Why does the middle class pay the most crippling amount of income tax?

David D. said:

Too simple Turtle. There are those who are lazy leeches, but there are also those who are trying and just do not have the skills to make more than minimum wage.

Click to expand...

fair enough=we just need to provide some serious dis-incentives for them to keep voting for more government and costing others more and more tax hikes

Jerry said:

Uh no it will have the exact same impact.....20%.

We shouldn't be taxing income at all in the first place....we should be taxing consumption. I don't know any poor people buying capitol assets for a business, buying private aircraft and taking lavish vacations.

It would seem to me that a poor person is using most of their income to exist, while a rich person is using more of their income for investments and pleasure. 20% of 100 is more than 20% of 10.

If a poor person wants to improve their situation, taxing income means their savings, 401K, retirement, roth ira, etc, will no be touched; and when withdrawn, that person who worked for their retirement will not be charged just for breathing. They will be charged based on what they buy, and therefore have control.

Click to expand...

I would think that type of system would make sense, so long that we also make sure that the 'essentials' like food, utilities, and other basic commodities maintain the lowest tax rates, whilst the luxuries & excesses a bit higher.

Could imagine what type of a business/gov battle this would set off though, arguing that their product deserves a lower tax rate because.....

TurtleDude said:

fair enough=we just need to provide some serious dis-incentives for them to keep voting for more government and costing others more and more tax hikes

Click to expand...

Definitely.

David D. said:

Taking 20% of a poor person's income will have a much more significant impact than taking 20% of a rich person's income. And sure, the poor person will receive maybe like 10% back in government aid but then what's the point. Why not just cut out all the middle-man and tax them 10% in the first place?

Click to expand...

Right back at ya: the rich person is taxed 20%, yet will receive 0% back in government aid. Why not just cut out all the middle-man and tax them 0% in the first place?

The answer, of course, is because social welfare programs are not the government's only expense.

David D. said:

You spend 100% of your monthly income on the essentials (food, shelter, clothing) and someone takes 20% of that, it will have a far greater impact than if you spend 30-40% on those same essentials and have the rest to spend/save on other things.

Click to expand...

Ahh, so the poor get 30-40% to go blow, but the rich are evil when they reinvest in their company...where your poor person works...mhmm...

TurtleDude said:

fair enough=we just need to provide some serious dis-incentives for them to keep voting for more government and costing others more and more tax hikes

Click to expand...

That is where political campaigns come in. Educate the voter to your point of view. That is how it is done. You do not eliminate voters because they do not agree with you.

haymarket said:

That is where political campaigns come in. Educate the voter to your point of view. That is how it is done. You do not eliminate voters because they do not agree with you.

Click to expand...

pain tends to be the best education for the ignorant.

Jerry said:

Right back at ya: the rich person is taxed 20%, yet will receive 0% back in government aid. Why not just cut out all the middle-man and tax them 0% in the first place?

The answer, of course, is because social welfare programs are not the government's only expense

Click to expand...

This was my point, poor pay 10% to support those other government functions, rich pay 20% - 10% to poor and 10% to government functions.

Jerry said:

Ahh, so the poor get 30-40% to go blow, but the rich are evil when they reinvest in their company...where your poor person works...mhmm

Click to expand...

Bit lost here, could you restate?

David D. said:

I would think that type of system would make sense, so long that we also make sure that the 'essentials' like food, utilities, and other basic commodities maintain the lowest tax rates, whilst the luxuries & excesses a bit higher.

Could imagine what type of a business/gov battle this would set off though, arguing that their product deserves a lower tax rate because.....

Click to expand...

Negative.

20%. Everything.

No exceptions. No exemptions. No sin-tax (tobacco). No write-offs.

It doesn't matter if you're buying a loaf of bread or new Jaguar: 20%. It doesn't matter if you use a lot of water because you have a medical condition and take baths (essential), or you just enjoy a long hot shower (luxury): 20%.

It doesn't matter if your business *needs* a new piece of equipment, or if you just want to upgrade because you had a good year: 20%.

It doesn't matter if you have a high electrical and internet bill because your taking online collage classes (essential), or your debate online at all times of day and night (luxury): 20%.

TurtleDude said:

pain tends to be the best education for the ignorant.

Click to expand...

.....I swear I heard something like that come out of a Drill Sergeant last year....

Jerry said:

Negative.

20%. Everything.

No exceptions. No exemptions. No sin-tax (tobacco). No write-offs.

It doesn't matter if you're buying a loaf of bread or new Jaguar: 20%.

Click to expand...

I don't think this would work. I don't think anyone would actually go along with a 20% sales tax on food. It's too much - people'd be revolting in the streets. You need to treat the essentials and the luxuries differently...

David D. said:

I don't think this would work. I don't think anyone would actually go along with a 20% hike (or maybe 13-17% hike if you account for pre-existing sales taxes) on the cost of food. People'd be revolting in the streets.

Click to expand...

another good argument for honest people being able to buy automatic crew served weapons at reasonable prices. if there was no income taxes I suspect that the cost of food would drop enough that the consumption tax would not end up actually increasing costs

David D. said:

I don't think this would work. I don't think anyone would actually go along with a 20% sales tax on food. It's too much - people'd be revolting in the streets. You need to treat the essentials and the luxuries differently...

Click to expand...

That 12 gauge shot gun: whether you got it because you enjoy target practice, or people are revolting in the streets: 20%.

Jerry said:

That 12 gauge shot gun: whether you got it because you enjoy target practice, or people are revolting in the streets: 20%.

Click to expand...

would you rebate the 11% Robinson-Pittman excise tax on firearms?

TurtleDude said:

if there was no income taxes I suspect that the cost of food would drop enough that the consumption tax would not end up actually increasing costs

Click to expand...

But what about the people that don't pay income taxes to begin with. That tax on food would kill, quite literally.

David D. said:

But what about the people that don't pay income taxes to begin with. That tax on food would kill, quite literally.

Click to expand...

those on the dole should not be voting. I believe in exempting necessities from the consumption tax. Jerry and I disagree on that

TurtleDude said:

would you rebate the 11% Robinson-Pittman excise tax on firearms?

Click to expand...

Oh you know that tax-stamp is GON. That's just a sin-tax of epic proportions.

Having said that.....whether you're buying that case of 5.56mm to put in your AR15 to stay sharp on your issued service weapon, or you're buying to put in your new SAW.....20%.

60 cents pr round adds up real fast.

David D. said:

But what about the people that don't pay income taxes to begin with. That tax on food would kill, quite literally.

Click to expand...

They already pay taxes...it's figured in the price of the food they're buying.

Taxing consumption only will necessarily lower product costs.

TurtleDude said:

pain tends to be the best education for the ignorant.

Click to expand...

Either that makes absolutely no sense and what simply a wiseguy attempt to say something thought to be clever or you have just revealed a strong inclination to fascistic authoritariansim.

Which is it Turtle?

TurtleDude said:

those on the dole should not be voting. I believe in exempting necessities from the consumption tax. Jerry and I disagree on that

Click to expand...

Yeah - we get it. Today its those on the dole that should not vote. At other times you said that those who were not your magic "net taxpayers" should not vote. All in a blatant and obvious scheme to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters who tend to vote for the party you hate and loather and blame for many of the nations ills. It is such an obvious power grab that it is beneath contempt given the history and nature of the United States of America.

The right of an adult citizen to vote is the life blood of a democratic republic such as the USA. It is the lynchpin that holds it all together. It is the very center of legitimacy that then empowers the government to act in the name of the people.

Of course, your partisan desires to deprive scores of millions of people of their Constitutional right to vote are shared and echoed by radical right wingers across the land. ALEC - the American Legislative Exchange Council - in their unholy alliance between corporations and right wing state legislators, has templated legislation that they are pushing which has as its main purpose the goal of getting as many people off the voter rolls as possible in time for the 2012 election.

Radical right wingers apparently know that the majority of the American people will not vote for the fascistic type of people they want in office so they have found a way to get around them by depriving scores of millions of likely Democratic voters of their Constitutional right to vote. And you join them in that unholy effort.

haymarket said:

Either that makes absolutely no sense and what simply a wiseguy attempt to say something thought to be clever or you have just revealed a strong inclination to fascistic authoritariansim.

Which is it Turtle?

Click to expand...

Hilarious! His statement is somehow authoritarian to you?

MusicAdventurer said:

And your point is ... ?

Click to expand...

Comprehend the written word. I means and say that the middle classdoes not pay the majority of taxes.

I want to see a low flat tax for all and a flat sales tax added that will hit those who can and do more buying will pay more.

Henrin said:

Hilarious! His statement is somehow authoritarian to you?

Click to expand...

you find something like this amusing????

pain tends to be the best education for the ignorant.

Click to expand...

That statement from Turtle conjures up images of torture and sadism at the hands of authority figures attempting to 'educate' those who do not see things the way they want you to see them. Jackbooted thugs with the authority and power behind them to put a physical hurting on folks to 'educate' them.

Yup - that reeks of fascistic tendencies.

haymarket said:

you find something like this amusing????



That statement from Turtle conjures up images of torture and sadism at the hands of authority figures attempting to 'educate' those who do not see things the way they want you to see them. Jackbooted thugs with the authority and power behind them to put a physical hurting on folks to 'educate' them.

Yup - that reeks of fascistic tendencies.

Click to expand...

what misrepresentation. the point I was making is that the only way to get the people who vote for more and more and more government spending is to make them feel some pain in their pocketbook

that you choose to distort that obvious point is sad

Henrin said:

Hilarious! His statement is somehow authoritarian to you?

Click to expand...

Its a psychobabbling misinterpretation. Pain obviously refers to making those who vote for big spenders actually suffer some tax increases

haymarket said:

you find something like this amusing????



That statement from Turtle conjures up images of torture and sadism at the hands of authority figures attempting to 'educate' those who do not see things the way they want you to see them. Jackbooted thugs with the authority and power behind them to put a physical hurting on folks to 'educate' them.

Yup - that reeks of fascistic tendencies.

Click to expand...

Pain naturally makes people think of the errors of their ways. So making people feel the pain of their actions is a great tool to teach people. It doesn't imply that you will torture them, rule over them with a iron fist, it means they will learn from their actions by feeling the pain of those actions.