Pay your Fair Share

[bellisarius]

OK, sounds good, doesn't it? Let's start with who pays what.

Income Tax breakdown 2016


I'll start with a suggestion. End the EITC altogether and institute a minimum tax, say $100 per wage earner per year. Let's get that 47% +/- that pay nothing at all into the system, 'skin in the game' so to speak. No free rides for anyone. Sounds fair to me.

 

[Feminist_Dazed]

Build the country on the backs of the lowest wage earners! Tax breaks for the wealthiest because they deserve it. Fuck yeah ‘Merica!

Poor yourself another drink Ish. Beg another lit lady to call you. Leave the politics to the people with hearts and brains.

 

[Feminist_Dazed]

The Con Artist in Chief and his elite comrades sure are paying their fair share! Tax evasion is patriotic!

 

[FakeNews]

The Con Artist in Chief and his elite comrades sure are paying their fair share! Tax evasion is patriotic!

Tax evasion?

Say hello to J.B.
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1486912

 

[Feminist_Dazed]

Tax evasion?

Say hello to J.B.
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1486912

Deflect much? How does this governors douchebaggery negate Trumps? It doesn’t!

 

[FakeNews]

The Con Artist in Chief and his elite comrades sure are paying their fair share! Tax evasion is patriotic!

Hello, someoneyouknow!

The Con Artist in Chief is at it again
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1393285&highlight=artist+chief

 

[Liar]

OK, sounds good, doesn't it? Let's start with who pays what.

Income Tax breakdown 2016

Because income tax is the only tax. *nods*

 

[bellisarius]

Because income tax is the only tax. *nods*

Did you even read the article?

Individual income taxes are the federal government’s single biggest revenue source.

As far as the "on the backs of the poor" quip, $100/yr. amounts to less than $2.00/wk. That wouldn't even make a dent in their beer/pot/crack/candy/soda budget.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Bit it's not FAIR!

How about the FairTax; it soaks the rich and allows the least among us to pay nothing, provided of course, they manage their shopping and money correctly.

As we can see, the Progressive income tax is nothing more than a vehicle to enable Progressive class envy. It's a way for a majority of the economic illiterate class to feel good about having socked it to the big guy and as it is with the Broken Window fallacy, they never examine the long-term effects of their instant gratification and how it turns around to bite them in the ass in the long-run.

 

[bellisarius]

Bit it's not FAIR!

How about the FairTax; it soaks the rich and allows the least among us to pay nothing, provided of course, they manage their shopping and money correctly.

As we can see, the Progressive income tax is nothing more than a vehicle to enable Progressive class envy. It's a way for a majority of the economic illiterate class to feel good about having socked it to the big guy and as it is with the Broken Window fallacy, they never examine the long-term effects of their instant gratification and how it turns around to bite them in the ass in the long-run.

Agreed, but as long as 47% +/- are paying nothing they aren't going to be listening to any change such as "The Fair Tax." Why should they, they have no skin in the game.

 

[phrodeau]

The government has to give tax breaks to the rich, because the rich fund the campaigns of politicians.

The government has to give tax breaks to the poor, because the poor vote for politicians who give them tax breaks.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Bit it's not FAIR!

How about the FairTax; it soaks the rich and allows the least among us to pay nothing, provided of course, they manage their shopping and money correctly.

As we can see, the Progressive income tax is nothing more than a vehicle to enable Progressive class envy. It's a way for a majority of the economic illiterate class to feel good about having socked it to the big guy and as it is with the Broken Window fallacy, they never examine the long-term effects of their instant gratification and how it turns around to bite them in the ass in the long-run.

It happened a couple of years ago before your time here, Chuck, but there was a great debate here between a real libertarian (Firespin) and glibertarian (4est_4est_Gump). It was a merciless beatdown. Ole 4est was reduced to yammering that OPEC would have to reduce their oil prices if the so-called FairTax was enacted, because reasons. That thread was also the birth of the glibertarian PatriotMath™, which mathmatically (sic) "proved" that one dollar, one quarter and one nickel actually equaled 92 cents!

 

[SpeareChucker]

The government has to give tax breaks to the rich, if they don't, the rich will go find someone else to replace them. The rich are able to purchase indulgences because the powerful, who are busy enriching themselves at the same time, wish nothing more than to maintain their power.

And who do we have to blame? Those people who want a Progressive government that solves problems, rewards the poor and makes taxation more fair. As government grows according to Progressive desires, it gets more powerful and makes it imperative for the rich and big business to get into bed.

Some of you really need to look into a mirror before you start casting stones at "the rich."

 

[SpeareChucker]

Agreed, but as long as 47% +/- are paying nothing they aren't going to be listening to any change such as "The Fair Tax." Why should they, they have no skin in the game.

Don't I know it Mr. Romney...





... they are a protected class. They are not responsible for their position in life.

They have been oppressed by rich white guys. Oh yeah, and Kanye West too.

 

[Tristyn]

Bit it's not FAIR!

How about the FairTax; it soaks the rich and allows the least among us to pay nothing, provided of course, they manage their shopping and money correctly.

As we can see, the Progressive income tax is nothing more than a vehicle to enable Progressive class envy. It's a way for a majority of the economic illiterate class to feel good about having socked it to the big guy and as it is with the Broken Window fallacy, they never examine the long-term effects of their instant gratification and how it turns around to bite them in the ass in the long-run.

In 2017, Amazon paid no federal income tax.

Are you calling Jeff Bezos an economic illiterate, AJ?

 

[Tristyn]

OK, sounds good, doesn't it? Let's start with who pays what.

Income Tax breakdown 2016


I'll start with a suggestion. End the EITC altogether and institute a minimum tax, say $100 per wage earner per year. Let's get that 47% +/- that pay nothing at all into the system, 'skin in the game' so to speak. No free rides for anyone. Sounds fair to me.

Does it trouble you the government shelters the homeless, feeds the hungry & protects the poor?

 

[SpeareChucker]

Not him.

You, probably...

You know he hires people to do that for him and then he has other people he pays to carve out loopholes whenever legislation comes up. I suggest that in the future, when you read you listen to your moving lips and not the internal dialog in your head.

 

[bellisarius]

Don't I know it Mr. Romney...





... they are a protected class. They are not responsible for their position in life.

They have been oppressed by rich white guys. Oh yeah, and Kanye West too.

The Gen. X'ers are truly fucked unless some changes are made. They are coming into their peak earning years which translates into peak tax paying years. The Boomers are retiring and the Gen Y/Millennial's (who I refer to as "the I'm entitled generation) are a demographic bubble underneath them who are coming into their peak spending years. The X'ers are the smallest demographic in the US and are going to be leaned on to carry the load for everyone. Without some serious rethinking of the tax codes the X'ers are the generation most likely to become ex-patriots and take their money with them.

 

[Tristyn]

Not him.

You, probably...

You know he hires people to do that for him and then he has other people he pays to carve out loopholes whenever legislation comes up. I suggest that in the future, when you read you listen to your moving lips and not the internal dialog in your head.

What's the issue, AJ?

Should I have used "metric" & "vis-à-vis" in my post?

 

[beew]

What bothers people like me is that 50 years ago a blue collar worker could make enough money to support his family, whereas now his entire family should work extra hours and barely make ends meet.
While technology and automation made astronomical progress.
These two should be parallel, not the other way around.

1. Yes, there are people whose SJW-iing are driven by class or group envy and communist ideas.

2. But most people who want an increase in taxes for the 0.01% (billionaires, trillonaires) don't care about that income disparity or class outrage stuff.
Put it down to a lack of understanding of economics -my case, probably- if you may.
They operate under the principle that "it's either them, or the average Joe". Less taxes for the 0.01% means that the already impoverished have to carry the burden of federal budget.

I'm writing these because I keep trying to explain where I'm coming from to BotanyBoy, yet he still lumps me into no.1

 

[SpeareChucker]

Not only that, but in all of those groups, some are on their way to the top and some are on their way to the bottom. Those "income rich" boomers will go to a nearly no-income status and younger people will replace them.

 

[HisArpy]

What bothers people like me is that 50 years ago a blue collar worker could make enough money to support his family, whereas now his entire family should work extra hours and barely make ends meet.
While technology and automation made astronomical progress.
These two should be parallel, not the other way around.

1. Yes, there are people whose SJW-iing are driven by class or group envy and communist ideas.

2. But most people who want an increase in taxes for the 0.01% (billionaires, trillonaires) don't care about that income disparity or class outrage stuff.
Put it down to a lack of understanding of economics -my case, probably- if you may.
They operate under the principle that "it's either them, or the average Joe". Less taxes for the 0.01% means that the already impoverished have to carry the burden of federal budget.

I'm writing these because I keep trying to explain where I'm coming from to BotanyBoy, yet he still lumps me into no.1

This is because that's all you really wrote. While your #2 uses a lot more words, it can be condensed to the words you used in your #1 statement with no extraneous parts.

 

[beew]

This is because that's all you really wrote. While your #2 uses a lot more words, it can be condensed to the words you used in your #1 statement with no extraneous parts.

Crikey..


Technology has made huge advances over the last decades, so one would expect that
blue collar workers should work less for the same money. Not the other way around.

Instead of going into an attack mode and labeling opinions like mine as "envious", why don't you guys simply try to explain where our misunderstandings lie, and offer better solutions to correct the above?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

OK, sounds good, doesn't it? Let's start with who pays what.

Income Tax breakdown 2016


I'll start with a suggestion. End the EITC altogether and institute a minimum tax, say $100 per wage earner per year. Let's get that 47% +/- that pay nothing at all into the system, 'skin in the game' so to speak. No free rides for anyone. Sounds fair to me.

Doesn’t that 47% pay sales tax, property tax and all taxes that businesses pass on to them?

 

[SpeareChucker]

... inclding corporate income tax.


Think before you speak lest you destroy your usual narrative.