12 Jan 16
Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says moonbats in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"
Well all of you who love this type of blatantly unfair tax scheme I ask you why stop at income?
Why not use progressive tax schemes for everything that is taxed?
For example, let's say you own a 4 bedroom home but you and your wife have only 1 kid. You only "need" 2 bedrooms so some moonbat in your state government can decide that those 2 bedrooms must be taken from you and given to someone else and then inserts 2 people into your home because they "need" those rooms and you don't
What about a vacation home? Surely you don't "need" that if you only use it on occasion.
You and your wife have 2 cars and you have your dream car in the garage you don't need that classic 1969 GTO so why not let the government take it from you to give to someone who does "need" it
I bet that sounds like a great plan to some of you doesn't it?
The Progressive income tax makes as much sense to me as the "no fly list" or the "no gun list". Why not just make a list for everything. Let there be a "no drive list" and a "no vote list" etc.
I guess is saves time and money putting people on these lists than it does taking people to court and locking them up in jail where they presumably belong, at least, according to the moonbats.
Originally posted by whodeyAre you forgetting the time in the US and UK where the max tax was over 90%? Remember the Beetles song 'Tax man'? That song was written because the max tax in the UK ATT was 98%. So you make 1 million and the state took 980,000 leaving you with 20,000 which puts you in poverty level financially.
Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says moonbats in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"
Well all of you who love this type of blatantly unfair tax scheme I ask you why stop at income?
W ...[text shortened]... o someone who does "need" it
I bet that sounds like a great plan to some of you doesn't it?
Was that ok?
You do know after all the compromises congress goes through to get a bill past all three branches, it is so watered down as to be nothing like the original, right?
So if the full progressive tax were passed, the top tax which stands at about 40% would go maybe 10% higher but the people earning more than say, 200K starts paying higher, say 42% and then the upper 1% at 50%.
I gather you are a republican hell bent on less taxes, less government and so forth. So all the money will be spent on the military and buggerall for research, schools, NASA, roads and bridges and so forth.
Republican version of less government: Abrogation of responsibility to the people.
SCREW the people, let them eat cork. If you aren't happy, get a job, deadbeat.
You a Vet with no legs, so sorry, the wait time for your new legs now runs 3 years at the local VA hospital and we are going to make sure it stays that way.
But by god, we are making sure Romney has a platinum parachute.
Originally posted by whodeyI understand Bernie sanders wants some Americans to pay 99% of their earnings or income to the government, so they can redistribute it to the less fortunate. This makes me wonder if it would become possible to become wealthy by being on welfare. 😏
The Progressive income tax makes as much sense to me as the "no fly list" or the "no gun list". Why not just make a list for everything. Let there be a "no drive list" and a "no vote list" etc.
I guess is saves time and money putting people on these lists than it does taking people to court and locking them up in jail where they presumably belong, at least, according to the moonbats.
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodey"Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says moonbats in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need" "
Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says moonbats in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"
Well all of you who love this type of blatantly unfair tax scheme I ask you why stop at income?
W ...[text shortened]... o someone who does "need" it
I bet that sounds like a great plan to some of you doesn't it?
or as others put it, taxing progressively is realizing that it is ludicrous and unfair to ask both poor and rich people to contribute X% of their income when the poor wouldn't be able to pay for basic needs out of what remains and the rich would, after paying for basic and luxury needs, still have a lot of money left over.
what follow are a set of huge exagerations but it boils down to "why should everyone contribute according to their means when they could contribute according to an arbitrary percentage that would either leave the state unable to pay for its needs or leave the poorest unable to pay for basic needs"
Originally posted by sonhouseYou aren't protecting someone when you allow the government to take their money through taxes. The money should belong to the person who has it and for you to decide. It is bad enough that we give each person a different bill but to make those who already contribute the most to may a higher percentage of their income as well is simply unfair and should be stopped immediately.
Are you forgetting the time in the US and UK where the max tax was over 90%? Remember the Beetles song 'Tax man'? That song was written because the max tax in the UK ATT was 98%. So you make 1 million and the state took 980,000 leaving you with 20,000 which puts you in poverty level financially.
Was that ok?
You do know after all the compromises c ...[text shortened]... make sure it stays that way.
But by god, we are making sure Romney has a platinum parachute.
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyDo you dispute the notion that marginal utility decreases as a function of income?
Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says moonbats in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by quackquackIf this is "bad enough", why not simply give everyone the same tax bill rather than levying a flat tax which asks for much more taxes from the wealthy?
You aren't protecting someone when you allow the government to take their money through taxes. The money should belong to the person who has it and for you to decide. It is bad enough that we give each person a different bill but to make those who already contribute the most to may a higher percentage of their income as well is simply unfair and should be stopped immediately.
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyI should tell you what you dispute or not?
People like you are the mastermind who knows how much money I should make and what I should do with it for the "greater good", so you tell me.
Can't you just answer the question rather than evading it with the usual elegance of a drunken elephant?
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseYour post is a train wreck.
Are you forgetting the time in the US and UK where the max tax was over 90%? Remember the Beetles song 'Tax man'? That song was written because the max tax in the UK ATT was 98%. So you make 1 million and the state took 980,000 leaving you with 20,000 which puts you in poverty level financially.
Was that ok?
You do know after all the compromises c ...[text shortened]... make sure it stays that way.
But by god, we are making sure Romney has a platinum parachute.
I'm no Republican. Republicans like Trump are only offering Progressive tax plans. There are no limited government Republicans.
I will never understand "pay your fair share". It's not like the government only spends what taxes they tack in. They routinely spend more than they take in, so who really gives a damn about what revenue they take in?
In other words, how is a rich guy paying more in taxes help the poor that much more? Either way the government is only going to give out so much money to the poor guy.
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseYour post is a train wreck.
Are you forgetting the time in the US and UK where the max tax was over 90%? Remember the Beetles song 'Tax man'? That song was written because the max tax in the UK ATT was 98%. So you make 1 million and the state took 980,000 leaving you with 20,000 which puts you in poverty level financially.
Was that ok?
You do know after all the compromises c ...[text shortened]... make sure it stays that way.
But by god, we are making sure Romney has a platinum parachute.
I'm no Republican. Republicans like Trump are only offering Progressive tax plans. There are no limited government Republicans.
I will never understand "pay your fair share". It's not like the government only spends what taxes they tack in. They routinely spend more than they take in, so who really gives a damn about what revenue they take in?
In other words, how is a rich guy paying more in taxes help the poor that much more? Either way the government is only going to give out so much money to the poor guy.
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by quackquackso what is fair? you would rather take pocket change from poor people and leave them to struggle to pay for food for their children (a college education to get out of poverty is out of the question) rather than have those that already contribute more anyway give several points of percentage more even though they would still be left with tons of money .
You aren't protecting someone when you allow the government to take their money through taxes. The money should belong to the person who has it and for you to decide. It is bad enough that we give each person a different bill but to make those who already contribute the most to may a higher percentage of their income as well is simply unfair and should be stopped immediately.
12 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodey"It's not like the government only spends what taxes they tack in."
Your post is a train wreck.
I'm no Republican. Republicans like Trump are only offering Progressive tax plans. There are no limited government Republicans.
I will never understand "pay your fair share". It's not like the government only spends what taxes they tack in. They routinely spend more than they take in, so who really gives a damn about what ...[text shortened]... t much more? Either way the government is only going to give out so much money to the poor guy.
it has time to pay it back.
"They routinely spend more than they take in"
so that you have the hospital or highway today rather than in 10 years
"so who really gives a damn about what revenue they take in? "
the contractor that builds the highway. the people working on it. they do need some money.
"In other words, how is a rich guy paying more in taxes help the poor that much more? "
so that hospitals and roads and schools get built. which also helps the rich guy
"Either way the government is only going to give out so much money to the poor guy"
yet there are other ways to "give to the poor guy" than give him money. you would know that if you would stop and think for a second.
a rich guy giving 1% more out of his 10 million dollar income might enable 10 poor guys to have a lower tax and be able to save some money and maybe educate themselves for a better job, or cure an illness so he/she doesn't lose his job, or put one of his kids to college, who would in turn maybe not turn to stealing/murdering/etc and cost the state money to keep in jail.