Reading through some posts here recently I noticed how a certain resident liberal explained how the rich should have their taxes increased.  While this is nothing new from the left, it's just ridiculous to even think about giving the government more money when they have proved time and time again it's nothing but a total waste machine for taxpayer dollars.

At the same time they say the "rich" should be taxed higher, it is also proclaimed that the "poor" in this country should not have to pay any taxes, and should have full access to the wasteful social programs from the government.  Now it's hard to nail down an exact figure of what liberals consider "poor", but certain ones here are trying to convince others that someone making $30,000 is somehow poor.  It's total nonsense.

If the democrats want to start increasing taxes (which we know they will), then it's time for everyone to start paying their share no matter what their personal circumstances are.  If you take a look at the poor in this country, they have luxuries others can only dream about.  Cell phones, video game systems, computers, etc. are common among these "poor" household, so tell me again how the "poor" cannot afford a minimal tax increase to help pay for the services they use like the rest of us.



Comments (Page 3)
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Aug 15, 2007
Well, you know that increasing taxes on the rich people in order to supply services to the MIDDLE class (underline MIDDLE class), which they won't have to pay, will help a lot toward increasing the spending power of this middle class?

Spending power OR saving power. Which mean it's possible to increase the number of people considered "rich". If someone becomes rich during it's life, he should be grateful to have received a little help from the gov, and pay his taxes. If someone was BORN rich, I don't see why being one of the few favored by birth should not have some disadvantages.

"Oh my god, my poor you! Because you inherited 10 millions dollars, you have to pay a 4% tax! Life is so unfair"
on Aug 15, 2007
Also, what about rent? Or real estate in general? Sales tax, or not?


Rent? No. Because a tax on rent would expressly TARGET the poor. The rich don't need to rent.

I think the best way to address the extreme poor would be to offer sales tax exemption vouchers that exempt specific purchases from sales tax. Everyone else, including the working poor, should be willing and able to pay their fair share.
on Aug 15, 2007
Gid, I don't like that idea. There you go, making it unfair. "Why doesn't HE have to pay sales tax and I do?" We currently have no sales tax where I am on certain goods, and I think if we kept the exempt goods along those lines it would be fine. Having vouchers and such would cost money - and we would have to process applications, deal out the vouchers, etc. and that will all take time and money. If you just make the product exempt, then there's no vouchers, no people to hand them out, etc.

If you tied the vouchers to WIC or something like that, then it would make sense. But they don't even have to pay for the food.
on Aug 15, 2007
If you just make the product exempt, then there's no vouchers, no people to hand them out, etc


But if you make food exempt, then guess what? Mrs. Frisbee's Filet Mignon gets exempted too. There's simply no "fair" way to do it. If you make clothes exempt, A&F gets the same exemption as Rustler jeans. If you make toiletries exempt, Paul Mitchell shampoo gets the same exemption as Suave. Exempting a class of goods allows loopholes that can and will be exploited.

You can check income levels through social workers in private agencies without a "real" cost to the government. If people don't want to stand in line to get the exemption vouchers, well, then, they just don't get the exemption. Honestly, I wouldn't consider it worth waiting for.

I honestly believe that every wage earner in this country should pay some tax, even if it's just a buck. And honestly, thanks to hidden taxes, the vast majority of Americans DO pay some taxes. If we were to implement a national sales tax, I would rather skip the idea of exempting anything altogether than exempt a "class" of goods.
on Aug 15, 2007
Filet Mignon should be exempted. And A&F should be exempt, too. That would be fair - you just don't pay tax on food and clothes, no matter who you are or what you're eating. Unless you're eating tires. Then you're out of luck.

Or, exempt nothing. That could work, too.

Now, are we still taxing corporate income? Or will that tax go away, too, and we could possibly some prices dropping?
on Aug 15, 2007
"Oh my god, my poor you! Because you inherited 10 millions dollars, you have to pay a 4% tax! Life is so unfair"


More like 50%.
on Aug 15, 2007
More like 50%.


That is so right. I'm sorry, the poor guy is left with 5 million dollars he didn't earned. He inherited it. Life IS unfair, after all.
on Aug 15, 2007
"so your saying only 1 type of tax increases prices, what about gas tax. what about sales tax. oh wait it is only the income tax that a business owner will absorb himself. a business that doesn't pass on its expense to its customers."

Restoring the Individual Federal Income Tax rates to the pre 2000 levels on the top 10% will not increase the retail price of goods. Keeping the Federal Estate Tax will not increase retail prices. An increase in gasoline taxes will as would the Flat tax that some talk about.
on Aug 15, 2007
Restoring the Individual Federal Income Tax rates to the pre 2000 levels on the top 10% will not increase the retail price of goods.


And that will not resolve anything.  You just want to tax successful Americans to give more money to the government to waste just because you think they should pay more. 
on Aug 15, 2007
That is so right. I'm sorry, the poor guy is left with 5 million dollars he didn't earned. He inherited it. Life IS unfair, after all.


You really want to starve poor Paris? How cold! How Cruel!

How can we send her to you?
on Aug 15, 2007
I thought poor Paris was able to starve herself.

Cut government waste and you'll be able to keep taxes the same, or lower them. But, nobody can seem to cut government waste. It doesn't matter who we send to the House, it's still wasted.
on Aug 15, 2007
But, nobody can seem to cut government waste


After living through most of the 40 straight years of Democrat control of congress, that was my biggest disappointment with the Republican one. I actually thought things would be different. Live and learn.
on Aug 15, 2007
"I actually thought things would be different."

Can't... stop... laughing...

... actually, it's just sad, that things AREN'T different when we change who is in power. If we could just get some third party or independents into powerful positions, it might change things... but probably not. Hey, the government has plenty of money, why not spend it on crap nobody wants.
on Aug 15, 2007
(Citizen)Island DogAugust 15, 2007 13:15:50Reply #39
Restoring the Individual Federal Income Tax rates to the pre 2000 levels on the top 10% will not increase the retail price of goods.


And that will not resolve anything. You just want to tax successful Americans to give more money to the government to waste just because you think they should pay more.

It will help BALANCE THE BUDGET!
on Aug 15, 2007
Reduced spending will balance the budget. Like, not spending trillions on a war in Iraq. So what, you want to raise taxes to pay for the war?
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last