Reply With Quote
so are they beholden to the tea party? Or to America?
You can't blame the repub leadership on something they know will alienate their base. they are scared, rightfully so, of pissing off the tea baggers (do yall still call them that?)
so are they beholden to the tea party? Or to America?
I'd say their cons uents. Who do you think they are beholden to?
that's why we have a problem now. you have both parties catering to their bases and flipping off the rest of the country... that is why independents (thankfully) decide elections..
the tea partiers represent.... maybe 15%- 25% of the country... what about everyone else?
"you have both parties catering to their bases"
bull . Both parties cater to the UCA, VRWC, capitalists.
H-A votes don't count for for setting govt policy and programs.
Our system was originally created on the idea that they do the work of their elected base. Maybe those are the true number of Tea Party membership. However, the average person who votes but doesn't really follow much politics is who they should be worried about. And I believe the Repubs are worried about them and their liking the TP people. TP have done a great job of selling themselves as average americans. That is why they have alot more power than their numbers truly show. Just like the Anti war Liberals in 06. They were small but very powerful.
I say everyone should pay the same rate. If 35% is too low for the rich, then it is too low for the poor too.
I don't think that it is luck or genetics. Working hard is nothing more then putting time into your profession. I do not consider myself smarter or more gifted than others. I just had to put in the time.
If the guy at Walmart is only making 12,000.00 a year, maybe he needs to work more hours. Getting paid min. wage and working 52 weeks at 40 hours a week will earn him over $15,000.00. (less than I lived on while in school) Most Walmarts have a McDonalds next door, they are always hiring.
Why should we have to supplement the guys income? What does he possibly need that I should have to provide him? A car, tv, laptop, Ipod, a house? Call me crazy but I do not believe that I have any need or responsibility to supplement that man's income, espcially if he chooses to make less than minimum wage. If I can put in a 60 hour week so can he. If I can limit my vacation days, so can he. I congratulate you on your success, but I don't see why I should be punished because you want to give someone free handouts.
No .
There are cheap one room places to live. Raymen and sandwiches make for cheap eating.
Why should my tax dollars replace someone elses participation in government revenue?
Maybe he has a kid or two to feed. You couldn't possibly live here with 15K/year. Rent alone is 1K/mo... add food, gas, electricity, taxes and ends just don't meet.
And I'm not even going to touch if the person had a broken leg and a hospital bill to pay. Sometimes it isn't just about working hard.
And ultimately Evay is right. The services the government provide ain't going away. If they can't make enough or are taxed high enough, they're going to head to the foodstamp line, and we're all going to be in the hook for it anyways.
He can't raise anything without Congress approval. Funny how Republicans are too much of a pussy to raise them now.
Why does he have a kid to feed? Did he lose a better job, or was he irresponsible having a kid before he could afford one?
Maybe he was able-bodied until he had a mental problem. And maybe a Walmart caliber job is all he can aspire to right now. Life is complicated, that's why over-simplifications and generalizations never work.
To make it more complicated, 1 in 10 Americans are without a job now. That's reality right there. It used to be 1 in 20 not that long ago, so it's not an issue of people not wanting to work.
Someone making $10,000,000/yr pays exactly the same rate on the first $15,000 they make as someone making $15,000/yr as someone making $50,000/yr as someone making $200,000/yr.
Looks like everyone pays the same rate to me.
Always side stepping the point you know I intend. I have little sympathy for people who are just irresponsible breeders. If they were in the position to support a family then have bad luck, then that's when social programs should be available. Not as a way of life like so many think of it today.
It's worse than your numbers suggest. Only about half the 5% was long term unemployed. If we assume 2% short term in both cases, then it's more like 3% vs. 8% long term unemployed.
I don't even know how to respond. Is that willful ignorance? If you're saying what I think you're saying...
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-13-2011 at 10:07 AM.
You never made a point. You just generalized.
How many are 'so many'? I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, but I think economic realities and lack of equal opportunities also have a lot to do with it.
No, he's pointing out that the way tax rates are tiered, everybody pay the same rate on the scale.
If you make up to $X then you pay rate A.
If you exceed $X but not $Y, then you pay rate B, which is equal to rate A + given percentage.
As he stated it ("pays exactly the same rate on the first $15,000 they make") it's correct.
Question:
Based on this principle answer the following question:
"Poor" person makes $1,000 per month, is fully taxed at 35%, and spends all of what is left on food, shelter, clothes and transportation to/from job.
"Rich" person makes $10,000 per month, is fully taxed at 35% and spends 50% of what is left on food, shelter, clothes, and transportation to/from job.
What are the consequences for each resulting from an increase in the tax rate to 40%, i.e. what do they give up?
Yup.
With the deductions and exemptions, the first 5,700 is exempt, and a single person gets a further 3,700 personal exemption.
This makes the first $11,400 income tax free, although you still pay FICA etc.
At this point, actual income taxation begins at 10% for the first 8,375 dollars.
So someone making $19,775 will have paid $837.50 in income tax.
Someone making $10,000,000 per year will pay the same $837.50 on the first $19,775 of their income as well.
The difference is that the first person has paid an effective rate of 4% of their income.
The second has, in a similar fashion, paid .008% on that same income.
Of course, the person with $10,000,000 per year, pays a lot more than that, and ends up with a much higher effective tax rate. For that priveledge they also have the luxury of saving money instead of having to spend almost all of their income to simply sustain life.
I disagree. People with the ability to save will save regardless of whether their gains are taxed at 15% or 30%.
The only thing that will change will be the form of those savings, and the only people who will lose will be high-load mutual funds, IMO.
I think that I said what I meant incorrectly. You are right that people who intend to save (whether or not people who have the ability but not the inclination is another issue) will do so regardless of the tax rate.
What I meant was that capital gains generally occur not so much on savings but on investment. Investment is good for the economy inasmuch as it is tied to job creation FAR more directly than income. Taxing capital gains takes money out of the pool for potential re-investment, thereby much more directly impacting the economy than income.
Of course, having said all that, the fact that corporations are sitting on over $1Trillion in cash and not investing it in anything that would create jobs during this period of relatively low taxes is one of the more perverse factors about this jobless economic recovery that we are in now.
Well, the example I was using involved $12,000 left over after 35% income tax had been removed from the paycheck to make the $17K salary from Wall-Mart be taxed at the same rate that a guy making $1Million a year makes.
Look, when I was in graduate school I lived on less than $6K a year that I was paid for being a graduate assistant, and owed no money to anyone. Those times are gone!! To expect someone to raise a family or live themselves on less than 1K per month is simply ignoring the realities of America today.
Why do you see yourself as being punished? I have never understood that sentiment...I see your position as simply a different sense of en lement. You feel that you are en led to every dime you earn, and that someone else's good fortune is a loss to you. I don't see the world as a 'zero-sum' game.
If you really believe that everything you have is in no way tied to the benefits of living in this great country, that you owe nothing back to this country other than roads and military, or that you have the right, because of a high income level, to pick and choose which taxes you consider worthwhile paying, I believe that reflects a very sad perception of citizenship in a democracy.
I choose not to have your worldview.
he's probably a christian
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
