Jauronimo Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 While my effective tax rate is -5%, it is my contention that the rich clearly aren't paying their share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 And you people always fail to mention the 40 acres. Why I have to drink 40s? Why can't I drink Hennessy Ellipse, or Chablis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 It's amazing to me that a person can genuinely sit down, have this thought, write it down, post it to a message board, and then manage to make it through the rest of the day without accidentally taking their eyes out with a fork while trying to eat lunch. You assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 While my effective tax rate is -5%, it is my contention that the rich clearly aren't paying their share. Even better....the rich aren't paying the same burden as the rest of us who are paying -5%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Why I have to drink 40s? Why can't I drink Hennessy Ellipse, or Chablis? Colt 45, ummm good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 (edited) While my effective tax rate is -5%, it is my contention that the rich clearly aren't paying their share. Exactly. It's amazing that this isn't a bigger point of contention. I think that the group that makes up a significant portion of the Democratic base, middle-class skilled and un-skilled labor, are actually voting against their economic self-interests by voting for democrats and democratic fiscal policies. Why won't a candidate just say: "Look, does this **** make sense.....your tax dollars just paid for some woman who doesn't make much less than you, to have a $5,500 bonus check and she went and bought a new living room set and a small mule." WTF! But then again, I don't see anyone, D or R, crusading against the EIC. That's disappointing. Edit: Michelle Bachmann was very against EIC. Edited February 6, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Exactly. It's amazing that this isn't a bigger point of contention. I think that the group that makes up a significant portion of the Democratic base, middle-class skilled and un-skilled labor, are actually voting against their economic self-interests by voting for democrats and democratic fiscal policies. Why won't a candidate just say: "Look, does this **** make sense.....your tax dollars just paid for some woman who doesn't make much less than you, to have a $5,500 bonus check and she went and bought a new living room set and a small mule." WTF! Small, like 3/5 of a mule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Why won't a candidate just say: "Look, does this **** make sense.....your tax dollars just paid for some woman who doesn't make much less than you, to have a $5,500 bonus check and she went and bought a new living room set and a small mule." And alienate that powerful voting block of mule owners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Small, like 3/5 of a mule? And the 40 acres. YOU PEOPLE conveniently forget the 40 acres. And alienate that powerful voting block of mule owners? For some reason your post reminded me of my second favorite article from the Onion. It's an oldie but a goodie: http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-urge-minorities-to-get-out-and-vote-on,1241/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Exactly. It's amazing that this isn't a bigger point of contention. I think that the group that makes up a significant portion of the Democratic base, middle-class skilled and un-skilled labor, are actually voting against their economic self-interests by voting for democrats and democratic fiscal policies. Why won't a candidate just say: "Look, does this **** make sense.....your tax dollars just paid for some woman who doesn't make much less than you, to have a $5,500 bonus check and she went and bought a new living room set and a small mule." WTF! But then again, I don't see anyone, D or R, crusading against the EIC. That's disappointing. Edit: Michelle Bachmann was very against EIC. In all honesty, when put in proper context that you should never underestimate the ability of the electorate to vote itself a free lunch, the EITC is not a huge evil, because it serves a purpose of getting people to work and its payout is capped. But getting the EITC and using that as ammo to claim that the rich aren't paying their fair share is a bit wacky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 In all honesty, when put in proper context that you should never underestimate the ability of the electorate to vote itself a free lunch, the EITC is not a huge evil, because it serves a purpose of getting people to work and its payout is capped. But getting the EITC and using that as ammo to claim that the rich aren't paying their fair share is a bit wacky. I guess I can see how it incentivizes work, but there are also those who work to EITC limits, stop working, and then basically receive a bonus check for having worked at some point during the year. Work should be it's own incentive. But I also understand that EITC is preferable to full scale tax-payer subsistence. And though it is payout capped, $3000 - $5700 is not a small amount. The whole thing just seems busted and broken: people work so that they can get a bonus check for having worked below a threshhold amount; single middle-class Americans can't qualify for any public assistance because they make too much, can't qualify for tax credits because they make too much, but get peanuts back of what they pay in to the Federal treasure chest annually - as if they're penalized for being single and not having 8 kids and buying a home impulsively; folks can qualify for EITC AND housing, food, and cash assistance; housing, food, and cash assistance doesn't offset their EITC monies nor does their EITC monies affect their ability to receive federal/state aid.... It just seems arbitrary. The whole system is reactionary. I can understand subsistence, but when you take money from one person, and redistribute it to provide, what amounts to, an arbitrary and tax free financial contribution to another, it resembles....well.... Nevermind. It's just BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I guess I can see how it incentivizes work, but there are also those who work to EITC limits, stop working, and then basically receive a bonus check for having worked at some point during the year. Work should be it's own incentive. But I also understand that EITC is preferable to full scale tax-payer subsistence. And though it is payout capped, $3000 - $5700 is not a small amount. The whole thing just seems busted and broken: people work so that they can get a bonus check for having worked below a threshhold amount; single middle-class Americans can't qualify for any public assistance because they make too much, can't qualify for tax credits because they make too much, but get peanuts back of what they pay in to the Federal treasure chest annually - as if they're penalized for being single and not having 8 kids and buying a home impulsively; folks can qualify for EITC AND housing, food, and cash assistance; housing, food, and cash assistance doesn't offset their EITC monies nor does their EITC monies affect their ability to receive federal/state aid.... It just seems arbitrary. The whole system is reactionary. I can understand subsistence, but when you take money from one person, and redistribute it to provide, what amounts to, an arbitrary and tax free financial contribution to another, it resembles....well.... Nevermind. It's just BS. I see this is your conservative week Certainly puts a different perspective on the claim that Romney's $6 million tax bill is unfair, as if taking another $1 million from him to redistribute among the population will spur economic growth faster than allowing him to keep it and use his talents/abilities to grow the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Why I have to drink 40s? Why can't I drink Hennessy Ellipse, or Chablis? Nobody says you can't drink the good stuff. You just can't afford it after spending all your money spinners, grillz, and Tyler Perry DVDs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Incongruence: How is it that someone can pay $9,400 in Federal taxes, claim no withholdings throughout the year, yet only receive around 10% back as a refund... Yet.... A mother of three, who pays $1900 in Federal taxes throughout the year, receives almost $8000 back as a refund. She receives 4 times her initial federal tax exposure, and nearly 1/2 her gross income...and for what!?!?! The articulated policy behind Earned Income Tax Credit is to offset the burden of social security and to provide incentive to work. Yet the grapevine says that qualifying persons with families, in many instances, will work up to EIC limits and quit because that lump sum check is more advantageous and financially significant than working throughout the year and possibly disqualifying themselves for EIC. I believe that social welfare is a necessary program and that the benefits, in the aggregate, outweigh its, admittedly, considerable negatives. But the way that tax distribution, EIC, refunds, withholdings, etc. is handled is pathetically bad...like recklesslessly so. Shame on the Libs for passing that heap of garbage legislatively and shame on Ford or whomever for signing it into law. It is legislation without purpose. The articulated aim of the legislation is bull **** and is undermined by it's very own requirements. I would think the EITC incentivizes a person to work for a paycheck, rather than sit on ther behind and get the same benefit- would you prefer a person working and getting a bunch of tax susidies to pay for their lives OR accept welfare, food stamps, etc. and peform no discernable serice to the economy and society. The Tax Code more than anything is a tool to acheive desired behaviors by citizens- IMHO, that is why it is so convoluted and complicated and thousands of pages long, it provides control by Government over citizens. I don't worry about this stuff, I drop all my stuff on my accountant... that that tired overworked SOB figure out how to let me keep more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Our tax code is awful- I am a moron on economic matters, and I can see that. I don't think we have the guts to do it, but I would like to see us scrap the entire thing and start over. To simplify things: 1. Start with a completely flat tax 2. Decide on how many bi-partisan ammendments/exemptions can be added to it- and set a clear limit. Each would last one year and be renewable. Each could only include one thing from each side. What I would expect this to do, is put the top priority from each side of the aisle on the same bill, which would make that easiest to extend each year. Then their could be a #2, a #3, and so on. Now, I know there are probably tons of flaws anyone could point out in such a simple plan, but isn't the complexity of the current system one of the major problems? Make everything simple, and we'll all be happy....even if things aren't better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) I see this is your conservative week Certainly puts a different perspective on the claim that Romney's $6 million tax bill is unfair, as if taking another $1 million from him to redistribute among the population will spur economic growth faster than allowing him to keep it and use his talents/abilities to grow the economy. Good point. And it goes to your initial point about my politics. I believe that we, as a country, have an obligation to ensure the basic subsistence of our fellow citizens - nothing extravagant, just food and shelter. I feel that way for myriad reasons (that was discussed vehemently in a past thread). Some people may take that subsistence money and get their hair done, or buy a 40; but it represents an amount that theoretically should only facilitate the payment of essential subsistence items - food, shelter, clothes. Where I draw the line is when monies are being redistributed arbitrarily, and are, by their very nature, designed to fund non-essential commodity spending. I know that there is a bit of cognitive dissonance in those ideas. But they're oddly reconciliable. It's kind of like pro-2nd Amendment people *generally speaking* are constitutional literalists who don't recognize a role for an activist judiciary. A consistutional functionalist is generally more activist, more historically interpretive, and have a considerably more constrained view of 2nd amendment protections. A literalist would hate Griswold v. Connecticut, the functionalist loves it. But they overlap in that Griswold both ensures that, theoretically, gun ownership is protected and held inviolate, and that the functionalist can indulge her intemperance and debaucherous proclivities. And that appropriately defines politics' hinterlands - an odd affair between guns and orgies. Damn, what was the point again... Edited February 7, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Good point. And it goes to your initial point about my politics. I believe that we, as a country, have an obligation to ensure the basic subsistence of our fellow citizens - nothing extravagant, just food and shelter. I feel that way for myriad reasons (that was discussed vehemently in a past thread). Some people may take that subsistence money and get their hair done, or buy a 40; but it represents an amount that theoretically should only facilitate the payment of essential subsistence items - food, shelter, clothes. Where I draw the line is when monies are being redistributed arbitrarily, and are, by their very nature, designed to fund non-essential commodity spending. I know that there is a bit of cognitive dissonance in those ideas. But they're oddly reconciliable. It's kind of like pro-2nd Amendment people *generally speaking* are constitutional literalists who don't recognize a role for an activist judiciary. A consistutional functionalist is generally more activist, more historically interpretive, and have a considerably more constrained view of 2nd amendment protections. A literalist would hate Griswold v. Connecticut, the functionalist loves it. But they overlap in that Griswold both ensures that, theoretically, gun ownership is protected and held inviolate, and that the functionalist can indulge her intemperance and debaucherous proclivities. And that appropriately defines politics' hinterlands - an odd affair between guns and orgies. Damn, what was the point again... Yes you do have a predilection to jump from one shiny point to another. But that's a point for another thread. I think that you will find much agreement even among the conservative types that a social safety net is a good thing to moderate the inevitable business cycle shocks. Where the main disagreements are that liberals believe that the permanent entitlements are a basic right more than a safety net, and the safety net should afford a standard of living that's well above poverty level. A noble cause that it is, in reality, wealth distribution like that is a giant rat hole, because it saps the productive class to reward the unproductive class and provides a free incentive to the useless & lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I see this is your conservative week Certainly puts a different perspective on the claim that Romney's $6 million tax bill is unfair, as if taking another $1 million from him to redistribute among the population will spur economic growth faster than allowing him to keep it and use his talents/abilities to grow the economy. One thing I've learned from reading this board over the years: most people have absolutely no idea what the wealthy do with their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 One thing I've learned from reading this board over the years: most people have absolutely no idea what the wealthy do with their money. Corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 One thing I've learned from reading this board over the years: most people have absolutely no idea what the wealthy do with their money. One thing I've learned from reading the board: most rich people make a great big pile out of their money and roll in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts