Kerry's tax plan

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Broken8ball
You know, socialists like you make me sick. You are the reason this country is going down the tubes.

Originally posted by Broken8ball
Pretty soon you liberals are going to want to replace the eagle as the national symbol with the hammer and sickle and rewrite the constitution.

Why is it that this type of debate always seems to bring the McCarthyist morons out of the woodwork ? I'm no socialist, but I could see how you might have missed that since they didn't cover it until after 3rd grade

 

[Tinks]

And why shouldn't someone who can afford it, pay a little more than someone who has no more to pay?

This is the argument that makes me sick to my stomach. I do not mean you personally, Bedknobbery2

People who want this type of system have no argument so it comes back to "You have more so it shouldn't matter if you pay more."

Yes, it does matter. You shouldn't take more just because I earn more. It doesn't make sense. Equal means the same treatment for everyone regardless of race, sex, religion, or income level. Period.

And for the record I don't "piss and moan" about paying taxes. I piss and moan that I pay nearly half my salary in taxes and others pay a lesser percentage or nothing at all....just because they make less.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by Tinks
People who want this type of system have no argument so it comes back to "You have more so it shouldn't matter if you pay more."

Yes, it does matter. You shouldn't take more just because I earn more. It doesn't make sense. Equal means the same treatment for everyone regardless of race, sex, religion, or income level. Period.

And for the record I don't "piss and moan" about paying taxes. I piss and moan that I pay nearly half my salary in taxes and others pay a lesser percentage or nothing at all....just because they make less.

Conversely, though, Tink, a person of lesser income could say they shouldn't have to sacrafice more so that YOU can have more? Don't they deserve to eat, too? Don't they deserve to have a roof over their heads, too? I just don't understand why that is so difficult a concept for people to grasp. As wrevy asked--are you, then, willing to swap jobs and living situations so that you can be the lucky one who "pays a lesser percentage or nothing at all"?

 

[Tinks]

Conversely, though, Tink, a person of lesser income could say they shouldn't have to sacrafice more so that YOU can have more? Don't they deserve to eat, too? Don't they deserve to have a roof over their heads, too?

I'm not asking them to sacrifice more. (That made me laugh out loud, by the way!) I 'm asking them to sacrifice the same. It matters not if they make $1 million or $10,000. It matters not if I make $1 million or $10,000. We should pay the same percentage of our income. Yes, they deserve to eat and live any way they choose, but no one--me, you, or person x,y,or z ---should have to pay more of our own money to insure a way of life for someone else.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Tinks
I'm not asking them to sacrifice more. (That made me laugh out loud, by the way!) I 'm asking them to sacrifice the same. It matters not if they make $1 million or $10,000. It matters not if I make $1 million or $10,000. We should pay the same percentage of our income. Yes, they deserve to eat and live any way they choose, but no one--me, you, or person x,y,or z ---should have to pay more of our own money to insure a way of life for someone else.

But it's NOT the same, and that's what people "whining" about this don't seem to grasp.

If you make $200,000 a year and pay 15% in taxes, you will still have $170,000 after taxes. A significant amount that will not appreciably lower your standard of living.

If a person making $20,000 is forced to pay the same, 15% rate, they will be bringing home $17,000 after taxes. At this level, that $3000 will make a MUCH larger change to their standard of living than the person making $200,000.

THAT is why a flat tax will simply not work. It APPEARS fair, on the surface, but it has a real affect on the poorest people that is WAY out of proportion to those at the other end of the economic spectrum.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by Tinks
I piss and moan that I pay nearly half my salary in taxes and others pay a lesser percentage or nothing at all....just because they make less.

Tinks--I'm guessing you don't really pay nearly half your salary in taxes. Our state tax rate is REALLY low (3%). And there's no one paying federal income taxes with an effective tax rate of anywhere near 47%.

Sure your check may be half of what you make, but there's all kinds of other deductions (401K, insurance, flexible spending) in addition to taxes that apply.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by Tinks
I'm not asking them to sacrifice more. (That made me laugh out loud, by the way!) I 'm asking them to sacrifice the same. It matters not if they make $1 million or $10,000. It matters not if I make $1 million or $10,000. We should pay the same percentage of our income. Yes, they deserve to eat and live any way they choose, but no one--me, you, or person x,y,or z ---should have to pay more of our own money to insure a way of life for someone else.

No, you *are* asking them to sacrifice more. Trust me, Tinks, $5 is a whole different amount to someone who earns $300/week vs. someone who earns $3,000/week. If you can't see that, well....I guess I am glad for you that you have never had to want for anything.

And, since it appears you don't have to worry about money, apparently you aren't aware that there are a lot of people out there who aren't choosing to live the way they live. They are just trying to live. It's fantastic that you have the luxury of choice--it really is--but you seem to be adopting a "Let them eat Cake!" philosophy here.

I realize that neither of us is going to change the other's mind. But in all seriousness, I strongly, strongly, strongly urge you to volunteer in a community where there are those who are less fortunate than you are. Maybe it'll give you a fresh perspective.

 

[Minnie824]

Tinks, I have to agree with you. And for the person who noted the 15%, I don't believe thats the case....people I know who make 200,000, do pay about 40% of their salary to taxes and that is WITHOUT the 401K or any other deductions. I also live in Illinois so it is possible.

 

[Tinks]

I *do * volunteer in my community. I work with the rescue ministries and the Children's Hospital. I was in a community volunteering league for 3 years prior to that. I'm assure you I am *not* out of touch.

The argument "oh these people are so poor" doesn't fly with me. It is the "It's not fair that person X makes more than person Y" argument in reverse.

Yes, life is not fair, but we work toward everyone having the same opportunity in this country and I think we do a darn good job at it---NOT perfect yet, but were trying.

I think it is wrong that when someone uses his opportunity here and makes a fortune-- (Not me, mind you) -- the government will take more of his hard-earned money just because "it's not fair." or "he makes so much money that he won't feel it as much as someone else."

So that's his fault now, right?

Because Bill Gates worked hard and used his brain and made a fortune, the government should be entitled to take a greater percentage of his money. After all, he won't care. He won't even notice it. Still doesn't make it right.

And you are correct...I obviously can't make you see my point of view and you aren't going to change mine.

How about a luxury tax??? (after we create a fair flat tax system, of course. )

 

[JimB.]

THAT is why a flat tax will simply not work. It APPEARS fair, on the surface, but it has a real affect on the poorest people that is WAY out of proportion to those at the other end of the economic spectrum.

But I think the "flat tax" plans I have seen (admittedly not for a couple of years) have a "no tax" zone (for lack of a better term). That is to say, (picking a random number) the 1st 25 or30k of a person's salary is not taxed. So those at the low end of the income spectrum would not be adversly effected.

That being said, I will always argue for fiscal restraint vs. tax increases. How? Cut defense spending except for salaries (increaee those) Make more of the world responsible for their own welfare. Reduce government administration. Get rid of the Dept of Education, except for monitoring state standards & give the rest of the $$ directly to the states. Same for any other program that can be handled by the states. The layer of federal bureacracy that exists sucks up SO much $$ to employ paper pushers on jobs that could be done better at the state & local level.

But I digress.

You could tax the "rich" into bankrupcy & it would not make a spit of difference to the federal coffers.

BTW, didn't tax revenues go up by about 3.5% last year. AFTER the hated Bush tax cuts??

Taxation is not the key. Spending is. And it is a Multi-party problem. Everyone does it.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by JimB.
Taxation is not the key. Spending is. And it is a Multi-party problem. Everyone does it.

Yep. Agree 100%. Unfortunately neither party seems to have the will to cut *anything*

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Yep. Agree 100%. Unfortunately neither party seems to have the will to cut *anything*

Yes, spending needs to be reigned in....Hey, wouldn't it be nice if we reigned it in to where there was a balanced budget every year.

Hmm...if only we'd had a president a few years back that had been thinking ahead....Maybe we could even have built up a "surplus", rather than a deficit...


Nah....too far fetched....



(This message brought to you by the na nana napoo poo wing of the Democratic Party)

(Seriously, though, with all of the expenitures that were required by switching the country to a more secure footing, some increases were simply necessary. But that just means that Shrub SHOULD have waited on the tax cuts so that he could pay for those expenditures, rather than trying to have the best of both worlds...He was too afraid of the political fallout, in my opinion)

 

[faithinkarma]

HAH....I'm from a place where you hit the 50% rate just as you got close to being middle class....plus we had a goods and service tax of just under 15%; on everythiing from a donut to a haircut to a car....you guys do not appreciate how lucky you are.

 

[gottaluvPluto]

Everything that Kerry wants is NOT going to be paid by just the 2 or 1%. The middle class is also going to have to pay. I am in the middle class and I cannot afford more taxes.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by gottaluvPluto
Everything that Kerry wants is NOT going to be paid by just the 2 or 1%. The middle class is also going to have to pay. I am in the middle class and I cannot afford more taxes.

Um....no, it won't. See...it's called fiscal discipline. We pay for the necessities first, then what luxuries we can manage....and then we STOP.....

I realize that the Bush spin-meisters are having a hard time with this concept, but there it is. Don't believe everything you hear from them...Heck, don't even believe me, do the research.

 

[jrydberg]

Tax cuts have historically (Kennedy and Reagan being the prime examples) spurred GDP growth and thus, raised tax revenues considerably in the long run. One can argue that the GDP growth would have occurred regardless, but GDP growth from previous periods strongly suggest otherwise.

In short, lowering taxes (within reason) generally equates to larger tax revenue and raising taxes generally does not equate to larger tax revenue.