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

Pay your fair share???

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Rick Barker, Sep 17, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,346
    Can I get some opinions on that?

    What does that mean?

    People who earn more must pay more?

    Pay more than what? A percentage?

    Does a person who has more make more use of services offered by the government?

    Does that person get more perks, freedoms?

    Instead of everyone paying a flat tax, a lot of people want our progressive tax where the more you make, the more you pay. Is that really fair?

    If we were to apply that to trapshooting, would that mean a AAA shooter should pay a higher entry fee than a D shooter, instead everyone paying the same amount?
     
  2. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,946
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    When I hear the leftest say it, What comes to mind is the "rich" have more then I will ever acquire, so THEY need to have TAKEN away from them until they are on MY level of prosperity!
     
  3. Barrelbulge(Fl)

    Barrelbulge(Fl) Banned User Banned TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,666
    Location:
    West Central Florida
    We have a tax code and as long as we pay our taxes according to IRS rules (not like Geithner and some other politians) OB can go F himself if he doesn't like it. Granted the richer you are, chances are you can find more ways to get deductions. More power to ya. The only fair way is to to tax everyone the same percentage with no deductions. A flat 11% tax on all income. Bulge.
     
  4. Setterman

    Setterman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11,126
    If I make $550,000 a year and my neighbor makes $50,000 a year, why should I pay a higher percentage of tax than him. We use the same roads, power, water, Schools, and air. With a flat tax of 15%, I pay $75,000, he pays $7,500. Thats not fair either, but it's alot better than a graduated tax.

    My neighbor never risked everything he had to start a new business, sleepless nights worrying about survival, and missing family functions due to preparing quotes, book keeping, and business meetings. This can go on for 5 - 10 years before a business is deemed successful. Do I get a tax credit for risk?

    The people that think being successful is greedy are the same peopel that want more from me without earning any of it, nor have they expended the time, energy or health to deserve it. Those same people took out a home equity loan for a vacation, jetski, boat, second vacation home, or other toy. Now it's time to pay the piper and they want me to help pay that off too! Who's greedy?
     
  5. Mark-in-Maine

    Mark-in-Maine Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    440
    Our system rewards failure and punishes success!
     
  6. GW22

    GW22 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,246
    Setterman's comments make a lot of sense, especially in terms of a small business owner. I owned a small business for several years and I have a lot of respect for the people who go that route.

    But let's keep a few important things in mind here. A progressive tax code with a high rate in the top bracket is not something new. The top bracket right now is 35%. Do you feel bad for people paying 35%? You shouldn't, because they paid much more in seven of Reagan's eight years. And remember -- Reagan was known as the guy who increased revenue by lowering taxes. In fact, the average rate for the top bracket under Reagan was 12-13% higher than it is now. Do you wish we could go back to America's heyday in the 1950s and early 1960s when government was smaller? The highest rate was over 90% back then. Let me say that again -- the marginal tax rate for the highest earners in the 1950s and early 1960s was OVER 90%. People back then didn't mind paying a heavier share to support the country that afforded them the opportunity to get where they were. And now that our government has spent us into near bankruptcy, the high earners are going to need to follow this American tradition and pull a little more of the weight. If you think that's unfair, then is it fair for our kids and grandkids to pay off all the debt we ran up? I mean, SOMEBODY has to pay it. Right?

    Instead of the top bracket's percentage, it's the loopholes and lower rate on capital gains tax which are probably the greater problem. For example, deductions and loopholes aside, don't you agree that Warren Buffet should pay a higher percentage of tax than his secretary? Or at least the SAME pecentage? He does not. And that's an outrage in my opinion.

    -Gary

    PS: Buffet should stop running his hypocritical mouth and send the government a check if he wants to pay more, but that's another subject.
     
  7. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,346
    No, nobody has to pay it.

    How much money does government need??? Especially when you have the White House approving half a billion dollar loans to their cronies who pocket the money?

    How much money would the US be expected to give out in foreign aid, if the government does not have the money in the first place.

    How many laws and government agencies do we need to enforce basic laws such as, do not steal, kill, cause harm???

    If you want to stop government growth and intrusion in your life, you have to cut off the money supply.
     
  8. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    No I don't agree that Buffet should pay more in percentage than his secretary although he will pay in dollars thousands of times more than his secretary, which does make sense.

    Capital gains shouldn't be taxed at all as is the case in most countries. Why in hell should somebody risk their capital if they can't keep the rewards. Taxing capital gains is a bad idea all the way around. Take the example of somebody who buys stock for $1,000 and sells it 10 years later for $2,000. The gooberment wants a cut of the gain, but there really is no gain since the value of the dollar has decreased by 50% during that time. Essentially, the investor has just broken even before taxes and lost money after taxes. Now this really makes sense. Why bother when you can just put your money into municipal bonds which aren't taxable or invest them overseas, thereby creating jobs there.

    Listen the GWs and Obummers of the world, raise the capital gains taxes to higher rates, and then wonder why no jobs are created in the private sector, except for the private sector in China. Of course, I'm blind so what do I know.
     
  9. trapshootin hippie

    trapshootin hippie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,252
    Damn, 'fore long ya are gonna wanna tax my food stamps and welfare check. Ain't that the dribblin squirts? What's a feller to do then? GIT A JOBBBBBBB? Hell no, that'd mess up my check!!!

    GneJ
     
  10. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,229
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    The thing that makes no sense is everybody saying they need to eliminate deductions because they are loop holes, we're still in business, barely, but back in the hay days when we were making money to beat hell, we would spend $250-500,000 yearly on new equipment so we could avoid some taxes and increase revenue for the next year, well that created a bunch of jobs for people that built the new equipment we were buying.

    I remember when i was young saying that if I ever made alot of money I wouldn't bitch about paying the taxes, but when we got to the point we were paying up to $200,000 in personal and corperate taxes yearly it sure sucked to have to send the IRS a check for it every two weeks, and the Section 179 deduction was our only defense
     
  11. GW22

    GW22 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,246
    You're not "blind," Galt -- you just have extreme difficulty hearing or speaking factual information, or doing any real critical thinking. You're what I call a "Yapper." Endless platitudes and populist pablum spewing out of your yapper, but zero thoughtful insight or learning.

    -Gary
     
  12. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    You are so right g, raising taxes on the people who produce and create jobs is a smart thing to do, then we can take that money and give it to crackheads, welfare mommies and others who don't produce anything but crime. I now see the light so now I'm a "progressive" like thou and Obummer. What a hoot.

    Apparently the g has never risked his own money by investing so as to enjoy some of those capital gains which are apparently just lying on the street to be picked up. Eat your own sandwich, I'll pass.

    Obama/GW is the ticket for 2012. Trump had to bow out.
     
  13. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    For those who aren't aware of it, one doesn't have to be "rich" (which the progressives consider anybody not on welfare) to receive capital gains. Anybody who has ever invested in stocks, bonds or mutual funds would know this.

    While it's pointless to argue with a progressive, let me point out an inconvenient fact, as Albore would say. If you invest your capital in something and later sell it for a gain (that's a capital gain), you get to pay tax on the whole amount. If, on the other hand, you lose money (that's a capital loss), then you can only deduct a maximum of $3,000 of that loss on income taxes. It's the classic heads I win and tails you lose situation.

    The biggest problem with the economy now is that capital is on strike due to the uncertain regulatory and taxation situation. Screw those with capital to invest if you want to make things worse. It makes every bit as much sense as raising the minimum wage to $100 per hour. Progessives say this won't effect unemployment at all, but that's nuts.
     
  14. grunt

    grunt TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,915
    Location:
    Thousand Oaks Ca
    How about the tax on your Social Security? pay tax on 85% if you made over a set amount.
     
  15. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    Only 85%- that must be one of those "loopholes" the progressives want to close.
     
  16. WS-1

    WS-1 Banned User Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,885
    Rick,

    Help me reload your premise. For a minute, forget income tax and capital gains tax. Let's talk about a sales tax. If Bill Gates walks into a 7-11 and buys a pack of Camels, he'll pay approximately 8% sales tax. Two minutes later, the village crack addict will walk in, buy a pack of smokes, and pay the same 8% sales tax. Under the watchful eyes of the Good Lord and Thomas Jefferson, all men are created equal.

    You gentlemen know where I'm going with this, but could a flat sales tax work in the Good Ol' USA? Maybe the magic number is 22%, but if nobody is exempt and there are no loopholes, could it work?
     
  17. Gary Waalkes

    Gary Waalkes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,398
    A different perspective is that I do not believe it is fair that I should be in the tax bracket or an even higher bracket than folks who are actually rich. From my point of view the system is totally broken. Added to that is the fact that Boeing Corp pays their CEO more than they pay the feds. I find this sort of thing to be unfair.
     
  18. Setterman

    Setterman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11,126
    Waalkes, I'm rich (Please explain what rich is, maybe I'm not!). You're telling me that I should pay a higher percentage of taxes than you? Did you risk anything to get where you're at? Do you have employees (people/families) that depend on your decisions for a paycheck?

    That Boeing dude you're bitch'n about probably had offers from 8 other companies to run their businesses. He negotiated his package just like you did when you took your last job. Good for him. Try doing his job for a week, and see how long you last.

    You are looking at what he makes, not how he got there, what he went through to get there, or what price he or his family paid to be what he is.

    Were you willing to make those same sacrifices? Many are willing, few are capable.
     
  19. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    Why is it anybody's business what Boeing pays their CEO? So long as Boeing is happy, who cares what the leftist Gary thinks. What about some druggie sports player making millions per year? Is that fair to you Gary? Again, if he wasn't worth it to the team they would pay him.

    Why should anybody pay a higher rate than you Gary? While you act like that mneans you pay the same amount, that's not true. Do the math. It's a historical fact that raising taxes on the really wealthy doesn't raise more in taxes because they have so many ways of sheltering their income from taxes.
     
  20. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,346
    Hey guys, don't forget when you sale your home, that is a capital gain, if you sell it for more than you paid for it and you have already deducted the interest you paid off your personal income tax over the years.


    WS-1

    The thing that I don't like about a national sales tax is the income tax is imbedded into the Constitution. If that amendment is not repealed, then we will end up paying income tax and sales tax.

    Both will forever be used for social engineering, and Congress will not pass up the opportunity to assess higher sales taxes on items they feel you should not be buying, or steering you to buy items they want you to buy.

    Example 1 - If they assessed a 25% sales tax on a truck, but 5 on a mini-compact car, would that be okay with you?

    Example 2 - If Congress decides that homes over 2400 square feet take up too much energy use and they are over 20 years old, a tax should be assigned of 20%, but houses under 2400 feet built within 20 years of age will be assessed a sales tax of 10%.

    Example 3 - You want to buy a new trap gun, and decide you want a Perazzi MX2005, for $7500.00. Will you be prepared to spend the 100% sales tax assessed on firearms?

    What if the States think this is such a good idea, they do the same thing. Maybe not as much, but a stiff tax on firearms. Illinois would like that.

    Finally, will you be prepared to collect sales tax on anything you sell, a used car, a home, boat, plane and then pay that money to the Fed, and State?

    Oh, it should apply to only new products?

    Says who, if the law is written to say it applies on all sales of tangible items, new or used?

    Who would think of writing a law that way? Any slimy congressman or senator that comes up with the idea, thats who.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.