Reply With Quote
So no annual personal exclusion?
"Everyone pays the same percentage, from dollar 1."
You RILLY RILLY love cruelly regressive taxation.
Isn't capped-above-4th-quintile SocSec regressive enough for you?
So no annual personal exclusion?
regarding to school canteens
i thought that was mainly outsourced to a operator who pays the school rent for usage or mainly parents volunteering time serving in the canteen...
there are alot of useless teachers man and useless subjects taught at school that should be scrapped
what's an example of a useless subject?
There are plenty of posters on this board with extremist stances, so it's really impossible to tell.
If that's what you want to believe, I simply don't give a damn. You are so far off the left, I really don't care about your stupidity. I have explained it before. People who vote need to have a dog in the fight. If they don't have their money going into the fund as well, and have their rate changes as the spending requirements change, then they shouldn't be able to vote.
Would you rather go back to a poll tax?
None.
Like social security, a strait percentage, but no wealth cap either. Everyone pays a small strait percentage of their income.
Many corporations pay no taxes, yet they enjoy the same rights as individuals and according to the wing-nut supreme court should have the 'biggest dog in the fight".... your double-standard...
All Corporations pay no taxes.
Many corporations pay no taxes, yet they enjoy the same rights as individuals and according to the wing-nut supreme court should have the 'biggest dog in the fight".... your double-standard...
Those that do write a check to the government, pass the cost on to employees, stockholders, or consumers.
Why do you lib s skirt around the reason I bring this up?
Many corporations pay no taxes, yet they enjoy the same rights as individuals and according to the wing-nut supreme court should have the 'biggest dog in the fight".... your double-standard...
It is to help make voters accountable for who they elect to office. Too many have no concern of election politicians that promise them "other people's money." If they have their money in that pot too, more will be more concerned about how the politician plans to spend tax payer dollars.
Also remember, the first time I brought this concept up. Require all employers to give employees a pay raise, equal to the employers match of social security and medicare insurances.
Abolish social security and medicare deductions, and call it a "social tax."
Everyone gets the same net pay after taxation. The new tax amount would be 14.2127%.
The below calculations will exclude the new temporary SS rates:
For every $1,000 you make, you pay $62 in Social security and $14.50 in medicare. Your employer matches this cost. After employees pay this, they have a net $923.50 for those hours.
Your employer would be required to raise you pay by 7.65%. You would now make $1,076.50 for the same worked hours. Taxing 14.2127% from your increased income is a tax of $153.00 rather than the $76.50 you paid before. $1076.50 - $153 gives the same net pay of $923.50.
What too many people don't realize is that the employer cost of SS/medicare is part of the cost of employing them. I want this in all employees faces, that they realize this is their money. I want everyone to see just how much the government takes from everyone.
My final goal of this method is to have income tax rates fixed. they can still have the deductions for family status, exemptions, credits, etc. but can no longer be used as a political football. The new "social tax" now becomes the political football. Any time congress wants to increase or decrease taxes, this new tax is used. All voters who are actual tax payers now have a real stake in the game of who they elect.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-11-2011 at 10:58 PM.
Neither do unions, including the worthless public sector variety which organize against the general public. them.
Many corporations pay no taxes, yet they enjoy the same rights as individuals and according to the wing-nut supreme court should have the 'biggest dog in the fight".... your double-standard...
Because the jobs they provide are usually in the third world.
My one small happy thought in all of this is that his arrogance and insistence on ONE MORE TERM is probably going to cost him any national political aspirations he had by leaving him holding the bag of he created here in TX.
You need to fill out one of the "butthurt" reports.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
