Do the "Poor" pay their fair share ? · Page 8

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#141

So you think we're going to pass a flat tax and reduce overall tax revenue while we run a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit? In that case the revenue will be made up by borrowing from asia.

You made an assumption that was foolish and/or intellectually bewildered.

FuzzNJ
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#142

I've been saying all along that people need to get over the word "fair".

HockeyDad wrote:

As well as

A 9% sales tax would be regressive by definition but that does not mean that it is not fair.

HockeyDad wrote:

The poor pay their fair share on most Federal taxes. The poor do not pay their fair share on Federal income tax.

HockeyDad wrote:

Another definition could be that one person makes $1,000 and is taxed at 10% so he pays $100 and has $900 left. Another person makes $10,000 and is taxed at 10% and pays $1000 and has $9000 left. They each paid the same percent of their income so that is fair.

HockeyDad wrote:

Why should a disabled vet or a little old lady or kids whose parents were killed not have to pay their fair share of taxes?

HockeyDad wrote:

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#143

You still trying to leap to a conclusion that any of these things will change for the better or worse. I've said they won't change.

FuzzNJ
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#144

I've never figured out why they choose to be poor. I guess they're rich in other ways and we clearly don't tax that enough either.

HockeyDad wrote:

Cain's your guy then.

"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!"

Say, you aren't rich huh? Lazy ****.

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#145

How was dinner? Did it help you relax a bit so you could work on your explanation to Mikey?

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#146

Say, you aren't rich huh? Lazy ****.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Are you name calling again? Anchor is angry!

FuzzNJ
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#147

HockeyDad wrote:

Changing the topic again. Again, I do not support, nor do I think a flat tax will be passed. I am saying that your statement:

"You made an assumption overall tax revenue will shrink. Based on the current fiscal situation, that will not happen. Any reduction on tax revenue from one group will be made up from another group."

is false, wrong, stupid, not being proposed by anyone, opposite of what a flat tax is, amiss, askew, astray, at fault, awry, bad, counterfactual, defective, erratic, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, fluffed, goofed, in error, inaccurate, inexact, miscalculated, misconstrued, misfigured, misguided, mishandled, mistaken, not precise and bullsh*t.

Your continued attempt to try to ignore it and change the subject instead of just saying, yeah, that was just not right, is stubbornness run amuck and should show you to be a dishonest person whose arguments should be ignored.

Enjoy your evening.

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#148

You made an assumption that was wrong and you can't support it. Getting pissy won't get you out if it and it won't explain to Mikey why he should pay higher tax rates because he is more successful.

At some point you're just going to have to use the "WHY DON'T THEY GET IT? IT'S FAIR!" argument and throw your hands up.

Maybe then I'll continue with making your argument for you.

FuzzNJ
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#149

HockeyDad wrote:

"What the Republicans are arguing is, The top 20 percent of all income earners in the United States pay approximately 86 percent of all federal income taxes."

From the OP.

This only includes Federal Income Tax.

You and I both agreed that doesn't cover the entire tax burden.

When you take all taxes into consideration The top 20 percent of all income earners in the United States pay approximately 64.3 percent of all federal income taxes.

BUT

The top 20 percent of all income earners in the United States TAKE HOME 59.1 percent of all income.

Pretty even right? If you take in the same percentage of income overall as a group that you as a group are paying out in taxes, that's pretty even. This is because the top 20% are considered to be able to afford a higher % of their income in taxes that the bottom 20%.

As you said 16% of 20k is 3,200 leaving 16,800 take home.

16% of 150,000 is 24,000 leaving 126,000.

Sure it's the same percentage, but when considering what would happen to the above percentages regarding overall tax burden, it would put a much, much larger burden on the bottom percentage of income earners overall, as a group, as a percentage of overall taxes paid.

FuzzNJ wrote:

You can make an argument against the Progressive tax system if you want, but you have said you don't think a flat tax is the way to go or that it would pass.

So what are the new ideas you have? You are just arguing to argue at this point and ignoring an obvious flaw in your logic for purely stubborn reasons.

It is for that reason that conversing with you on this topic is no longer possible.

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#150

Not for you because I know you read it, but for anyone else that may have missed the post on the previous page where I actually did make an argument for the progressive tax system after which you went on your 'flat tax' tangent that was incorrectly calculated.

Take note that the word 'fair' was never used.

You can make an argument against the Progressive tax system if you want, but you have said you don't think a flat tax is the way to go or that it would pass.

So what are the new ideas you have? You are just arguing to argue at this point and ignoring an obvious flaw in your logic for purely stubborn reasons.

It is for that reason that conversing with you on this topic is no longer possible.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Flat tax was your tangent, not mine.

16% tax was your tangent, not mine. That was your number when you tried to shift the conversation off the fact that 47% pay no Federal income tax into a discussion of all Federal, State, and local taxes equaling 16%. Even that tactic still shows Mikey paying 30%.

You can't explain to Mikey why he should pay higher tax rates because he is more successful. You can't get him to stand up and proclaim that he should be paying more taxes than he already does. Heck, he still wants to pay less.

PDX and I already have it figured out the game. You just can't bring yourself to come clean and admit what is going on.

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#151

So what are the new ideas you have?

FuzzNJ wrote:

Why do we need new ideas? The current progressive tax system works fine. Everybody bitches a little about it but the poor still get their government cheese, cell phones, and Xboxes and do not riot. They aren't going to riot. They are nowhere close to rioting. The "vanishing" middle class is nowhere close to rioting.

The status quo rules the day and we still have an incredibly complicated tax code that keeps accountants and IRS staff in jobs. Chalk that up as jobs created or saved by President Obama!

Brewha
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#152

Hi – I’m BullHockeyDad.

I have not answers.
I don’t weigh in on issues.
I’m just here to point out that you’re wrong – on everything.

I would end by saying ‘thank you’ – but I’m French.

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#153

Poor Cros.

Brewha
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#154

Penalized?
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:

Poor camel . . . .

For such wisdom, and deft – I will try to help;

Mikey, People who make say $20k for a family of four spend every dime on food, shelter and health care.
People who make $100k for a family of two spend half (?) on these necessities and have an amount of discretionary income – say a good $20k a year.
People who make $500k as an individual - well have lots of discretionary income.

Now – the guvment needs money for the Army and street lights.

Take 25% tax across the board and the poor man can’t feed his kids. The middle man has to be frugal. And the rich man goes to Cancun instead of France for summer (exchange rates you know).

So the American people have historically thought, and voted, that it is immoral to tax the wage earners on a flat rate. I’m talking about moral people here . . . .

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#155

Brewha wrote:

Hi I'm Brewha.

I'm a newbie that bitches and whines about the rich because I don't like my lot in life and I would be much better off if more rules were slanted in my favor and "The Man" stopped keeping me down. I can't say I want the rules slanted in my favor because then that would make me sound just like the rich that I loath. What I can say and not expose my motive is it needs to be more fair.

Although I'm mad as hell and won't take it anymore, I'm still sitting on the couch playing Xbox and I'll go join the OWS protests after the next game. Or maybe one more.

I would end by saying thank you but will not because there is no amount that could ever satisfy my bloodlust for the rich.

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#156

Mikey, People who make say $20k for a family of four spend every dime on food, shelter and health care.
People who make $100k for a family of two spend half (?) on these necessities and have an amount of discretionary income – say a good $20k a year.
People who make $500k as an individual - well have lots of discretionary income.

Now – the guvment needs money for the Army and street lights.

Take 25% tax across the board and the poor man can’t feed his kids. The middle man has to be frugal. And the rich man goes to Cancun instead of France for summer (exchange rates you know).

Brewha wrote:

You just had to go and make FuzzNJ's "fair" argument for him. It was fun watching him squirm with percentages and absolute amounts that could never make the case.

The "fair" argument is all about how much money the government decides to allow you to have leftover after taxes. Although the middle class guy pays far more in absolute taxes and percentages than the poor guy, he still has more leftover money than the poor guy. Although the rich guy pays far more in absolute taxes and percentages than the middle class guy, he still has more leftover money than the middle class guy. The poor guy is still at the bottom, the middle class guy is still in the middle, and the rich guy is still at the top when it comes to leftover money after taxes and torches and pitchforks are not deployed.

Using this argument, the poor pay their fair share and they always will regardless of tax rates or even if they paid one penny. Their leftover income is the baseline. The middle class do not pay their fair share. As long as they have more leftover income than the poor, they are still better off after taxation. The rich do not pay their fair share. As long as they have more leftover income than the middle class and the poor, they are still better off after taxation.

The neat thing about this argument is that it leaves a tremendous amount of room for increased taxation for the rich and middle class because it is not "fair" now. Until the tax rates are such that the poor, middle class, and rich, have the exact same leftover income after taxes, we can always make the claim the someone does not pay their fair share. That is the true answer to "How much is 'their fair share'?" which is a question people pushing this argument always dodge.

Our government's excessive spending habits and the population's insatiable appetite for that government spending all but guarantees these "fair" based tax increases will happen. We're just not talking about the middle class right now because it is easier to line up the poor and middle class against the rich and get the ball rolling.

So the answer to Mikey as to why he should pay more in absolute tax amounts and tax percentages because he is more successful is that it is fair because the government still lets you keep enough money after tax so that you have more money than the less successful guy.

Edited by user 14 years ago | Reason: Not specified

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#157

So the American people have historically thought, and voted, that it is immoral to tax the wage earners on a flat rate. I’m talking about moral people here . . . .

Brewha wrote:

I'm not too sure that has been based on morality or immorality and I can't recall ever getting to vote on income taxes but it is a nice little twist. If Mikey does not agree to pay more income taxes with a smile on his face, he is immoral.

Why have we not historically applied the same thought to gas taxes, social security taxes, Medicare taxes, and every other Federal tax or even state tax?

I guess selective morality.

FuzzNJ
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#158

Using this argument, the poor pay their fair share and they always will regardless of tax rates or even if they paid one penny. Their leftover income is the baseline. The middle class do not pay their fair share. As long as they have more leftover income than the poor, they are still better off after taxation. The rich do not pay their fair share. As long as they have more leftover income than the middle class and the poor, they are still better off after taxation.

HockeyDad wrote:

Ahhh, I get it now. You are upset no one on this side of the aisle weren't making the everyone should take home the same amount argument, and here is why, we aren't communists and that idea never came to mind, not even once, in all the times I've thought of this topic.

I can see why you are upset now, you are waiting for an answer that was never going to come because you think we are something we are not.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#159

FuzzNJ wrote:

Le HockeyDad doesn't get upset over this folly you stake every waking second to. He's laughing at you and at the absurdity of the situation. Making perfect sense of it all with a dark sarcastic twinge. Get a life and get off the couch and march into the streets you limo lib! You're soft! Che wouldn't let you polish his boots! Castro wouldn't even let you carry a sign. You're ineffective as water carrier for an administration and the followers of it. Now that the death spiral has started you want to rage? Now? Too late screaming monkey for that. Suppose we can add bad timing to the litany of things you're just not good at. If you think for one second that ANYONE here is waiting for any response from you, you're kidding yourself. You're a running gag here. We're waiting for you to go Jimmay or Beyder on us. It's only a matter of time.

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

14 years ago

#160

FuzzNJ wrote:

You still don't get it. I'm not upset at all. I never thought you were a communist. You just want things more "fair" in your favor!

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: