1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Have nots out number the Haves

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by slipping into darkness, Jul 31, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. slipping into darkness

    slipping into darkness TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    403
    well the News media reports were at 78% recovery and everything is going to be find? what bull, the last I heard we still have 13.5 mil still out of work. how does this stupid congress think your going to run this country with less than 20% paying taxes and you have to eliminate 12% of the rich who don't pay close to there fair share and never will! So when the have nots out number the Haves Whats going to Happen. it's going to get interesting when they realize there going to have to stop these unemployment extension, and they lose there homes and all there assets. Hoooo thats right, all unoccupied homes will be given to the illegals free, with all there other free benefits. Pull the drain plug? Front row seats now being reserved. "slid"
     
  2. Setterman

    Setterman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11,157
    The gubmit will GIVE the banks money to payoff the notes on the homes. Those who can't afford to make payments will get a free house.
     
  3. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    "eliminate 12% of the rich who don't pay close to there fair share and never will!"

    Slipping,,,,just what would their "fair share" be,,,,how much more should the government TAKE from them to GIVE to someone else????

    What would their incentive be then to continue to WORK as hard as they do????

    Should the government TAKE, what 50%, 60%, 70%,,,,80%,,,,is that the number that YOU think would be "fair"????

    The PROBLEM is not too much TAKING,,,,it is too much GIVING,,,,if you and the gov't would STOP giving where there should NOT be giving,,,,there would be a LOT of money where it was needed....
     
  4. Big Jack

    Big Jack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,735
    Location:
    Erie, Pa
    TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT! TOO MUCH GIVING!! But then, what did you expect? We're supporting almost the entire world and we owe the rest.

    Big Jack
     
  5. R.Kipling

    R.Kipling Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,765
    "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.." Karl Marx

    It's always darkest before the dawn.......

    Kip
     
  6. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,647
    slid:

    I don't mean to rain on your rant but I'm not sure about some of your numbers.

    Roughly half (not 20%) of the adult U.S. population pays personal income taxes.
    It's also unclear what you might mean by this comment, "... you have to eliminate 12% of the rich who don't pay close to there fair share..."

    Statistics for the 2007 Tax Year (the most recent full year available) follows.

    _______________________


    The top 1% of income earners (minimum income to qualify: $410,000*) paid 40.42% of all income tax paid.



    The top 5% (minimum income to qualify: $160,000*) paid 60.63% of all income tax paid.



    The top 10% (minimum income to qualify: $113,000*) paid 71.22% of all income tax paid.



    The top 25% (minimum income to qualify: $66,532*) paid 86.59% of all income tax paid.

    The top 50% (minimum income to qualify: $32,879*) paid 97.11% of all income tax paid.

    The bottom 50% (making less than $32,879*) paid the remaining 2.89% of personal income taxes.

    * Adjusted Gross Income figures reported by the Internal Revenue Service

    __________________


    By any definition of "rich", the rich pay a grossly disproportionate share of the income tax burden. It has been so for decades. FWIW, "fair share" is a code phrase used by dead beats trying to raid the pockets of productive members of society.

    Perhaps a better rant would be directed at that portion of the non-paying 50% whose self-selected disfunctional lifestyles the rest of us are required to finance.

    Then, of course, there's the billions we spend on illegals to whom we owe NOTHING other than humane treatment during the return trip to their country of origin.

    sissy
     
  7. Leo

    Leo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,051
    It has been a while, but I was a single man, no dependents, with zero debt who did the great CRIME of earning significantly over the $94,400 ceiling per year. I had to file my taxes quarterly and make advance payments. In actual dollars I paid probably twice the taxes of most of the people in my neighborhood. I had the same kind of house, was protected by the same police and fire, had the same trash pick up and snow removal. I did buy more stuff, (like nice firearms) but don't forget, I paid the sales tax on every purchase also. I was able to bank money, that I paid taxes on the interest, or there will be massive taxes due when I access the funds. Many people think that I should pay more taxes because I can afford to and they should pay less because they cannot afford it. Then they talk about fair burden. Define fair, I was already paying more dollars....
     
  8. Shooting Coach

    Shooting Coach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,357
    Location:
    Nashville Tn
    When a society pays a person for merely being instead of doing, that society is unerringly preparing for its own demise.
     
  9. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,647
    Leo:

    I'm reminded of the classic John Dillinger quote. When asked why he robbed banks, he replied, "because that where the money is".

    So it is with taxes. If you're going to p!ss away trillions on social engineering experiments, you have to rob the folks with money. Which is BTW, the same source you rob in order to buy the votes of society's do nothings.

    A related theme is the periodic debate we have when someone suggests lowering taxes. The immediate reaction of lib dem losers and their do nothing dead beat supporters is to wail how unfair it is that only the rich get the tax breaks.

    The obvious response: people who pay little if any taxes have little if any tax burden from which to receive a break.

    sissy
     
  10. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    Seems like a few libs are realizing the the Bush tax cut several years ago,,,,that by the way affected ALL TAXPAYERS,,,,with its current sunset provision may be a HUGE stumbling block to businesses hiring new employees,,,,oops, they didn't save that job did they,,,,these same libs are now starting to rethink the sunset during this current (hussein's) economic condition....
     
  11. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
     
  12. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,645
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    The answer is a flat tax.

    Aaaaaand........drug tests for public assistance recipients.

    HM
     
  13. kiv-c

    kiv-c Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    852
    Sissy, it was actually Willie Sutton that said that. Your point is still taken, though.
     
  14. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    The Libertarians called for a flat sales tax on everything, eliminating income and property taxes. In order to fuel the government, this would have required (at the time) a sales tax of 46% (no typo).

    Those in the lower income tiers would reject that, because it is vastly more taxes than they pay now. In many cases it makes them pay taxes for the first time.

    Those in the highest brackets don't like it because that level of taxation would greatly increase the cost of their luxury items. This was also proven when sales of such items dropped when a luxury item excise tax was foisted on them, causing an immediate downturn in boat sales with subsequent layoffs.

    For the middle class, it's a can of worms. Some will see their taxes go up, some down. It really depends on what level of tax write offs and tax deferments they've been able to tap into, plus where on the income scale they are. It could make housing unaffordable for many who could have afforded it before.

    Such a tax would be real income redistribution. But no one really wants it because it affects their own group. That's why the "tax the rich" mantra is so popular... the lower class and many in the middle class want to stick it to the rich, thinking it won't come back on them in one form or another (loss of jobs, loss of tax write offs, etc.).

    The real answer is not reshifting taxes, but cutting government. But that's not going to happen either, at least not until government goes bankrupt, like where California is heading.
     
  15. TC

    TC TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    931
    The only "fair tax" is a flat tax on gross income. Everybody pays the same rate, no exemptions or exceptions. Ten percent of $500,000 is the same burden as ten percent of $5,000.

    The problems we are facing are due to people who pay no income tax supporting the politions and programs that we cannot and should not afford.
     
  16. slipping into darkness

    slipping into darkness TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    403
    Sorry I was not available to response in a timely manner, I went shooting. thanks for the education with figures and facts, of course I'll take them with a grain of salt, and not to be "wasteful" I use some of the salt left over from the wounds inflicted during my flogging! I personally do not put much trust in any info supply by this government and it's above the law attitude. we have a gay mans name on the F.B.I. building, what message does that send. The pentagon said there was no danger or side effects from nuclear waste or agent orange, some more B.S. But this rant is oft the subject just like most of the responses were, and no one still has answer the question?? "slid" going shooting again check back Monday!!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.