"The wealthy need to pay their share of taxes"...huh?

[XD 9 Loaded Sub-Compact]

Originally Posted by bigpov

That fits. And all the other liberal democrats in this country. My extended family are all a bunch of bleeding hearts and all seem to think along the same lines. Throw more and more money at the problem, i.e. public schools, government assistance, etc, and things are bound to get better. Like I said before, throwing endless amounts of cash into a faultering system won't fix it. Rules and regulations need to be changed and incorperated, then increasing the funding. Some liberals seem to see this as plain as day when it comes to the war, because that hurts Bush. But they can't see it when it comes to all this other stuff? I think most just turn a blind eye.

This sounds like the movie Billy Madison. The government is his father and the Billy are the liberals. It fits so well up untill the point where he finally graduates so he can be on his own of course.

[akhimark]

The whole graduated tax scam is morally wrong. It is the equivalent of requiring someone making $100k to pay twice as much for a product (car, food, whatever) than the person making $50k.

How is that fair? Because they can afford to pay more? Again - "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs." - Karl Marx

[FLSTFI Dave]

Originally Posted by FLSTFI Dave
Lets say I earn 100K a year, and Joe earns 25K a year. We are both married with 2 kids.
I am taxed at 29%, Joe is not taxed....that is our current tax code.

So Joe still has 25K, but I now only have 71K.

How is that fair?

Joe works 40 hours a week, I work 70 hours a week still fair.

Originally Posted by kannibul

That 71K goes a lot farther than 25K towards raising a family and existing.

Not argueing that 71K goes a lot farther, could be the reason I work 70 a week. Maybe Joe, if he put in 30 hours ot a week, would have a lot more money, and a lot less time....

Time is money.....

Why should he get the benifits of the extra 30 hours I work....

Why shouldn't he have to work the extra hours if he wants the extra benifits?

[FLSTFI Dave]

Originally Posted by kannibul

OK, two major issues with your post...

1) Teacher Salaries are rediculously low. 3months off a year is hardly compensation, all things considered. Remember, these are the people who are supposed to be prepping our children! You wonder why your kids are dumb - look at the teacher's salaries, and thing..would I give a **** if Johnny is a failure in life, when I make less than $35K/yr, and have to pay back my student loans?

2) You assume that someone making more money, automatically is working more hours/time. BS! How many corporate execs work 20hrs a week, and get paid 100K+/yr, and get "comps" and golden-parachute retirements...

Speaking of golden parachutes - how about those people in political office,their retirement? I'll say this...SS retirement won't be fixed until they are required to take it, and nothing else...

I know, my mom was a school teacher for 35 years, with two masters degrees. I also know exactly how much time off she had, way more than my dad. I agree teachers are not paid enough. But it illistrates my point, they have a lot of time off to spend with their children, a lot less in day care bills as the kids go to school similar hours. By the way, I have a degree in teaching. I planned to do that when I retired from the Navy, but when the best job offer was 32K a year I laughed.

Was not talking corp execs... I was talking working people who do make 100K

I took a job, as a maintenace team leader in a non union auto plant. 63K a year base, instead of the teaching job. I was making over 80K, but I had to work 65 plus hours a week. I could not opt out of OT or I would loose my job. I had two weeks paid vacation, which a couple years I was not allowed to take.

The above is why I used my example....They are realities from my life.

Yea, I left the auto plant, money was not worth the lack of time with my family.. Especially not when the govenment was taking 22K of the money I was making.

[FLSTFI Dave]

Originally Posted by east_stingray

Being a moral person means not stealing from others, even if it would benefit you. I'm glad to see we have people on the board who live by what they think is right rather than by what would put more money in their outstretched hand.

I agree with you. It also seems we do have some that believe they do deserve to reap the benifits of some one elses hard work or success.

Originally Posted by Frenchy

I don't want a system that redistributes wealth, rather a system that treat all wage earners equal. I don't believe any of us will argue that.

I am with you on the first statement, but the second, I have seen several on here that want the wealth redistribution.

Originally Posted by east_stingray

I think you're right. What we're arguing about is the definition of "equal".

Some here think that "equal" means everyone should pay an equal amount.

Some think that "equal" means everyone should pay an equal percentage.

Still others think that "equal" means everyone should be left with an equal amount of money in the bank once the tax man is done.

I am with you on the middle one, a poor person should not pay the same dollar amount as I do. I also do not believe the last one either.

I am for the equal percentage, but with a caviot for the poor.

For example maybe 30K or less income, 5% tax or no tax, 40K or more 10%....

Not necessarilly those exact numbers, but the poor should get a break, the the successful should not be penalized.

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Well...I'm in favor of a flat or fair tax, so that would be percentage.

Yep, with a break for the poor. Say if at the poverty level, pay no tax.

[akhimark]

The Basics of Communism - from Marx's The Communist Manifesto
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emmigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town of country by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Our country is headed in the wrong direction. We should not be going toward this failed system, we should be running away. Unfortunately, Obama and Hillary want to take us there in a jet boat and McCain is headed in that direction in a row boat.

[XD 9 Loaded Sub-Compact]

Originally Posted by akhimark

The Basics of Communism - from Marx's The Communist Manifesto
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emmigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town of country by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Our country is headed in the wrong direction. We should not be going toward this failed system, we should be running away. Unfortunately, Obama and Hillary want to take us there in a jet boat and McCain is headed in that direction in a row boat.

Dang it why did you have to go and put things in perspective?

[akhimark]

Originally Posted by XD 9 Loaded Sub-Compact

Dang it why did you have to go and put things in perspective?

I didn't mean to ruin all the fun being had in this thread, just maybe extend it a few more posts. Sorry (not)!

[FLSTFI Dave]

Originally Posted by akhimark

Our country is headed in the wrong direction. We should not be going toward this failed system, we should be running away. Unfortunately, Obama and Hillary want to take us there in a jet boat and McCain is headed in that direction in a row boat.

The whole post is good. The quoted part pretty much sums up the choices we have in 08

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by kannibul

What I also find funny about this whole thread is that I would wager...

That the majority of those arguing that the tax system is unfair today, or that taxing people who have more money, aren't anywhere near the same tax bracket as those would be impacted "negatively"

Originally Posted by jkswiss

I wasn't aware that this forum was populated by the top 10% of earners in our country.

Originally Posted by kannibul

Exactly, most of the people on here, I would again would wager, would see a reduction in their taxable income, should taxes be adjusted more towards those who have more, pay more...

I agree. It's ideological rigidity that runs many people on this forum.