Thread: Analysis: 'Fair share' in taxes? Not by the number!

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 109
  1. #31  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    Then it isn't a genuine conversation. It is propaganda eating.

    Get your fill!
    Emo's are calling, they want their troll back!
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Emo's are calling, they want their troll back!
    Uh-oh. I disagreed with the Collective. Must be troll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    Then it isn't a genuine conversation. It is propaganda eating.

    Get your fill!
    hey asshat, we're talking about one aspect, which is the vast majority of income to the federal government, not the other excise taxes and payroll deductions. Those are separate issues.
    "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    Uh-oh. I disagreed with the Collective. Must be troll.
    you're a troll because you aren't adding anything to the discussion and constantly trying to derail it.
    "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings..." Patrick Henry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    And I think confining it to a specific tax when asking, "what's a "fair share" to give the federal government in taxes?" is disingenuous (at best).
    So what would your position be on a consumption tax, which would replace all other taxes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    Then it isn't a genuine conversation. It is propaganda eating.

    Get your fill!
    This shrill, angry pretense that you won't discuss this because it's not worthy of your reasoned input is pathetic, even for you. The fact is that you refuse to have a discussion, because you cannot win it, so you heap abuse on those who are trying to get an answer out of you. If you can't answer a simple question, just admit it and move on, but don't pretend that your refusal to answer is some sort of morally superior stance. We can tell the difference between moral high ground and a bunker.

    I'll ask again: What constitutes a fair share of income to be taken out in taxes? Give me a number.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The West
    Posts
    1,618
    "Taxes that fall more on the working poor and middle class" "Lower wage earners pay a disproportionate share of payroll taxes" These statements infest every left leaning discussion about tax rates, and they're effective only if one doesn't put much thought into them. But they're actually irrelevant. Yes, if a worker making $10,000 dollars a year pays $1,000 dollars in payroll taxes, that represents 10 percent of their income, but only 1 percent to someone who makes $100,000. Does that make it unfair? If so, then we should lower the price of food, gas, and housing for lower wage earners, because their percentage of income that goes to those expenses are going to be higher as well. Does a lower wage earner receive less value for the payroll taxes he pays, versus a higher wage earner? That would be the question to determine if the system was biased or not.
    Last edited by Lager; 02-21-2012 at 12:29 PM. Reason: spelling
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck View Post
    Look at what you have done, though. You have constructed a perfect straw man and then skewered your own creation with your razor sharp sword.
    WHAT?, 10 dollar an hour worker pays property tax? That doesn't happen. $10/hour workers don't buy houses. They rent, and they don't even rent from me because they don't qualify for my properties. And how on earth would you know what portion of my income MY property taxes are? Go to New Jersey. They pay $10,000 in property taxes. You just haven't thought it out.


    If true, SO? Poor people benefit from cheap US gas the same as I do. Go to Europe; pay more.
    There are quite a lot of people who make $10 per hour who have mortgages and those who rent are paying the property tax through the rent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck View Post
    So what would your position be on a consumption tax, which would replace all other taxes?
    That would definitely shift the burden down.

    What about a property tax instead? The Market Georgian model where there are no taxes of any kind on commerce (no taxes on income, sales, ect ..). The entire tax burden rests with property owners.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    That would definitely shift the burden down.

    What about a property tax instead? The Market Georgian model where there are no taxes of any kind on commerce (no taxes on income, sales, ect ..). The entire tax burden rests with property owners.
    If we have a property tax, any property tax, then we have no property per se. Presumably, one could own a home which has been paid for for centuries, and lose it to the government because he can't or won't pay the taxes. That's not ownership, it's a form of quit rent more similar to feudal leasehold than true ownership. In modern terms, once your house is paid for you should not have to rent it from the government even for 1% per year.

    It's funny, Virginians get angry every year at the personal property tax, a substantial sales tax paid each year on the declining value of their automobiles, boats, and travel trailers. But they don't see that the property tax is essentially the same thing. Perhaps that is because they perceive that they get value back from the real estate tax, in schools and roads.

    There needs to be a tax system which permits a person to fly under the radar if he so chooses. A person should theoretically be able to live in his house, eat from his farm, and fish in his pond only paying taxes if he engages in commerce.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •