volsforever27
I ain't dead yet *****
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 19,392
- Likes
- 2,448
I think it's about right as it is. I'd like to see some alleviation of payroll taxes at the low end but pay for that with less government programs as opposed to adding higher marginal rates.
Above all, I'd hate to see the cap gains taxes get jacked back up.
Why would I feel the need to kick in 5 points voluntarily? I don't understand.
I think it's about right as it is. I'd like to see some alleviation of payroll taxes at the low end but pay for that with less government programs as opposed to adding higher marginal rates.
Above all, I'd hate to see the cap gains taxes get jacked back up.
fundamental socialist misconception. People earn what the market will bear for their particular function. Nobody is wealthy BECAUSE other people are poor. People earning (read: not inheriting) their wealth are paying an enormous amount of taxes, but you're implying that they should be cool with that because poor people have made them that way. The two do not follow. They can, but do not have to in the least.Well, the top income earners shouldn't cry about paying a greater % of taxes, because one of the reasons they're making this much money is that there are a lot of people under them making a hell of a lot less than they are. I'd much rather pay 33% making 200K than 15% taxes making $30K. And the truth is, you can't have one without the other.
Fair point. Tell me more. Is it just a nick, or a real hit?
B/c, correct me if I'm wrong, but if we lower the income tax on the highest income earners, we lose a huge chunk of govt. spending on things like the military (biggest chunk of the budget), infrastructure, etc. So where are we going to get the money to pay for the services we expect? food tax? car tax? like you said, doesn't that hit the low earners more?
fundamental socialist misconception. People earn what the market will bear for their particular function. Nobody is wealthy BECAUSE other people are poor. People earning (read: not inheriting) their wealth are paying an enormous amount of taxes, but you're implying that they should be cool with that because poor people have made them that way. The two do not follow. They can, but do not have to in the least.
Moreover, you're saying that a high earner deserves to pay a third (it's actually more) to Uncle Sam, as if his / her time spent earning it is somehow less valuable than the time spent by those earning less. Many of the high earners out there work enormous amounts of time for their money.
Again, simple rule of working in a capitalist society: people are paid for their work exactly what the market will bear. Nobody in any senior position has forced anyone to take lower paying positions, since most employees willfully perform their function. If low earners don't like the position, there are alternatives, but paying less taxes or receiving gov't cash shouldn't be one of those options.
fundamental socialist misconception. People earn what the market will bear for their particular function. Nobody is wealthy BECAUSE other people are poor. People earning (read: not inheriting) their wealth are paying an enormous amount of taxes, but you're implying that they should be cool with that because poor people have made them that way. The two do not follow. They can, but do not have to in the least.
Moreover, you're saying that a high earner deserves to pay a third (it's actually more) to Uncle Sam, as if his / her time spent earning it is somehow less valuable than the time spent by those earning less. Many of the high earners out there work enormous amounts of time for their money.
Again, simple rule of working in a capitalist society: people are paid for their work exactly what the market will bear. Nobody in any senior position has forced anyone to take lower paying positions, since most employees willfully perform their function. If low earners don't like the position, there are alternatives, but paying less taxes or receiving gov't cash shouldn't be one of those options.
It is refreshing when you find a compelling, well stated argument hidden within a middle-school level slap fight.:salute:fundamental socialist misconception. People earn what the market will bear for their particular function. Nobody is wealthy BECAUSE other people are poor. People earning (read: not inheriting) their wealth are paying an enormous amount of taxes, but you're implying that they should be cool with that because poor people have made them that way. The two do not follow. They can, but do not have to in the least.
Moreover, you're saying that a high earner deserves to pay a third (it's actually more) to Uncle Sam, as if his / her time spent earning it is somehow less valuable than the time spent by those earning less. Many of the high earners out there work enormous amounts of time for their money.
Again, simple rule of working in a capitalist society: people are paid for their work exactly what the market will bear. Nobody in any senior position has forced anyone to take lower paying positions, since most employees willfully perform their function. If low earners don't like the position, there are alternatives, but paying less taxes or receiving gov't cash shouldn't be one of those options.
The point is that the bottom 50% only pay 3% of income taxes. Democrats will have you believe that this group pays most of the taxes and top income earners pay nothing.