I ended up taking a "20 best paying jobs in the US" thread off on a tangent on another board. I was wanted to open it up here and get people's opinions... This is what transpired there so far.... ------------------------------------------------- In the US, you reach the highest tax bracket at about $95,000. Strictly speaking, that is something like 40 - 45% of your income going back to the Federal, State and Local government. Of course there are tax breaks and other tricks dishonest people play to keep their money. Equal? Your definition of equal must be different than mine. If some people are more equal than others, equality does not exist. I am not filthy rich. I don't have yachts and tax shelters. I don't own several homes. Hell, I don't even own ONE home. I rent. I grew up poor, in a poor neigborhood. I drive a used Honda. I don't travel the world in a private jet. I work very hard for what I have. I have been working steadily since I was 13 years old (I am now 32). I have never had a leg-up from anybody in my life. But, I pay over $40,000 a year in taxes. That is almost HALF my paycheck. So I am being punished for working hard and sacrificing to pull myself up higher. But Joe Blow, working at the local convenience store to earn just enough money to keep him in weed and twinkies, pays 15 - 17% of his income. If we paid out the same percentage, I would still be contributing over $18,000 (which is more than he makes in a year). If EVERYONE paid 17% across the board (from single moms to billionaires) we would have so much more tax money coming in than we do now, we could fire most of the IRS and swindling cheat tax attorneys would have to get real jobs and actually contribute to something. I should pay more dollars, sure. But what is the justification for having to pay a higher %? Then there are people like my father, who feel it is below him to take a job at a gas station, collect unemployment and spend it all at the local bar. When I couldn't find a job in my field, I worked two full-time jobs at gas stations making less than I did when I was 17 years old, and didn't take a DIME from the government. No, I am not a cold hearted right-wing bastard who thinks the poor deserve what they get. I think health care should be government sponsored. I think the government should offer people a TEMPORARY leg-up when they truly need it. I think the ideal system would be a balance between: The Republican ideal of small unobtrusive government and personal freedom... The Democratic ideal of taking care of those who truly need it... The Socialist Democrat ideal that our basic needs should be taken care of... ...and my own personal ideal that if you CAN work, you WILL work (at whatever you do best) or you simply don't eat, and your children will be given to someone more responsible. You should have the right to not work, but if you make that choice, you made that choice. Be a part of the "society" (I hate that word) or fend for yourself. To be perfectly honest, I don't even agree with the capitalist system at all. The ideal, that people that work harder will be rewarded for that hard work, is quite obviously bullshit. People who know and manipulate the tax laws get rewarded. People who lie, cheat, swindle and steal get rewarded. People who stay at home pretending they are looking for jobs are rewarded. People who decide they don't want to work are rewarded (if they know the system). Honest people who work hard... We foot the bill for everyone else. The biggest problem with "the land of opportuinty" is that the we have spoon fed everyone with our golden promises of freedom, opportuinity, entitlements and the all-mighty dollar since the 50's. We are told from the time we can walk that we have a right to this, and a right to that. We are free to do what we wish. Life, Libery and the Pursuit of the easy buck. But we are not taught that with great freedom comes even greater responsibility. We have managed to get more demanding and less responsible at the same time. We want all the luxuries, but no accountability. We complain that health care cost too much, but we sue doctors for billions of dollars ever year. We bitch that the public school system sucks, but we bitch when someone wants to spend money on it. We complain that our taxes are too high, but we vote for people who want to generate more government jobs, more government programs, more government spending. We complain that all politicians are dishonest, but not only do we vote them in, we allow them to pass the laws that allow them to BE corrupt. Besides, no one would ever vote for the guy who was honest, anyway. People don't want to hear the truth. They want someone to tell them that everything is going to be fine, and their taxes won't go up. Drugs should be legalized. However, if you do drugs so much that you can't afford to eat... Go fucking hungry! Ahem... I guess I got a little off on a tangent there. Bit of a passionate subject for me. Doesn't take much to set me off. I will let it go for now. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think we need to define "rich". Like I said, you reach the highest tax bracket at about $95,000. I hardly consider that "rich" if rich people can afford "very expensive accountants". Single people who earn between $45,000 and $125,000, have no children and do not own a home pay the most taxes. Them, and the struggling small business owners. Who has been feeding you that self-pitying, pathetic victim complex? My father was a raging alchoholic who dropped out of school in the 8th grade. My mother barely scraped by working shit-wage jobs to feed her 4 children. I never had, nor do I have now any connections. I don't have any degrees either. I worked my ass off, and earned what I have with long hours, dedication and work ethics. Which is exactly why I get so pissed off when people who have no right to what I have earned claim they "deserve" it.
The following is my response to Monique's replies to the above...... Why shouldn't they? If you remove the tax shelters, breaks and loopholes for corporations and people, and enforce more honest reporting of profits/earnings while instituting a flat tax: 1.) The amount of tax revenue from the super-rich and from industry would greatly increase. 2.) The amount of tax that the average hard-working citizen getting paid over $45,000/yr would decrease. 3.) If the amount of taxes that married people/homeowners/parents (and all the others that qualify for "deductions") goes up at all, it will be just slightly on average. 4.) The vast majority of people making under $100,000/yr would pay less taxes. 5.) The overall tax revenue the government takes in would still be increased. "Why SHOULD a single mother be given a "break"?" is my question. Compare a professional executive single woman with me... If she has a child, she pays less in taxes. If she owns a home she pays less in taxes. If she is divorced, she likely gets child support (and possibly alimony). Finacially she is in much better shape than I am, but she deserves a "break" because she has a kid? You were probably just thinking about the single mother that is financially struggling to get by deserving a "break" right? Maybe the inner city woman with 2 kids, a "dead-beat dad" as an ex-husband, working as a waitress to make ends meet, unable to afford child care... Is that the woman you were referring to? If so... Yes, she DOES deserve a "break". What that "break" should be, is where we disagree, I think. With the increased Tax revenue from instituting a "flat-Tax", the government will be able to afford to give her that "break". Government paid child care for working parents who can't afford it. Government paid job training. Government paid health care. "Free" government sponsored Colleges and Universities. See, I believe in Social Welfare, but I don't beleieve in how it is set-up right now. Roosevelt's ideal was good intentions gone wrong. (Just like MANY Liberal Democrat's plans.) The goal of Social Welfare programs should be to offer the tools required to improve the lives of those who need it. To teach people how to fish, not hand fish out to people. To help those who help themselves. Social Welfare is one of those rights I was talking about that should require personal responsibility to redeem. First of all, minimum wage SHOULD be increased. Second, if you have a crap job that anyone can get with no or minimal training, the crap wages are what you pay for it. If you want to make more, get yourself a skill, and vacate your job so the next person that needs money so they can afford to better their situation can take it. Question is... ARE you kidding? Really? Or do you believe that "pencil pushers" should get paid less? By taxing the higher paid a greater percentage you do two things: 1.) You tell people that the harder you work and the higher you climb, the more you will be punished for your efforts. 2.) You tell people that by the simple virtue of you being successful you are required to support those that are less successful than you. If you make $20,000 a year, 17% would be a mere $3,400. $384.62/wk before taxes 319.23/wk after taxes. That is only $65.39/wk in taxes. If you make $200,000 a year, the numbers would be: $34,000/yr taxed, $3,846.15/wk before taxes $3,192.31 after taxes that you will be paying $650.84 a week in taxes. The person getting paid $200,000/yr is paying more in taxes than the person making $20,000/yr earns in a year. Why doesn't that seem fair? (As a side note, as thing are now, when I was making $20,000/yr (being a single, childless, non-homeowner) I was paying closer to 32% in taxes, so instituting a flat-tax would have enabled me (an poor struggling person that you seem so concerned about) to pay almost 1/2 as much as I did in taxes.) Because the whole idea is to be rewarded for you hard work and sacrifice, not punished for it.
the problem is not so much high taxes, but the waste of money by the government. Too much money simply disappears into merely paperwork and bureaucracy, and keeping a obese system erect. And I don't mean we should abolish wellfare or public health. Those are useful attributes to a society.
It's very simple Y'all live in society. If you don't like it, move to the moon or under the sea. It's a symptom of human existence, this nasty thing called society, and you have obligations to it. Statements like the above pretty much characterize the issue: simple and petty greed. People want things from society, but they don't want to pay for it. Of course, I can understand the "reward and punishment" argument if the self is the only relevant thing in the Universe. So a couple of facts: Working forty hours a week at a real job like the good boy my parents wanted me to be empowered me to no better existence than I had elsewhere in the world. My mother and I, in fact, were discussing a number of unresolved issues in my life. And they remain unresolved, sadly, because working and participating in society did not even empower me to survive on my own at any stage of my working life, much less take care of extra expenses. The amount of money I need just to break even from trying to play by the rules is somewhere around $30,000. More than I ever made in a single working year. That should get me up to square zero so that my labors don't have to go to pay for mistakes that I was encouraged by the guidance of my youth to make. And I could afford weed. In fact, we did some calculating the other day, and found that while my weed budget was a huge expense--and still is--at no time during that period would that expense have made a difference. That expense became a luxury I could afford in exchange for never living on my own. Hell, it's 1:00 AM, I'm thirty. I might get an hour to myself before I pass out. What reward? It's all in the choices you make. If you want weed and twinkies, get a roommate to share the living expenses. In the meantime, if one wishes to bitch about the poor and drugs, we might pause to consider that people generally undertake substance addictions because they're already miserable. My father once lamented that his raise actually cost him money by moving him into a higher tax bracket. He was pissed at the Democrats that day. I looked him square in the eye and said, "And we both know damn well that your company knew that this raise would cost you money. Take it up with them." And he did. I actually talked someone out of a promotion on those grounds when I was at an insurance company. I told her to ask what her tax bracket would be and calculate the numbers. Her take-home would have been less, and on those grounds she withdrew her name from consideration. Strangely, management had a hard time understanding why she didn't want to work harder in order to tak ehome less. As to reward and punishment: Get over it. You live in society. We all do our part. If you don't like it, find a way to strategically withdraw. Seriously, people get pissed about the way I treat life and labor, but inasmuch as I choose to live every day with the psychotic woman who is the mother of my child, so, too, do they choose their own destiny. Reward? I suppose I have a nasty prejudice, though. I've heard all of these reward and punishment arguments before. And, unfortunately, their advocate owned two houses, five cars, several boats, and several computers, two TV's, two VCR's, could finagle a half-million dollars out of a Business Development fund, and dared look me in the eye and tell me he was poor. Poor, of course, meaning not having enough liquid assets on hand. That, too, is a choice he made. Reprioritize this country so that my tax dollars, when I work, don't go toward killng innocent people and stealing land and money, and I'll probably have a better attitude about taxes. In the meantime, I'm well aware that I benefit from this criminal activity around the world. Reward? I'm a freaking American. That's reward enough. I'll figure out the rest in due time, or die trying.
Come on! You are an intelligent person. You can't really buy all that crap, can you? Or is it just the convenient justification that it smells like? First of all, I never said I don't want to pay taxes. Second of all, when I was out of work I didn't collect unemployment. Third, that second statement is EXACTLY what I am talking about... I don't want to pay less taxes, I want to pay the same amount, YOU want to pay less taxes. Trun that finger around. And this is where the problem lies... Why is it "society's" responsibility to empower YOU, rather than YOUR responsibility to empower yourself? And if you say that society and its rules and limitations keep you from being able to empower yourself, you are full of shit. In 1997, I was making about $10,000/yr. I worked 40 hours a week third shift making minimum wage while going to school more than 30 hours a week. I rode my bike between work, school and home every day. I slept about 4 hours on average after school and before work. Why is it MY job to subsidise and support your lack of self-empowerment? When I was in school I couldn't. So, you know what? I didn't smoke. Now I can afford it. So I do. Pretty simple concept, no? It is called personal reponsibilty and accountability. I could be wrong, but juding from your reply you seem to have taken this as an attack on drug users or something. It is nothing personal against you, the poor or drug users. I grew up poor, and I use drugs. I was poor the first 25 years of my life. I felt the same way then. I am not bitching about the poor or the drug users, and quite frankly, I could give a shit less why "people undertake substance addictions" as far as this argument is concerned it has nothing to do with this, in my opinion. If someone is miserable it is not my responsibility to coddle them and make them happy by giving them money. Don't try and play that card. This is not the rules of society, it is the rules of this government. So, that lame argument equates to the pathetically pseudo-patriotic nationalist battle cry, "America. Love it or leave it!" Fuck that. I say, "America. Love it or change it!" I sincerely hope that was a joke.
Tiassa, Simple question: Why do you deserve special treatment over me? What have you done to qualify this special consideration? What have you contributed to "society" that I haven't that would entitle you to pay less in taxes than I do?
Death and Taxes Your coming from the right direction One Raven but I am a believer in graded taxation. The minimum wage is a fresh idea here in the UK. Back in the day I've toiled for less than what we now consider minimum wage. At that stage I needed all the help I could get. You couldn't drop all taxes to my basic rate, somebodys got to pay and I couldn't afford an eduction (or drugsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) in a higher tax bracket. Now, of course my income is greater than the combined salary of the couple next door. I'm single (don't listen to my girlfriendPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) I drive second hand, service a deal 'o' debt, shop Wal-Mart, save a little when I can ect ect. Basically I just plow the cash straight back into the system. It's all tax as far as I'm concerned. What can you do? Here's a solution. How about one tax rate of 100%Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Only applicable when your personal annual income exceeds 10 million a year. What do you think? Dee Cee
Uglier than crow Oh, come on. You're not really such an arrogant, greedy lump of horsesh@t, are you? Just because I'm sick of reasonably-endowed people calling themselves poor and blaming the government doesn't make you intelligent, One Raven. Things will smell better when you get your head out of your ass. Beside the point. Beside the point. Neither have I. Ever. It doesn't make a difference to our discussion at all. Ri-ight. I'm sure you think so. Such a pathetic argument if you have to invent conditions to discuss instead of dealing with what's on the table. Come on, One Raven, try an honest attempt. If you try to diddle me any harder it'll be sexual assault. Were you born knowing everything in the Universe, or, like most human beings, did you have to learn what you think you know? Society has chosen to organize itself as such. Among that organization is the education of young generations toward future prosperity of the society and species. The least we could do is treat education with the importance it deserves. Why would I, when there is a much more substantial and credible argument to be made? Yes, I'm so selfish because I believe nobody should have to go through that. Oh, poor you. I'm so oppressive aren't I, One Raven? That if I had my way you would have been spared that experience so that those years could have been more optimal and efficient and enjoyable? Oh, cruel, bitchy me. Well who, aside from you, said it was? If you're going to ignore what I write, One Raven, why bother responding to it? Such dishonesty is unbecoming even a vulgar crow. Yes, you're wrong. But what do we expect at this point? Well, that's why I treated the sentence the way I did. I thought this was about taxes, not welfare. Silly me. I should work on my clairvoyance. Too late. Check in with your US Constitution: - We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Next? Not at all. You're perfectly welcome to change the society. Stop victimizing yourself. Well, in order to do that, you have to pay attention to what's going on, not just imagine it and start yelling. After all, we agree on this point of love it or change it, but you wouldn't have noticed because you were too busy trying to fashion me in the image of your scorn. Get the hell over yourself. Why? Is being an American not enough for you? Being human may be unsatisfactory, but it's what we are. Remember that. Thaw out. Don't be so afraid to be a human being. And no matter where you go in the world, unless you want to be alone, you will be part of a society. And that society, regardless of what it is, will ask certain obligations of you in exchange for your participation. You're welcome to dig your own hole, One Raven, but if you put the shovel through the bottom of the boat, the ship will sink, and you're not welcome to drag the rest of us down into the icy water. Does the American tax code need repair? Of course it does. But since you only want to pay as much as the next guy, how do you want to figure that? Oh, of course, raw dollars. After all, you probably wouldn't enjoy the functional equality wherein you're taxed beyond your means of survival. In fact, I know you wouldn't enjoy it. You seem to be having hissy-fits about the present state of things. So ... how many cheeseburgers can you stuff in your glory hole with that money? Remember: if those kids aren't eating, they're stealing from you and your neighbors. One Raven, don't be bringing that brand of second-tier sleaze around me. You want to be a two-penny whore, I can certainly match you. In America you have the freedom of speech that allows you to get up on a pedestal and bitch about your beleaguered, oppressed self. And I have the freedom of speech to laugh my ass off at your pathetic and selfish lamentations. Don't make America into a religion. It's unbecoming.
Obviously you are correct One raven. I didn't even know the percentage you were taxed increased with the salary, I thought it would be the other way around. Paying anything like $50 000 on taxes a years seems way too high no matter how much you are earning. But if it was to be done fairly with no complaints everyone would be taxed the same percentage of their salary. Obviously. I can't believe thats not how it works. The whole taxes system is screwed anyway, it should pop up as required, ie a bypass is being built so everyone has their pay docked in accordance to how much it will actually cost. You just know the government is earning WAY more than it is spending to an insane dishonest degree. And toll roads too, there is a toll road near me that has been there for 20 years with about a million people going over it everyday. As if the fuckin thing hasn't been paid for by now. Whats funny is one time I went over it and the guy in the toll booth I went to was wearing like 6 gold chains, had some gold teeth and had a ring or 2 on every finger, lol, I know he isn't litterally getting all the money, but god it was funny because me and my friend were just talking about how much money must have gone into the road and wondering where the hell it would all be going right before we stopped at this "pimp" of a toll booth operators window. We cracked up in his face.
Dr. Lou, it's a simple difference It's a simple difference. Unfair taxes apparently means Arnold Schwarzeneggar has to wait a few months and another royalty check before buying a new Hummer. Fair taxes apparently means John Q. Poorman has to wait until payday to eat a square meal. Does this sound as if it would be fair? Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's not so simple and it is, in fact, fair to ask people who have less to carry a greater burden than those who have. $65 a week in taxes? Not enough of a difference to keep someone eating for more than five or six days. That leaves a hungry day. $650 a week in taxes? Yeah, it's true: after two weeks I could afford a new Macintosh. Fair. Equal. Right. In other words, sir, I must disagree. When humans are ants or bees, devoid of emotion, programmed and constructed specifically to serve, I will agree with you wholeheartedly. Until then ... no. I simply won't sell out the future of humanity for a little bit of comfort and greed today.
Re: Uglier than crow That is precicely what is on the table. I say that we should pay the same % in taxes regardless of income. You say that you should have to pay less since you have a lower salary. What conditions am I inventing? How am I being dishonest? You are the one disregarding and discounting what I say without addressing my points. You said that people want to take things from this society but don't want to pay for it. I said, in direct coherent response to that, that I was not saying that I do not want to pay taxes. How the hell is that beside the point, exactly? Did you even bother reading my first two posts or are you simply spouting out knee-jerk emotional reactions to what you THINK the cold-hearted Republican bastard means? Then what are you waiting for? Make them. Here was your invitation... Stop making unfounded assumptions about me and how I feel, please. If you want to know, ask me. If not, simply don't respond. I don't want pity. I am not complaining that I went through that. No one said it was. It is the natural result of a system that charges a greater percentage of tax to those that are more financially successful Again, it was in direct response to what you said. You are the one here who is avoiding responses by discounting, completely ignoring and misrepresenting what I have said. The I apologize for misconstruing your apparent defensiveness on the subject. Who is "we"? Who exactly are you speaking for? It is about taxes. If I am paying more taxes than you are than I am effectively giving you money. What exactly is your point here? Is that why you are being irrational and attempting to attack me personally rather than attepting to address the actual points of my arguments unbiasedly? I see. It funny how many one-way streets are in this town. No wonder you keep getting lost. Again, if you actually read my first two posts, you should be aware that I am arguing FOR personal responsibilty and everyone doing their part equally. I am arguing against rights without responsibilities. I agree that there are certain obligations. I think that one of those obligations is to do your equal share regardless of how much money you earn. By wanting to pay anything less than your equal share you are the one trying to avoid obligations. refer back to my second post if you want an answer to that. I clearly explianed how I think that not only the government woul increase its overall tax revenue, but the vast majority of people making under $150K/yr would actually end up paying LESS in taxes. Try and look at this from a rational point of view. Not an emotional point of view that makes everyone with a decent income into a money grabbing selfless greedy bastard. Your prejudice is blinding you. Once again, what is your point? What exactly is selfish about what I have said? What I am proposing will lower taxes for the people that need it most, offer free health-care, free child care, free higher education... What you propose is that YOUR taxes should be lower than MINE because you make less money. I am being selfish? And you accuse me of having my head up my ass. And how the hell do you propose I have done that?
Keep on stuffing your glory hole. Mmmm ... cheeseburgers. My income is irrelevant. If I won the lottery or sold a novel for millions tomorrow, I would still feel the same way about taxation. Understand, One Raven, selling out your principles to accommodate newfound desires is just cheap hypocrisy. Perhaps that's your style, but don't assign it to me. This is why I find you're argument selfish. I'm talking about people, and society. You seem to think that you're the only important thing in the Universe, and that I am only of any significance because I dare to disagree with your greedy lament. If that assessment is inaccurate, change your conduct. Well, let's see: Now, shall I nitpick? This is a different statement from your most recent version. Here, let's look at it: Are you being dishonest, or would you prefer that I rewrite your sentences for you and decide what you mean? After all, if I get more from my government, I'm willing to pay more, as well. The issue of high taxes is separate from the lament that taxation is unfair. You wish to look at the superficial statistic: percentages. I wish to look at the practical reality: what are you really losing? A third yacht, or a meal? When basic human needs are accommodated, we can start arguing percentages. In the end, you're appealing to a superficial statistic to make a moral lament. It's rather quite the disgusting manifestation of superficial morals and selfish ethics. Yes. The only way you're equal is if you're entitled to more than others. You don't have to be a Republican bastard to think that. Just a stupid one. Here's a twist: I'll agree that your equality is equal when we pay people what they're worth. When teachers make more than baseball players, sanitation workers make more than television personalities, and foodservice workers are paid enough to survive on their own, we can call your version of equality equal. In the meantime, some of the folks who would appreciate your version of equal include such figures as the former board of LA Gear, who laid off something like half their workforce in order to give themselves millions in bonuses. Citing financial numbers as motivating layoffs, it turned out that the amount saved in labor was simply given over to the board, who was running the company into the ground, anyway. Tax it all. Alex Rodriguez. Now there's an interesting case, eh? Two million dollars a month, including the off-season, for playing baseball? Tax it 75%. Jim Carrey? Hell, for the crime of making Liar Liar and getting paid $40m, Carrey should be taxed into the red. Pay people what they are worth. Then we can talk percentages. Take a look around at things like insurance. Is your insurance premium high? Don't drive. Need your car to get to work? Get a different job. The job market sucks? Move somewhere else. How long should we continue treating people that way? Are you reading my posts, or just putting up knee-jerk responses to what you're failing to read? In the meantime, what? Do you expect the poor to pay for it? What special treatment do I claim? What special consideration have I claimed? Myself? Hell, One Raven, you pay more in taxes than I made. What is unclear about that? Quit being so piggy. Let's look back at one of the silly laments in one of your posts: Who is punishing you? I've already pointed out a problem with tax brackets that companies are aware of. Check with your HR. Aside from that, it's your own fault for either not making more or less. You chose the route that landed you where you are. Nobody is punishing you. Given the amount of pure bitching you're doing, assumption is the wrong word. Say please all you want, One Raven, but if you keep playing that lie it won't do a thing. Oooh. That's an nice spin that almost worked. First off, look at the topic you posted. Admittedly, you don't want pity on your former poverty, but stop begging pity for your success. Secondly, that you're not complaining that you went through that--is that really relevant? I don't care if you're complaining or not. You should not have had to go through that. Why the hell are you so goddamned self-centered? Always from the general to the particular. Always from the world on down to li'l ol' special freaking you? Like I said, you're part of society. That's ... rich. Calculate the effect of someone like your former self. Poor, but you've never taken welfare. How do you tax society? You get up, you do your thing, you do your best, you're like everyone else. When you were poor, did the SEC do paperwork for you? How many regulatory commissions were set up to make sure that your business dealings were legit? How many hours did you spend with ten or twelve lawyers arguing your right to massive profits? The rich tax society, it's part of the give and take that makes the world go 'round. Read the sequence again. You're wrong. Avoiding responses? Try addressing issues that have to do with reality. Don't bother. If you're going to apologize, it would have to be genuine and it's quite obvious from your conduct throughout that you're not. And besides, if you were going to apologize for anything, I would hope it would be for thinking the "weed and twinkies" argument you posted had anything to do with reality. Me, myself, and I. Anyone reading this topic from the perspective of humans in society and not as a singular object in the Universe deserving of special consideration. Ri-ight. So ... only poor people use the roads you pay for? Only poor children go to the schools you pay for? Only poor people use the courts or government agencies you pay for? Ri-ight. Whatever you say. Just stop playing like you're surprised when people call you out on your ridiculous greed. If you didn't get it the first time, what makes you think you'll get it now? Nonetheless, you wrote, This is not the rules of society, it is the rules of this government. Now then, go back and check with the US Constitution. "We the People" (collective); "form a more perfect Union" (collective); "common defence" (collective); "general welfare" (collective); "ourselves and our Posterity" (e.g. our children; collective). Did you notice? There's a connection between society and government in this country. the rules of government exist for the benefit of society. It's obvious that you don't want other people thinking for you. Please don't ask them to. The whole substance of your argument is yourself. If I hit the argument, you're going to feel it like I hit you. This is your own problem, for you choose to wrap yourself up so tightly in this surrogate identity. Only what you want to, obviously. And if you wake up your brain, it might occur to you that I disagree with you severely on that point. You are not arguing for personal responsibility and everyone doing their part equally. You are asking for advantage. Relative to what? You're arguing to put a share of your responsibilities onto others because you choose to be dissatisfied with their responsibilities. You are not God, One Raven. Get over yourself. Right, and by your version, equality is one person starving while another person throws a $2 million birthday party for his wife. You see, we agree on this. I just disagree that taking food from the mouths of children in order to support someone else's luxury is equality. Not everyone. Stop deceiving yourself and inventing things to frustrate yourself. You're having enough trouble with reality. Not all people with decent incomes wail and cry like babies when they can't starve someone else for luxury. Get over yourself. I think my point is officially made. As I noted a short while ago in this post, it would seem that I disagree with you in that I don't find equality in stealing food from children in order to support your luxury. If you don't get it at this point, it's your own problem. Well ... let's review: • So I am being punished for working hard and sacrificing to pull myself up higher. • I worked my ass off, and earned what I have with long hours, dedication and work ethics. Which is exactly why I get so pissed off when people who have no right to what I have earned claim they "deserve" it. • Because the whole idea is to be rewarded for you hard work and sacrifice, not punished for it. You'll notice that two of the three statements above were listed the first time around, when I called such arguments petty greed. • Why is it MY job to subsidise and support your lack of self-empowerment? • Why do you deserve special treatment over me? What have you done to qualify this special consideration? What have you contributed to "society" that I haven't that would entitle you to pay less in taxes than I do? Did you not notice the litany of "I, I, I" in your posts? While this is, to a certain extent, necessary, at no time do you really seem to want to address what "I" means in terms of society. In fact, you flat-out reject society in this topic: Don't try and play that card. This is not the rules of society, it is the rules of this government. Now then, do you need a dictionary?! Easy enough? Get that into place and I'll believe you. No, what I propose is that we do not take food from children in order to pay for your luxury. I believe we've covered that. You are. Yes. You do. You're concentrating on the superficial while campaigning for your own advantage in the guise of social benefit. You're clinging to abstractions instead of reality. Look, One Raven, there is quite the broad range of equalities that must be achieved before a legitimate debate can ensue about something like percentages. Pay people what they're worth to society. Pay people decently for their wages. Beyond that, leave yourself out of it. It's only appropriate to include one's personal experiences, but that litany of your selfishness belies any façade of good intentions. You're arguing the kind of subjectivity that we haven't seen since Christians claimed their First Amendment rights violated by the prohibition against forced prayer in the public classroom. If being part of society is a punishment ... I don't know what to tell you. It's not like "America, love it or leave it," because one can go to Canada or Ireland or wherever. But if you leave society, where can you go? The middle of the Outback? But you do live in society, One Raven. And yes, the tax code needs severe work. You don't want less taxes, yet your proposal includes a lower tax rate. You're not selfish, but so much centers on how you're being unjustly punished for your success. Whatever you say, One Raven. Your equality debate will have much more significance if it isn't superficial and self-centered. And while you can choose to change the self-centered part, the superficiality of the percentages debate isn't going away until other equalities are equalized. Take a number, wait in line with the rest of us. Or is that unjust punishment?
And in addition .... I'm curious ... what was your motivation for bringing us your argument from another forum? I won't bother speculating, since it would be sarcastic anyway, but ... what? Oh, and by the way ... at $80 - $90k a year ($40k = "almost half"), do you call yourself "rich"? Honestly? Most people I know who make $90k consider themselves "comfortable", but not "rich". I'm considering your response to Dmitri Terryn in that question. I mean, sure you worked hard, but you're not rich like a Bush or a Kennedy, are you?
I about fell out of my chair laughing! Tricks "dishonest" people play to keep their own money! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You dishonest person, trying to keep the money you earned instead of the government taking it. Here is how we change taxation in this country. The government takes no taxes out before you get your pay check. At the end of the year, you write the government a personal check for everything you owe, income taxes, FICA, state, etc. When Joe Citizen making 50k a year writh the G a check for 15-20k I would love to see the look on their face!
I didn't reach the rest of the posts because I want to go back to bed, but, Wrong. At $308,000, you pay 39% federal income tax. If you live in states with no income tax, that is your marginal rate. If you live in other states, add it on top.
Here is a US income tax break down. The top 50% wage earners paid 96.03% of the income taxes for 2001. This basically defeats the idiotic class envy/warfare tripe of the democrats' argument that the rich do not pay their fair share of the taxes. In reality all the consumers pay all the taxes. Corporations do not pay taxes, they pass it along as a cost in the goods and services they sell, meaning we still pay all the taxes. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
A little Aside This tax argument has been most entertaining. I am actually struggling to figure out how the tax system in the US works because you all seem to be paying a lot more than me, and I know UK taxes are higher. What exactly are all you all doing? Graded taxation - I don't get it. In the UK the grades come in at two intervals (I think - I'm really not sure - I never see the money in my wages other than a deduction so I don't really consider it - to me it's phantom salary so it's absence doesn't trouble me). But anyway - so I think the top rate in the UK comes in at £30k (or whatever it is). Now you don't get taxed at the toperate for your entire salary - just the amount you earn above the band - so how can you possibly be penalised for moving to a higher bracket!? You all pay the same rate as on the money you earn up to whichever poor soul (literally) you happen toi be moaning about - but you pay more on the additional salary. Seems fair. But I have already become sidetracked. The original point I wanted to make was this: Imagine we stop the clock, right now, and hold the world to ransom. We say that we will disband law and order, public services, banks, financial insitutions, the police, the military, the government - everything we all pay for - and return to a Hobbesian state of nature (a recurring theme for me). BUT We will society as it is if you agree to pay protection money each year. In fact, we will even arrange to look after you wehn things get tough because we're nice, just gangsters. Just make us an offer. Now I'm betting that Chad Winston - Investment Banker on 250,000k per year plus bonus - will pay rather a lot to keep his life as luxurious as it is. Old Billy-Bob down in the hood earning pennies from his McJob may well offer nothing - after all he can go and take old Chad's utlra-modern home entertainment system in a state of nature - in fact he can just shoot Chad and move in. Survival of the fittest. The boys in South Central would love it! My point? The richer you are the more you benefit from an organised society. I see no reason why you shouldn't send a little money back to poor old Billy-Bob who is less fortunate but thankfully not threatening to kill you over the injustice. The richer you are, the more you benefit, the more you should pay. Grade those taxes and don't allow anyone to possess more than $1bn personally. That's way too much.
Capt. Canada, the issue is not paying taxes, but paying too much. Tax Freedom Day for 2003 was April 19. That means that everything you earn from the first of January to April 19 goes to one form of the government or another in taxes and fees. In 2000 it was April 30th. Taxes are necessity for a free and ordered society, only an idiot would argue that there should be no taxes. The problems come from social programs, welfare, social security, medicaid, medicare, unnecessary beauracracies, etc. I pay into social security 7.65% of my yearly income, I have no choice in the matter. It pays for people receiving social security now. My employer pays a matching amount or if you are self-employed, you pay both parts, a real nice small business killer. What is supposed to happen is that you will get this money back from others paying into it later. Most realistic people my age, 30s, do not ever expect to see any of it. In Arizona, the state (the taxpayer), pays for health care of illegals. That cost in the last couple of years has risen from like $200 million to like $1.2 billion. It goes on and on. Many of the social type taxes are used to create a political power base for an electorate, it is also very Machiavellian, give 'em something to keep 'em in check. Everybody thank Lyndon Johnson for the "Great Society" and greedy people who think an income of $82 million a year is not enough (Tyco). Tax Freedom Day: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html
In the States, there are six steps for federal income tax. You pay the given rate for a bracket. Moving into a higher bracket will get you taxed at the higher rate on that portion. For example, if you pay 5% up to $10,000 and 7% up to $20,000, you pay on an income of $18,000: 5% on $10,000 = $500 7% on $8,000 = $560 Total = $1,060. The richer you are, the more you benefit, the more you should pay. Grade those taxes and don't allow anyone to possess more than $1bn personally. That's way too much. No. That is not equality. Equality would be everyone paying the same tax rate. Why do you support discimination based on income? That said, I'd rather see a flat tax rate of 15% or something for everyone. End of story. In my ideal world you would just pay a consumption tax though. Abolish any income tax and put a 10 to 15% sales tax on all products. The more you consume, the more you pay. That is fair. People that hoard their money can do so, but once they try to spend it, tax them.
