$447 bil

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by shmike

How ironic that the system of taxation began as a way for the rich to subsist off the poor, no?

It might be ironic, if we lived in a feudal agrarian society, but we don't. The world changed. The people, who have the bulk of what is required for survival, changed. "Divine Right" was largely abolished. Democracy was introduced, with its implication that we are all responsible for the business of government.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

What's important is that the government can't build and maintain roads and bridges or provide for the common defense without tax money. If everyone got the tax breaks that some get then we'd have a real hole of a country.

That said, if someone makes more money than me, then I don't think it's fair that they pay less than I do towards providing funds for the country we both live in and benefit from. That doesn't mean I think they should necessarily pay more, but personally I don't have a problem paying more in taxes than someone who makes less than I do. Within reason.

I do think that people should not be coming away from tax season with a net gain, the way some lower income (and probably higher income) people do. Credits like the EIC often make that a reality. I don't have a problem with letting a lower income person slide on taxes, but they shouldn't be taking money straight out of the pot they aren't contributing to.

Problem is I have no idea how to frame those thoughts in legalese, and by association I have no idea how to prevent people with six or seven (etc.) figure salaries from hiding their income the way some do.

So your answer to Ed's questions is: Percentage.

[RACER X]

Originally Posted by shmike

So your answer to Ed's questions is: Percentage.

right

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by shmike

So your answer to Ed's questions is: Percentage.

Not exactly. On the surface, a simple straight percentage would seem the most reasonable. But that still leaves the CEO driving an Aston Martin from his 20 room mansion who only pays a percentage of $1 a year, since his compensation is in company stock options or his bank account is in the Cayman Islands, or some other such nonsense. And it still leaves the single woman working for $10 an hour for as many hours as she can get, then mowing lawns and pet sitting in her spare time, because she's taking care of her disabled parents who have no means of supporting themselves. I really wouldn't mind seeing her pay no taxes, or a lower percentage than the rest of us.

So my answer to Ed's question is: don't ask for a simple answer to a complicated problem.

[RACER X]

why should a fella who makes 5x as much as "you" have to pay 5x the taxes?

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by RACER X

so whats more important, % of tax to income or $ amount?

It's simple.......The American way of life made it possible for most rich people to get rich. That being so, you have to pay for that priviledge. The idea that everyone should pay a fixed $ amount for the government services they "consume" just doesn't work.

Even a flat % doesn't work. If everyone paid a flat 15%, you'd have to raise the minimum wage in order for the "poor" to still be able to afford gas, food and products that "rich" people's companies sell. Can't sell goods & services without people to buy them (unless all your customers are overseas).

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by RACER X

why should a fella who makes 5x as much as "you" have to pay 5x the taxes?

And my other answer to Ed would be: don't respond to an answer to your question when you haven't even read said answer.

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

That said, if someone makes more money than me, then I don't think it's fair that they pay less than I do towards providing funds for the country we both live in and benefit from. That doesn't mean I think they should necessarily pay more, but personally I don't have a problem paying more in taxes than someone who makes less than I do. Within reason.

[RACER X]

"pay for the privilage to be rich" wow, so besides hard work and determination you also have to pay to be rich.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by RACER X

"pay for the privilage to be rich" wow, so besides hard work and determination you also have to pay to be rich.

I think that the answer was quite different, to what you've said here. It was, "Pay back to support the system, that permitted you to become rich in the first place."

Your answer implies a mentality, that leaves far too many women unsatisfied; "I got mine. You get yours."

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by RACER X

why should a fella who makes 5x as much as "you" have to pay 5x the taxes?

To answer this question, even though you clearly haven't put nearly enough hard work or determination into deserving an answer, let's look at the budget of just the DoD for this year (not including the wars).

$680 billion. In order for the approximately 313 million people in the US to pay this $680 billion tab, we would all have to contribute $2,172. Now, let's go get that money from a friend of mine,* who has been a roughneck most of his adult life, and started working when he was 15. He has paid into social security, paid his taxes, and worked in rain, sleet, snow, and blistering heat for sometimes 60 hours or more a week. Now he has epilepsy, which had been getting worse over a period of 10 years during which he was still roughnecking. He is finally to a point where his epilepsy is a safety hazard. The state of New Mexico has revoked his driver's license, but refused to pay him social security disability (which, remember, he has paid into all his working life, at this point a little over 15 years). He is forbidden from working as a roughneck by doctors' orders. He's providing for his family of five through the kindness of his extended family and his church.

You want to ask him for that $2,172?

For the thousands like him, and those who are even worse off, who picks up the slack? And that's just for the DoD's bills, not including the wars.



*Actual case file, I can introduce him to you if you'd like.