see any rebate proposals or anything. That's done nothing to alleviate my concerns.
Also, regarding half the population not paying federal income tax, why should they? The federal government mostly spends its budget on the military, justice etc, not on education, transport or other vital services. I think the top 50% should pay some federal income tax, sure. Lets not forget that people have to deal with state and local taxes. Never ceases to amaze me how states right people completely forget about their own states and localities.
ElasticNinja is offline  
sponsored links
Old April 16th, 2012, 01:49 PM   #81 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
I have, although not a whole pile. Just read it there... and yeah, I dont see any rebate proposals or anything. That's done nothing to alleviate my concerns.
Must not have read very well since the number three bullet is:
Quote:
The FairTax allows every family to purchase necessities tax free via a rebate system that exempts all spending up to the poverty level, as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Also, regarding half the population not paying federal income tax, why should they? The federal government mostly spends its budget on the military, justice etc, not on education, transport or other vital services. I think the top 50% should pay some federal income tax, sure. Lets not forget that people have to deal with state and local taxes. Never ceases to amaze me how states right people completely forget about their own states and localities.
Actually, the federal government spends most if its budget on Social Security and Medicare...and those percentages are on the rise.

As for the states, they can do the same thing if they want. Chances are, if they have a similar system to the federal tax system, the poor pay nothing in state/local taxes.
ylexot is offline  
Last edited by ylexot; April 16th, 2012 at 01:51 PM.
Old April 16th, 2012, 01:55 PM   #82 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ylexot View Post
Must not have read very well since the number three bullet is:


Actually, the federal government spends most if its budget on Social Security and Medicare...and those percentages are on the rise.

As for the states, they can do the same thing if they want. Chances are, if they have a similar system to the federal tax system, the poor pay nothing in state/local taxes.
I clearly didnt read it properly But anyway, but the US poverty level is like 10%.. so yeah that would push the Gini index up another ten points or so, if the rebate was that crap.

Social security is not funded by normal taxes, its an insurance system paid from a seperate levy on income. Surely they dont plan to remove that? Heh.
I've no idea how medicare is funded... but I dont expect people on lower incomes to pay for even half their healthcare, thats ridiculous.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Last edited by ElasticNinja; April 16th, 2012 at 01:59 PM.
Old April 16th, 2012, 02:00 PM   #83 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Social security is not funded by normal taxes, its an insurance system paid from a seperate levy on income. Surely they dont plan to remove that? Heh.
I wish they would remove that bloated unconstitutional ponzi scheme. But that's ok, FairTax takes it into account anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
I've no idea how medicare is funded... but I dont expect people on lower incomes to pay for even half their healthcare, thats ridiculous.
Where did I say anything remotely related to that? Of course, I think those bloated unconstitutional programs should be removed as well.
ylexot is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 02:19 PM   #84 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ylexot View Post
I wish they would remove that bloated unconstitutional ponzi scheme. But that's ok, FairTax takes it into account anyway.
And replace it with what? In a federation with similar costs in every state, federal Social Welfare makes a lot of sense. I guess it could be delegated to states, but that would take a ridiculous amount of effort and hassle, and every state would have to provide a minumum level of protection. The U.S.'s safety net is crap enough as it is, you hardly suggest getting rid of it altogether?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ylexot View Post
Where did I say anything remotely related to that? Of course, I think those bloated unconstitutional programs should be removed as well.
Aaaaaand replace it with what?
ElasticNinja is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 02:55 PM   #85 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
And replace it with what? In a federation with similar costs in every state, federal Social Welfare makes a lot of sense. I guess it could be delegated to states, but that would take a ridiculous amount of effort and hassle, and every state would have to provide a minumum level of protection. The U.S.'s safety net is crap enough as it is, you hardly suggest getting rid of it altogether?


Aaaaaand replace it with what?
Replace it with absolutely nothing. Want to retire? Save your own money. Want health care? Get a job and pay for it. Personal charity is the safety net...or at least it used to be until it was usurped by the government. Sure, it's still there, but not like it was in the past.
ylexot is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to ylexot For This Useful Post:
batgeek (April 16th, 2012)
Old April 16th, 2012, 02:56 PM   #86 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 752
 
Device(s): Samsung Epic 4G
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 77
Thanked 180 Times in 126 Posts
Default

nothing. let the strong survive and the weak die.
batgeek is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 03:07 PM   #87 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ylexot View Post
Replace it with absolutely nothing. Want to retire? Save your own money. Want health care? Get a job and pay for it. Personal charity is the safety net...or at least it used to be until it was usurped by the government. Sure, it's still there, but not like it was in the past.
The problem is people won't save for retirement. How many people today are adequately saving for retirement? Yet I don't know anyone who expects Social Security to be there for them. People won't pay for their health care either for the most part. Those people then become a drain on society. Here's a 90 year old man who is still working because he can't afford to retire and he has alzheimers. What can we do? No one stands up and blames him. It's considered extremely rude, in general, to blame people for their problems.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 03:13 PM   #88 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 752
 
Device(s): Samsung Epic 4G
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 77
Thanked 180 Times in 126 Posts
Default

i blame them.

i plan accordingly for the future. i take care of me and my own. it's no one else's responsibility to do that.

and no one should be FORCED to do that for anyone else.
batgeek is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 03:23 PM   #89 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ylexot View Post
Replace it with absolutely nothing. Want to retire? Save your own money. Want health care? Get a job and pay for it. Personal charity is the safety net...or at least it used to be until it was usurped by the government. Sure, it's still there, but not like it was in the past.
Wow...
I thought we left these ideas behind after WWII.

Quote:
Originally Posted by batgeek View Post
nothing. let the strong survive and the weak die.
So if you were born an orphan with cerebal palsy, you should be thrown out on the street and left to die? Niiiiice. Also disgusting.

Even the far right doesnt spout that kind of crap here. Go Europe huh?
ElasticNinja is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 03:26 PM   #90 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
The problem is people won't save for retirement. How many people today are adequately saving for retirement? Yet I don't know anyone who expects Social Security to be there for them. People won't pay for their health care either for the most part. Those people then become a drain on society. Here's a 90 year old man who is still working because he can't afford to retire and he has alzheimers. What can we do? No one stands up and blames him. It's considered extremely rude, in general, to blame people for their problems.
Hmmm, plan for a pension and have $200 + $100 a week, or just dont bother/cant afford and get your $100. I'd certainly plan a pension, but then again, with investment funds, you can lose everything.

As for healthcare, its frankly ridiculous to expect people to pay $200K out of their assets, everyone should have insurance, if they cant afford it, the state should pay.
ElasticNinja is offline  
sponsored links
Old April 16th, 2012, 03:31 PM   #91 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
The problem is people won't save for retirement. How many people today are adequately saving for retirement? Yet I don't know anyone who expects Social Security to be there for them. People won't pay for their health care either for the most part. Those people then become a drain on society. Here's a 90 year old man who is still working because he can't afford to retire and he has alzheimers. What can we do? No one stands up and blames him. It's considered extremely rude, in general, to blame people for their problems.
Sucks to be them.
ylexot is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 03:33 PM   #92 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Hmmm, plan for a pension and have $200 + $100 a week, or just dont bother/cant afford and get your $100. I'd certainly plan a pension, but then again, with investment funds, you can lose everything.
Bull. You won't lose everything in an investment fund unless the entire economy of the world collapses...in which case, your money isn't worth anything anyway. And the performance out of that plan is better than SS. So, instead of SS getting pulled out of your check, you invest it...or maybe just put it in the bank where it gains interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
As for healthcare, its frankly ridiculous to expect people to pay $200K out of their assets, everyone should have insurance, if they cant afford it, the state should pay.
Who's paying $200k for what?
ylexot is offline  
Last edited by ylexot; April 16th, 2012 at 03:38 PM.
Old April 16th, 2012, 03:37 PM   #93 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Wow...
I thought we left these ideas behind after WWII.
Yeah, those antiquated ideas of saving, working hard, and caring for your fellow man...oh, and don't forget that silly Constitution. It's just soooooo...OLD! And OMG they talked funny back then. ROTFLMAO!

I know, right?
ylexot is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 03:40 PM   #94 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Of course, we have gotten waaaaaaaaay off topic. What was the topic again?
ylexot is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 03:43 PM   #95 (permalink)
No One...
 
noonehereyet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 3,129
 
Device(s): G1, Cliq, Vibrant, MyTouch 4G, G2x, Amaze, Galaxy Nexus
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3
Thanked 78 Times in 58 Posts
Send a message via AIM to noonehereyet
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxGoat View Post
I never thought Bush would get elected to his 2nd term, and we all know how that turned out. I think a lot of people may figure Obama will beat whatever GOP candidate is out there and thus not take the time to vote. Granted, I think the GOP candidates have done Obama's work for him once the primaries roll around. All you have to do is play back every candidate's negative ads against Romney, and then there are the GOP candidates that "freudianly" support Obama...

Senator John McCain Endorses President Barack Obama - YouTube
The simple fact and problem is that YOU and WE DO NOT elect the president, and your vote means nothing. This is something we are all taught in school and most seem to have forgotten. It's called the Electoral College- Read here Electoral College. They are the ones who actually elect the president and 5 times in our history the popular/peoples vote was not elected as president. Voting on a Federal level is not the answer... The issue is State based and who you elect locally that decides who becomes president. That being said the issue becomes who on a state level do the candidates have in their pockets...
__________________

My Blog
noonehereyet is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 04:20 PM   #96 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
the exact definition of "fair share" in 2012 is 1/313,000,000 of the Federal Budget(this is of course if you forget the fact that businesses pay federal taxes as well just for the privilege of operating)........ this should apply to every man, woman, and child........ so if you have kids below working age who cannot provide for their "fair share" then as a parent its your responsibility to pay their share as well
I did the math on this just for shits and giggles. Comes out to about $12k a person more or less. This is going to change from year to year based on the annual operating budget of the federal government of course. So Obama and other high income earners are paying far, far more than their share and I would guess that schmucks like us are probably paying less than $12k.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 04:55 PM   #97 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 752
 
Device(s): Samsung Epic 4G
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 77
Thanked 180 Times in 126 Posts
Default

i filed my extention about an hour ago. i'm paying far more than 12K.

i don't have taxes taken out of my paycheck because i refuse to give the govt an interest free loan.

i save to pay my entire bill at the end of the tax period. i save in an IRA and a 401K. i have other investments that i pay into every month also.

i live a modst lifestyle. saving isn't hard if you aren't a freakin' idiot.
batgeek is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 05:00 PM   #98 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by batgeek View Post
i filed my extention about an hour ago. i'm paying far more than 12K.

i don't have taxes taken out of my paycheck because i refuse to give the govt an interest free loan.

i save to pay my entire bill at the end of the tax period. i save in an IRA and a 401K. i have other investments that i pay into every month also.

i live a modst lifestyle. saving isn't hard if you aren't a freakin' idiot.
If you're withholding on yourself, you'd have the money in the bank wouldn't you?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 05:05 PM   #99 (permalink)
New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

What I find most troublesome about folks passing around stats and what they perceive as facts is that nobody points out this recession was originally initiated around 12 years ago yet the pandering to polls and stats never actually touch on why. Ironically I see republicans running around speaking about fiscal restraint yet their guy paul ryan submits the most ridiculously impossible budgets imaginable. Republicans are not fiscally conservative at all infact republicans have single handedly turned the middle class into the largest recipients of federal assistance. The poor of america used to be 54% of the aid recipients..they now account for less than 30% and the middle class is at at a whopping 59%. During Bush's presidency we had zero job growth and more waste than any presidency in history..folks cannot expect someone with 4 years on the job whose had to fight tooth and nail to pass logical measures to keep this country afloat to fix problems that existed for so long. The one notable republican who i can say was worth his weight was reagan and his one tax rate for everyone.
Digiboom is offline  
Old April 16th, 2012, 05:18 PM   #100 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Neither party is fiscally responsible. I think that much is clear.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Closed Thread


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.