Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 73 of 73

Thread: CNN: 45% don't owe U.S. income tax

  1. #61
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4005024]So the question is: which deductions, exemptions, and/or credits would you target for cuts or elimination? Dependent exemptions? Mortgage premiums? Standard deduction levels? Child Tax Credits? Dependent care credits? Adoption credits? Third-child credits? Coverdell accounts? Student Loan Interest deductions? Education expenses? Energy Tax Credit? Energy Star credit? Estate Taxes?....[/QUOTE]

    All of them.

    The Govt. has no place (as Bit puts it) "Making people do what they want" in a Free Nation.

    Part of the problem is too many people desirous of "making" their fellow citizens act as they wish them to, who support these kinds of Govt. social engineering and preferences.

    They are unneeded in a system where personal responsabillity and accountabillity are superior. But there again, those concepts get very little support today.

    Again, I'd ask (knowing it won;t be answered) what the moral cause is to tax someone who bougth a house less than one who didn't? What is the moral cause to tax someone who is married differently than one who isn't? How do those acts and others (buying homes, marriage) negate the debt to society for the mutual upkeep and funding of the State and it's vital services?

    Where is the drive for true equallity? Equallity does not mean only the "good" aspects, the rights, it also includes the responsabillities too. If you and I are equal under the Law, you and I should both be contributing the same amount to the upkeep of that Law. Any system that prefers you, and descriminates against me, for any reason, well intentioned or not, is inherantly unequal and descriminatory.

  2. #62
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4005024]This is pretty goofy logic, since it doesn't account for total effective federal taxes or add up properly. Social Security taxes alone account for 1/3 of federal revenues and are actually among the few items that are taxes that come back to the taxpayer directly at some point. [/QUOTE]

    it would be goofy logic to a left winger who goes by the theory of making those who pay the most pay even more and letting those who pay nothing continue to pay nothing....now that's a solid foundation for reducing the deficit...:thumbup:

    [QUOTE]Re the last point, based on the CBO data which does track numbers of lowest quintile households that move from a lower to higher quintile, you're in factual error. Not to mention that the incentive for someone making 48K to move to 53K is pretty simple. Even if they're taxed at 15% on their marginal gain, they still bring home more money on the difference. [/QUOTE]

    lol- i'm in factual error....yet there are almost 5 times as many people in the lower bracket that pay no fed taxes then in the one above- those are the facts- how awkward....

    [QUOTE]Secondly, tax payers in the lowest two quintiles have paid almost nothing since the early 90's. The lowest quintile has had a negative tax since 1987. The second quintile has been below 3% since 1990 and was mostly below 2% until 2002, when they were in negative tax territory. It is certainly not a "left wing" conspiracy, despite your wish for it to be so.

    What you're not asking, and should, is why there are so many earners in the bottom two quintiles that are able to get a full return or credit on their income. Again, this goes to the tax code and its deductions, exemptions, and credits weighed against the financial status of this group. I think we can all agree that the cost of a number of critical household expenses has risen fairly dramatically over the past several years at the same time as the number one asset families hold -- their home -- has tanked. To mention a few: health insurance premiums rose 131% from 1999 to 2009 (the average cost for a family policy offered by employers in 2009 was $13,375); fuel oil costs - 34% annualized increase in the past year; gasoline - 27.5%; food in the home - nearly 4%, etc. [/QUOTE]

    i believe there was a thread posted on this forum a while back how people who make $60K take home less than those that make $14K a year w/all the gov't giveaways....as far as the value of a families number one asset, a house, tanking, that's the usual goofy logic spread by the left- last time i looked a primary residence did not produce an income for the residents....and if they were using it as an investment- too bad- they are subject to the ups and downs of the market...

    [QUOTE]So the question is: which deductions, exemptions, and/or credits would you target for cuts or elimination? Dependent exemptions? Mortgage premiums? Standard deduction levels? Child Tax Credits? Dependent care credits? Adoption credits? Third-child credits? Coverdell accounts? Student Loan Interest deductions? Education expenses? Energy Tax Credit? Energy Star credit? Estate Taxes?....[/QUOTE]

    better yet- put a minimum federal tax on income brackets...but we know why that'll never happen- easier to demonize successful people...

  3. #63
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4005055]All of them.

    The Govt. has no place (as Bit puts it) "Making people do what they want" in a Free Nation.

    Part of the problem is too many people desirous of "making" their fellow citizens act as they wish them to, who support these kinds of Govt. social engineering and preferences.

    They are unneeded in a system where personal responsabillity and accountabillity are superior. But there again, those concepts get very little support today.

    Again, I'd ask (knowing it won;t be answered) what the moral cause is to tax someone who bougth a house less than one who didn't? What is the moral cause to tax someone who is married differently than one who isn't? How do those acts and others (buying homes, marriage) negate the debt to society for the mutual upkeep and funding of the State and it's vital services?

    Where is the drive for true equallity? Equallity does not mean only the "good" aspects, the rights, it also includes the responsabillities too. If you and I are equal under the Law, you and I should both be contributing the same amount to the upkeep of that Law. Any system that prefers you, and descriminates against me, for any reason, well intentioned or not, is inherantly unequal and descriminatory.[/QUOTE]

    I'll give you credit, your position has been consistent, even if you are absolutely correct that it could never happen as long as we have a political party system. Both parties are happy to micromanage social policy, but for different purposes. Who wants to "encourage" marriage over single status? Who wants to "encourage" home ownership? Who wants to encourage college education? Who wants to "encourage" the protection of large estate transfers? Who wants to encourage charitable contributions? etc. etc... not to mention all the business credits. It's all meddling in one form or another, but government seems to have an inherent drive to influence and shape its citizenry based on whom they determine to be their constituents, even if that shaping is to determine what government is allowed to shape and what it isn't. You see any governmental influence "making them do what they want" as a moral issue. But the contrary view would be that our elected representatives and officials believe they are actively working to give us the services and protections we want (depending on the cooked polls and other data they use to support their case).

  4. #64
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,954
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4005076]Who wants....[/QUOTE]

    Poor people.

    Have you seen their lobbying firm? It's insane!!

  5. #65
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;4005063]it would be goofy logic to a left winger who goes by the theory of making those who pay the most pay even more and letting those who pay nothing continue to pay nothing....now that's a solid foundation for reducing the deficit...:thumbup:



    lol- i'm in factual error....yet there are almost 5 times as many people in the lower bracket that pay no fed taxes then in the one above- those are the facts- how awkward....



    i believe there was a thread posted on this forum a while back how people who make $60K take home less than those that make $14K a year w/all the gov't giveaways....as far as the value of a families number one asset, a house, tanking, that's the usual goofy logic spread by the left- last time i looked a primary residence did not produce an income for the residents....and if they were using it as an investment- too bad- they are subject to the ups and downs of the market...



    better yet- put a minimum federal tax on income brackets...but we know why that'll never happen- easier to demonize successful people...[/QUOTE]

    Surprisingly, I'm not as far from your position as you may assume. I do think that a minimum tax at a lower level than our current brackets that eliminates many deductions would actually generate more revenue than the current system with all its complex take-aways and give-backs. Even a progressive system (5% for lowest quintile, 7% for next to 13% for the top quintile) would generate more revenue than what we have because it would require everybody to pay. Now you know and I know that there would be many who would figure out ways to convert away from income to other forms of wealth generation that are tax shelters or exempt. Close those gaps too. Or convert to a consumption based model like the Fair Tax that exempts essentials like food and energy costs.

    And you are in factual error about mobility from the lowest quintile.

  6. #66
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4005079]Poor people.

    Have you seen their lobbying firm? It's insane!![/QUOTE]

    "Payless Peninsula?"

    Doesn't have the same ring as "Gucci Gulch..." ;)

  7. #67
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4005076]I'll give you credit, your position has been consistent, even if you are absolutely correct that it could never happen as long as we have a political party system. Both parties...[/quote]

    And that exposes (IMO) another major problem, the Two-Party Dominance built in and fortressed in our Political System and Political Discourse.

    The problem of the barrier to entry, both intrinsic, and (it has to be said) promulgated by the many many "roots for my team, a third party vote is a wasted vote, the lesser of two evils, a vote for X is a vote for the (R/D) I'm against" folks, is a major factor in why we are where we are, and why things are as they are.

    Each "side" has far too many special interests they owe favors and spending and legislative help on (regardless of the good for the Nationa nd People as a whole), who helped get them elected, and keep them in power and in cash.

    These major players win out regardless, and the people (far too many who never get past the "rooting for my team" or "one issue only" level of voting. Abortion voters, a perfect example, one side says all, one side says none, and there is no third rational moderate answer because "all" and "none" sells. Pick any division issue you like, same story, no one working for compromise and balance, just votes from the "all" and "none" crowds.

    And no, I have no answer to this one. Human nature is what it is, and thats partly driven the two-party system to where it is. But I'm convinced the left vs right with no middle situation is a huge problem here, and a potentially bigger one as the division comtinues to widen, and continues to grow more virulent and aggressive.

    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4005076]Who wants to "encourage" marriage over single status? Who wants to "encourage" home ownership? Who wants to encourage college education? Who wants to "encourage" the protection of large estate transfers? Who wants to encourage charitable contributions?[/quote]

    None of these need to be encouraged, they all have benefits of their own in a society driven by Personal Responsabillity. Thats a big part of my point tbh. I don't need the State to tell me buying a house is good, it is good regardless. Same with Marriage, and to poke the right, WHO I can marry.

    [QUOTE]It's all meddling in one form or another, but government seems to have an inherent drive to influence and shape its citizenry based on whom they determine to be their constituents[/QUOTE]

    Again though, not the constituents, but the Special Interests and Power Blocks. A core of the problem, the People as a whole are not the primary consideration in policy, only getting votes, and courting the power blocks who fund it all.

    [QUOTE]You see any governmental influence "making them do what they want" as a moral issue.[/QUOTE]

    Absolutely.

    [quote]But the contrary view would be that our elected representatives and officials believe they are actively working to give us the services and protections we want (depending on the cooked polls and other data they use to support their case).[/QUOTE]

    Now thats being naive, I'm sorry.
    Last edited by Warfish; 04-20-2011 at 11:25 AM.

  8. #68
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4005099]


    Now thats being naive, I'm sorry.[/QUOTE]

    Not really, just stating the "formal" position. It's "I'll scratch your back" as much as "I'll serve my lobbyist/contributor constituent." The system as currently constituted pretty much sucks. Our political system is a giant, pulsating sausage grinder. Put any outlier into the machine and they will soon enough come out looking just like the sausages produced one year, five years, or twenty years ago.... tea partiers, social welfarists, libertarians, greenpeacers, pentacostals.... all sausage for the big machine. Why? Because it's only a matter of time before the reality of the rules of the game hit them and they start adapting, or they get ambushed by the party machine or thrown out by the electorate.

    You, Mr. Warfish, don't like sausage. But it's what's on the menu. And will be for a long time to come... (hopefully with bacon ;))

  9. #69
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4005055]
    The Govt. has no place (as Bit puts it) "Making people do what they want" in a Free Nation.
    [/QUOTE]

    question for warfish

    when the government requires drivers to wear seat belts, is that the tyranny of seat belts?

    i.e. people should be free to fly through windshields, if that's their choice.

  10. #70
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4005126]question for warfish

    when the government requires drivers to wear seat belts, is that the tyranny of seat belts?

    i.e. people should be free to fly through windshields, if that's their choice.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, actually. As I alwasy remind you, people are free to engage in activities hunders of times more dangerous than driving, without such oversight. If an individual chooses to risk their life whilst driving, that is their right, same as when they risk their lives doing 1,000 other things every day.

    In addition, you and I both know the State does not limit itself and it's power to ideas of general public safety. I look forward to the day New York or California outlaws Steak, for example, as being "unsafe and inherantly unhealthy". Or better yet, maybe the State should outlaw Alcohol, a massive danger.

    See Bit, it's easy to support seatbelts (I always wear mine, legal mandate or not, i.e. personal responsabillity). But not everything is so cut and dry.

    P.S. the Federal Mandate should be on equiping manufactured/sold cars with seatbelts, use should be up to the operator. Same with Motorcycle helmets. Smart folks will use them, the stupid will not, and evolution will continue as it should.

  11. #71
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4005055]All of them.

    The Govt. has no place (as Bit puts it) "Making people do what they want" in a Free Nation.

    [/QUOTE]

    We have a Nation formed around a Constitution. We aren't a "Free Nation" in the sense then anyone can do whatever they want to do at all.

    [QUOTE]We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/QUOTE]

    It goes on and and specifically states where that power lies and it also gives some clear cut rights however promoting the general Welfare, insuring domestic Tranquility, common defence, establishing justice whatever those things mean are all about controlling people's actions to some extent or another. Now you can argue that they also temper that power and control with securing the Blessings of Liberty and they then go into greater detail on what that Liberty really is. I can't see how you can deny that all that stuff, domestic tranquility, common defence, general welfare doesn't imply not only some controls on our freedom they actually include manipulation of behavior?

  12. #72
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4005174]We have a Nation formed around a Constitution. We aren't a "Free Nation" in the sense then anyone can do whatever they want to do at all.[/quote]

    And very little of what the Federal Govt. does today is outlined in the Consitution as being within their power, without a ton of "creative definitions" of the terms involved.....I think they call that the "living Constitution", i.e. the "Constitution has no inherant meaning" side of Constitutional debate. To them, it and it's words mean whatever is convenient that day, there is no core, no foundation, within it beyond what serves today's political desires and conveniences.

    [quote]It goes on and and specifically states where that power lies and it also gives some clear cut rights however promoting the general Welfare, insuring domestic Tranquility, common defence, establishing justice whatever those things mean are all about controlling people's actions to some extent or another. Now you can argue that they also temper that power and control with securing the Blessings of Liberty and they then go into greater detail on what that Liberty really is. I can't see how you can deny that all that stuff, domestic tranquility, common defence, general welfare doesn't imply not only some controls on our freedom they actually include manipulation of behavior?[/QUOTE]

    As with all things, it all comes down to defining ones terms.

    I fully admit, it's a losing argument. The natural state of Human Politics is the search for more personal power while pretending what you do is for the "greater good", because as we all know, us individuals never do anything good without the State to make us.

    I'll never convince folks here tbh. Everyone seesm to love, to some degree or another, a big warm comfy mommystate to take care of them, and tell them waht to do and what not to do.

    I reject that ideal, but when you're 0.001% of the whole, who cares, amirite?

  13. #73
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4005193]And very little of what the Federal Govt. does today is outlined in the Consitution as being within their power, without a ton of "creative definitions" of the terms involved.....I think they call that the "living Constitution", i.e. the "Constitution has no inherant meaning" side of Constitutional debate. To them, it and it's words mean whatever is convenient that day, there is no core, no foundation, within it beyond what serves today's political desires and conveniences.



    As with all things, it all comes down to defining ones terms.

    I fully admit, it's a losing argument. The natural state of Human Politics is the search for more personal power while pretending what you do is for the "greater good", because as we all know, us individuals never do anything good without the State to make us.

    I'll never convince folks here tbh. Everyone seesm to love, to some degree or another, a big warm comfy mommystate to take care of them, and tell them waht to do and what not to do.

    I reject that ideal, but when you're 0.001% of the whole, who cares, amirite?[/QUOTE]

    Urine.... I mean Urite! :D

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
  •  

Follow Us