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 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Aug 15, 2007

I know it is, but we were wiping out all taxes except sales tax. Dr. Guy, keep up here!

You young pups are just too fast for this old goat.

on Aug 15, 2007
America would be doomed were I the president right now.

"You young pups are just too fast for this old goat."

Yes.



Argh... how do you make things fair, give the poor a chance, and not stick it to the rich so bad they stop investing? I just don't know... except... tax the MIDDLE CLASS! They don't need money anyway.
on Aug 15, 2007
tax the MIDDLE CLASS! They don't need money anyway.


In the end, it is always thus. The rich have the resources to avoid them (they do pay tax - just not to the degree that the democrats want), the poor cant pay them, so the middle class is stuck with all new taxes.

Set the base level high? Inflation will then move it to the middle class. Make the rates on the rich higher? They take their compensation in non wage means.

The original income tax (way back in 16) was designed to tax the upper 1% on their excess. We know that it is now placed on everyone, and the rich pay their share - but not exorbitantly so. They did not get rich by being stupid enough to fall for the idiots in washington.
on Aug 15, 2007
Yes, but a lot of people have now INHERITED wealth. So they may very well be idiots! We should try again.
on Aug 15, 2007
I thought the cost of war was taken from bridges? And, now that we're raising taxes for bridges AND the war AND a hundred other things, what percentage are we going to pay? 50? 60? 100?

If we return to the rates before the Bush tax cuts, the top rate will be 39%

The cost of the war was added to the National debt!
on Aug 15, 2007
If you believe people making $30,000 or less are not poor you must be living in China not the USA!

I lived quite nicely on a few thousand less than that.  If you think someone making $30,000 is "poor" then you need help.


Yeah? Try that in New York city. Shining shoes after work, you'll be.  
on Aug 15, 2007
Yes, but a lot of people have now INHERITED wealth. So they may very well be idiots! We should try again.


Always with the negative waves Moriority! Always with the negative waves!

But! Since they are not the smart ones, they do lose their money and "you end up in jaillllllll....." (in my best bass voice).
on Aug 15, 2007
Try that in New York city.


If you live in NY city, that is already 2 strikes on you. The rest of the nation does not need to live down to those standards.
on Aug 15, 2007
I lived quite nicely on a few thousand less than that. If you think someone making $30,000 is "poor" then you need help.


I have no idea where you live but in the area I live in, $30,000 is POOR!
on Aug 15, 2007
And there's your problem. $1 in New York isn't $1 in LA isn't $1 in Boise isn't $1 in Lowcostoflivingsville, Kentucky.

Get rid of ALL federal taxes, leave it to the states, which then pay a flat rate to the federal gov.
This also places more incentive on states to keep their spending and rates low. If all taxes
are being paid to states, those with higher rates will stick out more, those with lower rates
will look more appealing. Provides an added level of fiscal accountability as states must stay
competitive.
on Aug 16, 2007
Rent? No. Because a tax on rent would expressly TARGET the poor. The rich don't need to rent.
The landlord includes his real estate tax in the rent but doesn't give his tenant a proportionate rebate that he writes off on his schedule A.
on Aug 16, 2007

It will help BALANCE THE BUDGET!

No it won't. They'll simply spend it.

As has been pointed out to you before, we could balance the budget right now by simply not increasing the budgets of federal programs for one year. No cuts.

In fact, we could balance the budget in a few years if we only increased the annual budget at the rate of inflation. But congress doesn't work like that. You give them money, they'll find a way to waste it.

Now sure, you don't care if they spend our money wisely, you barely pay any taxes. But as someone who paid over a MILLION dollars last year in taxes, I care quite a bit how it's used and the suggestion that I should pay more makes me incredulous.

What some people fail to understand is that the wealth of this country is overwhelmingly created by "the rich".  Our government merely slows down the rate in which our (all of us) standard of living improves by looting capital from the productive to distribute to the unproductive.

The government certainly needs to tax, and at a progressive rate IMO, but we are overtaxed for what we get.  We need taxes to provide a strong and fair legal system. A law enforcement branch. A military that can provide international stability. And a reasonable social insurance system.

But our government is way beyond that. We have politicians wanting to provide medical insurance to everyone regardless of means.  Our government squanders money on wasteful social programs, inefficient educational programs, and coerced retirement programs not to mention the myraid of wasteful pork projects (like subsidizing ethanol which drives up food prices).

People who want to raise taxes in my experience are overwhelmingly people who simply want to feel good about themselves -- they're compassionate.  But people like me are the ones who end up having to pay for other people's compassion and ultimately, when I have to pay, so does everyone else indirectly.

on Aug 16, 2007
Now sure, you don't care if they spend our money wisely, you barely pay any taxes. But as someone who paid over a MILLION dollars last year in taxes, I care quite a bit how it's used and the suggestion that I should pay more makes me incredulous


sorry draginal but i haven't payed taxes my whole life. meaning when i have i have gotten it all or almost all of it back. and right now i am on disability. and i care how badly those idiots in washington are waisting the tax money.


and i do not consider spending money on our troops a waste of money as gene does.
on Aug 16, 2007
It will help BALANCE THE BUDGET!


That's highly doubtful, especially if democrats get more power and start expanding their government health care ideas.  You continually make excuses on why one class of people should get the highest taxes, pure class warfare on your part.
on Aug 16, 2007
I have no idea where you live but in the area I live in, $30,000 is POOR!


LOL.  I live in Florida where $30,000 would be considered a decent income for many people.  The problem with you gene is your standard of living is so high, anybody who doesn't have a cell phone, car, 3 bedroom house, boat, and pony farm is "poor".


6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6