I'm rich, at least according to the Democrats.
- Thread starter tlhelmer
- Start date
- Status
CasualShooter
Member
Communism didn't work for Russia, surely it'll work here! 
I don't mind helping others (it is part of my faith). I do mind taxing certain people at a greater % because you think they don't need that much money. It is a short sited, uninspired attempt to use class envy to justify socialistic ideals.
Make it flat and make it fair. The wealthy will pay more taxes by virtue of their higher income not by a socialist mandate.
Robin Hood was a fairy tale.
Make it flat and make it fair. The wealthy will pay more taxes by virtue of their higher income not by a socialist mandate.
Robin Hood was a fairy tale.
jimpeel
Member
No. Robin Hood was a THIEF!
jimpeel
Member
Whenever a politician brags that he is akin to Robin Hood, you should be ready to exclaim in a loud, clear voice "Robin Hood was a thief!"
mountainclmbr
Member
I am really, really rich!!!
I have organs that could be sold to rich donors, I have fillings in my teeth.
I am good for Democrats as long as I am toiling for them. After that they can hack me up for the last money they will get from me.
At least I have the knowledge that I will be of only limited use, because I won't work for communists. I will cause as much grief as possible until they get my fillings.
I have organs that could be sold to rich donors, I have fillings in my teeth.
I am good for Democrats as long as I am toiling for them. After that they can hack me up for the last money they will get from me.
At least I have the knowledge that I will be of only limited use, because I won't work for communists. I will cause as much grief as possible until they get my fillings.
Well, I have to say I've been following this thread and nearly posted a couple of times, but "thought three times and posted not once" to keep from being less than High Road. Rather, my contribution will be some suggested reading on who those "fat cats" we should be socking it to really are:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm
Chuck Jennings
Member
I realy enjoyed the "Millionare Next Door" book. One of the most inspiring statistics in that book was the the fact that most American millionaires are first generation small business owners. This is a far cry from the aristocratic depiction of millionaires that we are often fed.
It really changed my outlook on my prospects of success.
It really changed my outlook on my prospects of success.
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Ever wonder why there are more drug dealers in the 'hood than there are people selling turnip greens on the side of the road? That is because drug dealers aren't licensed and taxed.
Gordon Fink
Member
Actually, payroll taxes are non-refundable. (They are also regressive and lead to double taxation, but that’s another story.) I don’t know if or how the “earned income credit†might affect this, though, as I’ve never qualified for said credit.
What this comes down to is that there is a feeling that the middle class bears the heaviest tax burden.… The poor pay few taxes, as they are exempt from most income taxes. The wealthy can avoid many taxes through various shelters and other “loopholes.†Meanwhile, the middle class is too rich to avoid income taxes but too poor to take advantage of many tax shelters.
Is this sitution true? Honestly, I don’t know, but belief in it is pervasive.
Flat taxes and other fair-tax schemes have been proposed and enjoy a fair amount of popular support. However, in order to maintain current spending levels, fair taxes are inevitably higher than the middle and poor classes can afford to pay. This brings us back to cutting spending.
So what are you willing to cut?
~G. Fink
Langenator
Member
Well, there's entire departments that I would axe-HUD and Education for starters. Take big chunks out of HHS and Commerce. No more farm subsidies, federal crop insurance, federal flood/fire/hurricane/disaster insurance, Amtrak, NEA, wool & mohair subsidies, or helium fund.
Oh, and since I don't see how in the heck having Uncle Sam run a medical insurance provider for old people and poor people, or how running a pyramid scheme masquerading as a old age pension plan qualify as "regulating commerce among the several states," Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security get the ax as well.
If The People feel these things are needed, they can vote and have their state/local governments do them.
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Langenator, interesting you should mention federal insurance programs. These may be the primary factor in the double digit in flation of healthcare costs for all of us.
Langenator
Member
The federal insurance programs I was refering to as such are things like federally subsidized flood insurance for idiots who live in floodplains, hurricane insurance for morons who live on barrier islands, etc-basically, andwhere the feds give people some kind of insurance (at cost to you and me) where the private sector won't, at least not without charging a monster premium (pay them enough and Lloyd's will insure anything) because the risk is too high. Such programs encourage people to do things that aren't smart, and it costs the taxpayers money.
O'Rourke's Dictum: Anytime the government pays you to do something you wouldn't do on your own, it's paying you to do something stupid.
Of course, without federally susidized flood insurance, the entire city of New Orleans would be economically untenable. Then where would we go for Mardi Gras?
And yes, Medicare and Medicaid are definitely at least partially responsible for the rising cost of healthcare.
O'Rourke's Dictum: Anytime the government pays you to do something you wouldn't do on your own, it's paying you to do something stupid.
Of course, without federally susidized flood insurance, the entire city of New Orleans would be economically untenable. Then where would we go for Mardi Gras?
And yes, Medicare and Medicaid are definitely at least partially responsible for the rising cost of healthcare.
fix
Member
If I were given five minutes of unquestioned authority over the budget, National Liberal Radio and the National Endowment for the Obscene would be gone. Buh-bye.
w4rma
member
The payroll tax is paid on all income below ~85,000/year. It is not paid on income above ~85K/year.
Imho, the best way to think of the payroll tax is as 15.3% added on to your income tax bracket.
Payroll taxes:
...
For 2004, you pay 6.2% of your first $87,900 in salary to the OASDI fund. You also pay 1.45% of all income for Medicare. The combined rate for FICA taxes is 7.65%. Employers pay the same percentage, for a combined FICA rate of 15.3%. Self-employed persons pay 15.3% of their first $87,900 in FICA taxes and 2.9% in any additional income to Medicare.
http://partners.financenter.com/hancockbank/common/glossary.fcs?qstrTerm=PayrollTaxes
Imho, the best way to think of the payroll tax is as 15.3% added on to your income tax bracket.
Payroll taxes:
...
For 2004, you pay 6.2% of your first $87,900 in salary to the OASDI fund. You also pay 1.45% of all income for Medicare. The combined rate for FICA taxes is 7.65%. Employers pay the same percentage, for a combined FICA rate of 15.3%. Self-employed persons pay 15.3% of their first $87,900 in FICA taxes and 2.9% in any additional income to Medicare.
http://partners.financenter.com/hancockbank/common/glossary.fcs?qstrTerm=PayrollTaxes
Langenator
Member
Not progressive certainly. But, at least for Social Security, there's a benefit cap as well, which I'd guess corresponds to the ~$85k/yr income level.
Personally, I'd rather be allowed to invest the same % of my income in some sort of Roth-IRA type account.
w4rma
member
The payroll tax is *supposed* to be used only for medicare, social security and unemployment benefits (that was the rhetoric used when Reagan increased it).
It's not. The funds from the payroll tax are treated exactly like funds from other taxes by Congress.
Edited, re: Reagan/payroll tax.
It's not. The funds from the payroll tax are treated exactly like funds from other taxes by Congress.
Edited, re: Reagan/payroll tax.
Still regressive, because the wealthy can at least get max benefits out of this tax, rather than being forced to pay for things they never use, as the do with "progressive" taxes. The demorats will have to rectify this.
I'm all for privatization. Greenspan has made it clear SS is a house of cards - a pyramid scheme.
I'm all for privatization. Greenspan has made it clear SS is a house of cards - a pyramid scheme.
w4rma
member
The payroll tax (and sales taxes) are the most regressive taxes of all. These taxes were used to pay for Bush's taxcuts. Er, well Bush's taxcuts were paid for with loans.
Frohickey
Member
I never understood the distaste for regressive taxes, and the benefits of progressive taxes.
If you agree that taxes are used for purposes that are equally valuable to all citizens, independent of income level, shouldn't taxes be a fixed amount payable by all citizens?
Fixed amount being $100 a person, not a fixed rate of 10% of income.
If you agree that taxes are used for purposes that are equally valuable to all citizens, independent of income level, shouldn't taxes be a fixed amount payable by all citizens?
Fixed amount being $100 a person, not a fixed rate of 10% of income.
I'm not rich. This is rich... http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=4&act=pfin
I'm wondering how much tax he pays each year.
-Pat
I'm wondering how much tax he pays each year.
-Pat
- Status
