That's called "progressive".

HockeyDad wrote:

But enough about me – As normal I don’t think you have weighed in on this one.

Do you think the poor pay their fair share?

Brewha wrote:

So nevermind waste. Nevermind corruption.

Your solution is people who earn more should pay more while people who earn less should get more handed to them?

Work hard = have $$$ taken from you
Work less = have $$$ given to you

Thats basically your system. the government doesnt actually earn any money. Every penny that gets handed out to help anyone gets taken away from someone else first.

Perhaps the key to solving this problem is reducing the amount of people who need help thus allowing other people to keep more of the money they earn.

MikeyRavioli wrote:

Think of your extended family – parents, spouse, kids, cousins, uncles, aunts, etc. Now, let’s say that all 12 of you live under one roof. Would you demand that each brings in the same income to the family? Your poor old father in-law is disabled – what a dead beat! Why should you be punished for him not working?

Now – let’s look at the fantasy where the US ‘poor’ are all 27 year old kids with a student loan, who dropped out in order to focus on smoking grass. Outrage! Why should you be punished because of them? It’s not like anyone ever paid your way. Everyone taking a handout is a tic on society!

I know people don’t like it, but each needs to contribute in accordance with their earnings. You want a wife and a kid? It won’t be fair. You want to raise crops; some poor old woman will need some food and only be able to make you a bowl of soup in return.

If you want to keep everything you make and never contribute to society then vote republican. And remember – it takes a truly ruthless misanthrope to keep all those beggars at bay.

It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a rich man than it is for . . .
Well you get the idea.

Brewha wrote:

The same income, no. The same percentage? Maybe. Lets say for a laugh we adopt a flat tax and for the purpose of easy math call it 10%. My disabled father in law would pay 10% of $0. Fine. My uncle 10% of 25k, my spouse 10% of 50k, and I pay 10% of 100k. Why because I make 100k does my "fair share" become larger because I am fortunate enough to be more succesful?

I have never said I want to keep everything I make. I consider it a priveledge to contribute to the health and safety of our country and have no problem helping out people who need a hand. But between my wife and I what we paid in federal, state, local, and property taxes last year was an insane number. And we are far from rich. We happen to make good livings and we also live in one of the most expensive areas of the country.

MikeyRavioli wrote:

I am really not understand what the percentage of their income tax paid has to do with their percentage of overall income.

MikeyRavioli wrote:

16% of the bottom 3.5% of all income is not going to add up to a big dollar amount. 16% on someone making 20k a year is $3200. Lets say I make 150k for arguments sake. 16% means I pay $24000. Thats my "fair share" Why because I make a good living do I have to pay 34%?

I would be happy to pay 16%. And again my question is why because I am lucky enough to make a good living does my "fair share" have to mean paying a higher percentage? I am penalized for being succesful.

MikeyRavioli wrote:

It to keep the unsuccessful fat, drunk, and stupid because if they wise up they will kill you. Think of it as "protection" fees.

HockeyDad wrote:

Did I explain that clearly, not sure.

FuzzNJ wrote:

While there is an element of truth to the fact that the 'elite' do try to keep the peasants occupied with other matters to protect their 'kingdoms', it usually doesn't last when they overplay their hand as they have the last few decades.

FuzzNJ wrote:

No. They would still be paying 16%.

HockeyDad wrote:

You explained it clearly and while I understand I vehemently disagree.
I think you are saying that your percentage of tax liability should around the percentage of overall income?

So by your logic the bottom 5% of earners of all income should pay around 5% income tax and people in the 95th percentile should pay 95%?

MikeyRavioli wrote:

No? Imagine that. You are correct actually and thanks for bringing it up. It's the same sort of thing the republicans are trying to do by saying the top whatever % pay a much larger % of the taxes as Wheel and others keep repeating. If you look in figure 7 it's pretty damn equal.


Penalized? Hardly. As I said before, look at figure 7 and notice you are paying around the same percentage in taxes as the percentage of income overall your taking in.

If you were to pay 16% that may sound fair to you, but overall those making much less than you would be picking up a much larger percentage of the overall tax burden compared to what they actually make?

Did I explain that clearly, not sure.

FuzzNJ wrote:

I guess I didn't explain it properly. ;)

FuzzNJ wrote:

Penalized? Yes. If I paid the same percentage I would be contributing $24,000 vs. $3200. Instead at 34% I am contributing $51,000. My 51K is both a higher dollar value and a higher percentage. Even at the 24k assuming the government collected 1 million dollars in tax revenue overall I paid 2.4% while the other contributor .32%.

I can only control the amount of income my family makes. Where that falls on the scale of overall income is not anything I can control and thusly should not be penalized becuase of it. If 150k suddenly became close to the bottom of the pay scale I would not expect to pay less.

You make your money - you pay your fair share. Where that falls in relation to what other people make shouldnt matter.

To paraphrase the misused quote earleir - Its no easier to pass a camel through the eye of a rich man or a poor man. It sucks for both men and the camel.

MikeyRavioli wrote:

Told you so.

HockeyDad wrote: