View Poll Results: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • True

    15 50.00%
  • False

    15 50.00%
Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 167

Thread: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

  1. #81
    Advisor Crossroads's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    07-06-15 @ 05:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    408
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    Thanks for making anything else you said irrelevant - ignored.
    Saying that half of your fellow country men are abject "failures" deserves FAR MORE derision than what I said. Nice excuse for you to turn tail and run, though I guess I can't blame you, as my point is completely unassailable anyway.

    Wouldn't want to tough through what is literally the most simplest and cheesiest of name calling bits and thus risk fragmenting one's fragile world view...

  2. #82
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,068

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Fair enough but not only managers at Walmart now make $12/hour or more. My point is that raising the pay of only those at the bottom is unrealistic. The likely impact of a much higher MW is the further reduction in schedualed hours for part-timers and concentrating staff only during peak sales periods. Not only retail sales are affected by MW increases and many businesses (e.g. landscaping and janitorial services) have much higher labor costs to total sales ratios.
    The ability to respond to such a circumstance by merely reducing hours implies a built in level of inefficiency. You are assuming there a a bunch of workers standing around doing little but drawing a paycheck. I think that is probably a bad assumption, as most businesses do not keep on a bunch of extra people... they have enough to divide the work evenly.

    While there could be some reduction of hours (having a little extra capacity at $7.50/hr is more tolerable than extra capacity at $10/hr) its unlikely that an employer responds to a min wage increase by just reducing hours.... Its more likely that it just increases cost. Some of this cost can be recovered in price increases and some of which will simply come out of management bonuses.

  3. #83
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Fair enough but not only managers at Walmart now make $12/hour or more. My point is that raising the pay of only those at the bottom is unrealistic. The likely impact of a much higher MW is the further reduction in schedualed hours for part-timers and concentrating staff only during peak sales periods. Not only retail sales are affected by MW increases and many businesses (e.g. landscaping and janitorial services) have much higher labor costs to total sales ratios.
    Okay, so let's double the impact of those price increases. Instead of 1.1% higher prices, it's 2.2% higher prices...

    ...and at the same time ALL the workers have more money to spend and are less of a burden upon the taxpayer.

    Sounds like a good deal to me...even at twice the price.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  4. #84
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crossroads View Post
    Also very true.
    its statist horsecrap. the biggest problem is those who want more and more spending don't get hit with tax increases to remind them how expensive the government they want.



  5. #85
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,945

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    I certainly believe fairness is important when discussing taxes, however the term fairness has a different meaning depending on who is defining it. I don't believe in soaking the rich as so many people on the right like to fame it, but as I understand it, Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776 believed in what we call today as a progressive tax or the more affluent pays at a higher rate than those at the lower end of the income scale. Also, many people on the right like to frame the argument that those at the lower end use more of the government services than the more affluent. IMHO, that is pure bunk. Where would Jeff Bezos be today, if the infrastructure provided by the Federal, state did not exist.

    So basically your were pissy that someone on the right uses the same bs "fairness" argument that some on the left use, but from a different angle. And while you have no issues with the left doing that, you got mad someone on thhe right did because you disagreed with their definition of fairness. And instead of debating their point, you wanted to hypocritically bitch about people using "fairness" as an argument since you didn't like how they termed it. Gotcha.

  6. #86
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    However, if you review the revenue stream generated by the rich, you'll discover, as they have in California, governments can't count on the same levels of tax income each year to cover their commitments. Consider California at one time had a $42 billion deficit, representing over 60% of the nations state budget deficits, and this was in 2004, long before the recession in 2007-08.

    This is why the Progressive plan to soak the rich will fail every time. Tax revenue must be generated across a broad footprint, not just from the rich.
    Wait - let me get this straight - you're blaming the progressives for California's deficit in 2004? Who was the governator then? And yes, both houses of the legislature were majority-Democrat.

    HOWEVER, this may come as a shock to you, but just because almost all Republicans today are conservatives, you should NOT assume that all Democrats are liberal, much less progressive (there's a difference, you know). Even today, there's still several conservative Democrats in the U.S. Congress (read this on "Blue Dog Democrats")...and a lot more in state legislatures.

    In other words, the Democratic party is simply not nearly so dogmatically monolithic as the Republican party has become.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  7. #87
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,945

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    But how much of the nation's taxes go towards paying for what the rich require in order to run their businesses? For instance, Joe Everyman doesn't always have to depend on having a good roads and orderly traffic in order to get to work...but his boss at, say, UPS sure as heck does need good roads and orderly traffic in order to make his business work.

    Come to think of it, maybe a better way to ask that 70% question above is...were all the tax breaks and subsidies that were given to Corporate America - and, by extension, to the rich - included in that 70%? Probably not...so that's what we're not seeing in that question.
    Considering joe Everyman would need to use those roads to get to work, and needs those roads just as much as his boss does for his job to function and have a need for him, I don't exactly get how somehow you're acting like their just kind of useful to joe but essential to his boss.

    Your hypothetical seems to suggest joes bosses business wouldn't exist without the roads...but I'd Joe's boss's business didn't exist, them joe's job and this income wouldn't exist

  8. #88
    Guru
    99percenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,073

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crossroads View Post
    If you consider the fact they own 75 percent of all "wealth" in the country, then no, the statement might not hold. But since this is about "income", of which they constitute about 48 percent of, then yes, the statement could be considered true.

    I still voted "no" however. There are plenty of other factors to consider. There is a reason we have a "progressive" tax system, it helps compensate for the inherent inequalities in a system such as ours. Yes, that would be the "redistribute the wealth" thing.
    We dont have a progressive tax. We have a regressive tax. In fact mitt romney pays less of his income taxes than a truck driver making 50k a year and lives by himself. We have have corporations like GE that not only not pay any taxes but get money back from the govt.
    bears, bulls, white sox fan 4 life!!!

  9. #89
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Considering joe Everyman would need to use those roads to get to work, and needs those roads just as much as his boss does for his job to function and have a need for him, I don't exactly get how somehow you're acting like their just kind of useful to joe but essential to his boss.

    Your hypothetical seems to suggest joes bosses business wouldn't exist without the roads...but I'd Joe's boss's business didn't exist, them joe's job and this income wouldn't exist
    truth or logic tend to provide no obstacles to those who try to justify making a group that uses 5% of the government services pay 60-65-70-75-80-85% of the FIT



  10. #90
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by 99percenter View Post
    We dont have a progressive tax. We have a regressive tax. In fact mitt romney pays less of his income taxes than a truck driver making 50k a year and lives by himself. We have have corporations like GE that not only not pay any taxes but get money back from the govt.
    what utter moronic nonsense. you are lying completely What sort of gross income does it take a truck driver to actually pay an effective rate on EARNED income of 15%. What does ROMNEY pay on EARNED INCOME



Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •