They Don’t Pay Their Fair Share

[hog88]

Not sure I can. On one hand, both those groups benefit from America and what the government provides. OTOH, those groups have no power to foment change in how they are governed or by whom. It is generally accepted taxation without representation is improper.

It's definitely worth discussing. Most people under 18 probably get most if not all of the income taxes back when they file and illegals well that's a different sack of cats.

 

[Vol423]

I understand.

Those groups pay income tax now. Under your system, they would pay as well. I don't agree with that. I think anyone unable to vote should not be paying income taxes.

Just tell me how to sign up for your taxation program and let me know what I need to do to relinquish my right to vote.

 

[LouderVol]

You understand that the mansion is valued at a higher amount than the shack?
The equivalent property tax plan to your tax plan would be that the person living in the shack would pay the exact same amount of property tax as the person living in the mansion. (Budget divided by number of buildings)

I live in my shack in a shack neighborhood. Neighbors sell out and in come the mansions. I stay in my shack. Property value sky rockets. Under your system I am paying more for my shack than a nonmansion does.

 

[hog88]

The question the Republicans are now pushing is when is their punishment over. For example, in Florida prisoners are paid roughly $0.32/ hour and are billed at the rate of $50.00 per day. So, to put that in perspective, an inmate who does a 5 year sentence come out owing about 90k. Cannot vote until you pay that back.

That is wrong.

 

[luthervol]

Those are all victim driven, not the rich third party driven.

Your equatability also ignores a large reality of personal differences. It assumes that 76 yo grandma is decripid. I am not sure about my grandmother at that age, but I know my 76 yo grandfather could out work me any day of the week in my life. At 65 my grandmother probably could have out worked me.

It does the exact opposite. It assumes there are inevitably personal differences and asks simply for each person to work as hard as they can until the job is done.

 

[luthervol]

I live in my shack in a shack neighborhood. Neighbors sell out and in come the mansions. I stay in my shack. Property value sky rockets. Under your system I am paying more for my shack than a nonmansion does.

It's based on assessed value. I would consider a system where property value is only reassessed when there is a change of ownership.

 

[VolStrom]

No one, and I mean no one, likes a free loader. Everyone, and I mean everyone, would like freeloaders taken off of the teat.
Clinton did this better than anyone.

Some would think that you're a free loader since you barely work compared to a private employer employee or business owner.

 

[VOLS INC.]

Oh yeah, I get to join Medicare this year and have discovered that I'll be in the 3rd or 4th tier of "you made too much damn money", here is your penalty. I was looking for a break from the ACA and it looks like I get to pay more than I was. Nothing better than being middle class.

Sorry to hear that.

For my generation it will probably be social security they take. I’m not going to be surprised one bit when they tell my wife and I “You made too much money” and redistribute all the earnings they’ve withheld over the course of 40 years.
In the name of social justice of course.

 

[luthervol]

Some would think that you're a free loader since you barely work compared to a private employer employee or business owner.

Some would be ignorant.

 

[LouderVol]

The question the Republicans are now pushing is when is their punishment over. For example, in Florida prisoners are paid roughly $0.32/ hour and are billed at the rate of $50.00 per day. So, to put that in perspective, an inmate who does a 5 year sentence come out owing about 90k. Cannot vote until you pay that back.

Wait what? Prisoners are billed for their time?

 

[VolStrom]

Some would be ignorant.

If you worked a real job, you wouldn't make that statement. You have no clue what it's like to be on call 24/7, you have no clue what it's like to work 80+ hours a week to make a plant function. You actually have no idea what most Americans do to pay your salary.

 

[LouderVol]

It does the exact opposite. It assumes there are inevitably personal differences and asks simply for each person to work as hard as they can until the job is done.

How does it ask people to work as hard as they can? And the job is never done, and it creates a system that will more quickly make more people decrepit.

 

[sjt18]

This seems to be a common left wing myth . LG recently claimed it’s the middle class who pay the majority of taxes in this country. That’s obviously 100% incorrect. If you look at the lower 1/3 of the middle class, they still receive more benefits than they pay in taxes.

It’s also well known that the lower class in this country does not pay taxes. When trying to sell my farm a few years ago a woman told me she would be able to get the down payment from her tax return and that the previous year she had only worked a couple of weeks and had received thousands back.

The 1% earns 20% of all income but pays 40% of the taxes in this country.

Where does this myth that the wealthy don’t pay taxes come from? Especially given that we have the most progressive taxes in the world. Can anyone back it up with data?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/10/middle-class-taxes/

Consumers pay all taxes eventually... either with money or want (reduced standard of living). The effort to "tax the rich" is just one more case where the left wishes something were true and tries to use legislation to change reality according to "natural law".

You can never truly tax a producer. Supply side economics understands and flows with that simple fact of reality. If you attempt to tax a producer (to include executives and investors) then you either cause them to include those costs in the price of the product sold to consumers... or you cause them to reduce or stop production because they can no longer make a profit.

The numbers thrown around are flawed. Most of the "rich" in question aren't Warren Buffett or Bill Gates kinds of "rich" people. They're mostly small business owners, doctors, lawyers, middle managers, etc. Big enough to make decent money... not big enough to take advantage of 6 decades of accumulated tax loopholes designed for politicians and their friends. Most of those rules were in place before 1994.

If you truly care about the tax burden being equitably distributed then the "FAIR Tax" or something like it is your best option. You end up taxing the consumption or the economic exchange instead of a person. The founders recognized this which is why they included language to prevent the Federal Government from directly taxing individuals. Progressives changed that in 1913.

 

[luthervol]

If you worked a real job, you wouldn't make that statement. You have no clue what it's like to be on call 24/7, you have no clue what it's like to work 80+ hours a week to make a plant function. You actually have no idea what most Americans do to pay your salary.

You obviously have no clue about what I have a clue about.

 

[LouderVol]

It's based on assessed value. I would consider a system where property value is only reassessed when there is a change of ownership.

Why does the government, with no invested stake in lowering the assessment value, get to set that price?

 

[luthervol]

Consumers pay all taxes eventually... either with money or want (reduced standard of living). The effort to "tax the rich" is just one more case where the left wishes something were true and tries to use legislation to change reality according to "natural law".

You can never truly tax a producer. Supply side economics understands and flows with that simple fact of reality. If you attempt to tax a producer (to include executives and investors) then you either cause them to include those costs in the price of the product sold to consumers... or you cause them to reduce or stop production because they can no longer make a profit.

The numbers thrown around are flawed. Most of the "rich" in question aren't Warren Buffett or Bill Gates kinds of "rich" people. They're mostly small business owners, doctors, lawyers, middle managers, etc. Big enough to make decent money... not big enough to take advantage of 6 decades of accumulated tax loopholes designed for politicians and their friends. Most of those rules were in place before 1994.

If you truly care about the tax burden being equitably distributed then the "FAIR Tax" or something like it is your best option. You end up taxing the consumption or the economic exchange instead of a person. The founders recognized this which is why they included language to prevent the Federal Government from directly taxing individuals. Progressives changed that in 1913.

We were discussing the rock moving analogy

 

[utvolpj]

If you worked a real job, you wouldn't make that statement. You have no clue what it's like to be on call 24/7, you have no clue what it's like to work 80+ hours a week to make a plant function. You actually have no idea what most Americans do to pay your salary.

That's not what is consider a real job. Sounds like a nightmare for someone wanting any kind of life outside work

 

[VolStrom]

You obviously have no clue about what I have a clue about.

Nice terrible deflection.

 

[VolStrom]

That's not what is consider a real job. Sounds like a nightmare for someone wanting any kind of life outside work

And people do it every day so people like you can have power and toilet paper and food and all of the other things that you take for granted.

 

[sjt18]

No one, and I mean no one, likes a free loader. Everyone, and I mean everyone, would like freeloaders taken off of the teat.
Clinton did this better than anyone.

It is laughable what Democrats try to give Clinton credit for. I remember his first election when he declared a "mandate" for what became known as Hillarycare and expansion of the welfare state. And... they tried. Phil Gramm heroically led the charge against that agenda once declaring that Hillarycare would pass over his cold, dead body. Clinton's ambitious big government grab helped fuel the 1994 election when conservative activist Republicans flipped the H of R for the first time in 40 years. In Clinton's 1995 state of the union speech... he completely reversed himself and declared that the "era of big government is over". He went on to shut the government down several times because the GOP tried to balance the budget by limiting the growth of domestic spending... the media blamed Congress even though the Clinton Administration openly admitted that they would NOT sign budgets passed by both Houses unless they included more... for freeloaders.

It wasn't until AFTER the GOP bullied him into a cap gains cut that revenues finally outraced spending increases to give us 2 years of surplus. Cap Gains cuts were passed in '98. Surpluses occurred in '99 and '00.

 

[sjt18]

We were discussing the rock moving analogy

I quoted the OP.

 

[luthervol]

Nice terrible deflection.

Terrible but true.
Your presumption that you know what I do and have done is just that.
You sound bitter, angry, and ignorant - that's on you. Are you unhappy with your choices? I know that if I worked 80 hour weeks I would be (especially while I was raising a family).

 

[luthervol]

I quoted the OP.

Sorry, I don't know what happened there.

 

[sjt18]

I would replace equally with equitably.
An equal sharing of the burden does not mean everyone pays the same.
Let me try this analogy (just thinking it up on the fly)
You have a truckload of rock delivered to your house that you want to use to line the bottom of your fence in the back yard. They dump the rock at the top of your driveway. On Saturday you plan to have family work day to more the rocks. You, your wife, your 17 year old sun, your 5 year old daughter, and your 76 year old mother in law all show up in overalls ready to work and do their fair share. Does that mean you should each move the same amount of rocks during the day? Or does that mean that you should each work equally hard to accomplish the job (knowing that each individual will more a vastly different amount of rock)? What is equitable?

That's an oranges and apples comparison.

Are you trying to argue for "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability"?

A better example would be if you and five neighbors purchased a load of rock agreeing on a "first come/first serve" distribution of the rock. What is "equitable" is those who work harder and smarter... get more rock.

 

[VolStrom]

Terrible but true.
Your presumption that you know what I do and have done is just that.
You sound bitter, angry, and ignorant - that's on you. Are you unhappy with your choices? I know that if I worked 80 hour weeks I would be (especially while I was raising a family).

The bottom line is that you're lazy as F. The only thing I'm angry or bitter about is the lazy ass teachers that want to be paid for sitting home on their asses. Get back to work and do what you're paid to do.