New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Of course...

Lukey

Lukey

Senator
More than two-thirds of Americans think the federal tax system benefits the rich and is unfair to ordinary workers, according to a new CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday.

While 68 percent of those polled felt the system was tilted towards the wealthy, only 29 percent disagreed, the survey, released on Tax Day, found.

Despite feeling that the tax system is unfair, half of those surveyed in the poll believe they pay the right amount in federal taxes, while 45 percent think they owe too much. Three percent think they pay too little in taxes.

Not surprisingly, there’s also a political divide in how Americans view the tax system.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75232.html#ixzz1sIcTdW5K

The "half" who thought they paid about the right amount are most likely the half who pay nothing. And I'm sure all of them are in the 68% who feel the tax system is tilted towards the wealthy. I'm beginning to believe there is such a thing as a "free lunch!"
 
I think I pay the right amount in taxes, or maybe too little, Smartypants, and I also think the rich pay way too little. I paid taxes on $68,000 and change this year, and am getting a modest refund.

What entitles the rich to pay a lower rate than I? Because that's what it is, an entitlement, or "welfare for the rich."
 
Nestor2 said:
I think I pay the right amount in taxes, or maybe too little, Smartypants, and I also think the rich pay way too little. I paid taxes on $68,000 and change this year, and am getting a modest refund.

What entitles the rich to pay a lower rate than I? Because that's what it is, an entitlement, or "welfare for the rich."
Click to expand...

A tax code duly passed by Congress and signed into law by a President? My guess is you paid less than $5000 in federal income taxes. That's less than 10%. Mitt paid about 14% (because he donates a lot of money to charity). What entitles you to lie about the "rich" paying a lower percentage than you do?
 
Gosh, I feel awful! Mitt paid a whopping 14%? Man, he is OPPRESSED!

Hey, my girlfriend, who went from a $48K a year job to a $8900 a year job, she should pay 14% too! And me too! Just to be fair, of course.

Will we be "rich" then?

p.s. I paid 11%, not less than 10%
 
Oh, yeah, by the way, is Mitt Pomney the only rich person in the country? Because I never mentioned his name, and he wouldn't have been my example.
 
Nestor2 said:
Gosh, I feel awful! Mitt paid a whopping 14%? Man, he is OPPRESSED!

Hey, my girlfriend, who went from a $48K a year job to a $8900 a year job, she should pay 14% too! And me too! Just to be fair, of course.

Will we be "rich" then?

p.s. I paid 11%, not less than 10%
Click to expand...

Ah, because you are not married filing jointly. You could lower your taxes by a bunch if you would just marry your girlfriend.

Still, you are lying when you say the rich pay a lower percentage than you do. Some might, but not very many. And those who did either gave huge donations to charity or lost huge amounts on an investment.
 
Nestor2 said:
Oh, yeah, by the way, is Mitt Pomney the only rich person in the country? Because I never mentioned his name, and he wouldn't have been my example.
Click to expand...

Then pick another one. You are setting up a straw man argument here. Not very many rich pay less than 11% (and the ones that do either donate huge amounts to charity or take huge losses on an investment). My guess would be 99% of rich folks pay more than 11% in income taxes.
 
Nestor2 said:
I think I pay the right amount in taxes, or maybe too little, Smartypants, and I also think the rich pay way too little. I paid taxes on $68,000 and change this year, and am getting a modest refund.

What entitles the rich to pay a lower rate than I? Because that's what it is, an entitlement, or "welfare for the rich."
Click to expand...


"Because that's what it is, an entitlement, or "welfare for the rich."

Wow.................. I mean........just...........DAM!!!!!!!!

That is it in a nutshell, sport. You have just defined the perversion we commonly refer to as modernday liberalism in that one sentance better than I could ever have hoped to do.

You have no shame in openly stating that in your opinion the government not taking whatever YOU deem to be a "fair" amount of other people's monies, that actually "allowing" someone to keep more of what is THEIRS to begin with, rather than taking it and using it on what OTHERS such as yourself desire, is somhow a damed "entitlemement".

Unreal.


So may I ask you exactly when it was in your life that you came to accept the notion that by not taking more and more frome one constituted an "entitlement" for that someone?


An "entitlement"? Really? Come on........ Surely one as uber-enlightened as you obviously believe yourself to be can come up with SOMETHING else a bit more accurate. Because, lets be honest here, THIS weak crap seriously is not helping with your desired sugar-coating of the lust you have for other people's money, hoss.
 
The half who pay nothing?

This post is clearly an attempt at obfuscation, since Lukey is talking about 'the tax system', NOT the income tax. And everyone in America....EVERYONE, even little kids, pays taxes of some kind. Sales taxes, Social Security (FICA) taxes, Medicare taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, phone taxes, and we could go on (of course).
 
Ask Warren Buffett - he pays low taxes and STILL is fighting the IRS against paying his fair share. Some people are just too easy to scam with Obama/Goebels talking points.

Nestor2 said:
I think I pay the right amount in taxes, or maybe too little, Smartypants, and I also think the rich pay way too little. I paid taxes on $68,000 and change this year, and am getting a modest refund.

What entitles the rich to pay a lower rate than I? Because that's what it is, an entitlement, or "welfare for the rich."
Click to expand...
 
LeRoy_Was_Here said:
The half who pay nothing?

This post is clearly an attempt at obfuscation, since Lukey is talking about 'the tax system', NOT the income tax. And everyone in America....EVERYONE, even little kids, pays taxes of some kind. Sales taxes, Social Security (FICA) taxes, Medicare taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, phone taxes, and we could go on (of course).
Click to expand...

It appears they were asked specifically about income taxes (for a report that was released on tax day):

Overall, 50% said the federal income taxes they paid were about right, with 45% saying their taxes were too high and 3% answering their taxes were too low.

So who (exactly) is attempting to "obfuscate" here?
 
OK, but that is NOT what YOU said in your top post. Which is standard operating procedure for conservatives. They want to talk about income taxes, but they refer to it as 'the tax system', thinking other folks won't call them on it.
 
LeRoy_Was_Here said:
OK, but that is NOT what YOU said in your top post. Which is standard operating procedure for conservatives. They want to talk about income taxes, but they refer to it as 'the tax system', thinking other folks won't call them on it.
Click to expand...

Feel free to call me on anything I say.
 
LeRoy_Was_Here said:
The half who pay nothing?

This post is clearly an attempt at obfuscation, since Lukey is talking about 'the tax system', NOT the income tax. And everyone in America....EVERYONE, even little kids, pays taxes of some kind. Sales taxes, Social Security (FICA) taxes, Medicare taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, phone taxes, and we could go on (of course).
Click to expand...



"EVERYONE, even little kids, pays taxes of some kind."

Indeed.

So I suppose the NEXT logical question would be; "But does EVERYONE, even little kids, who pays taxes of some kind, actually pay their "fair" share?

Which would THEN bring us to; "If so, or not, according to WHOM, and why them?"

IF we are to accept the fact that the "fair share" for "the rich" is to be defined as such by, (oddly enough), those who will NOT be affected, which is what would be the case if we raise the tax rates on "just some", should we not in turn, to be "fair", THEN allow those deemed to be "the rich", to define what would "fair" for the OTHER "X percent" of everyone?

Perhaps if you do wish to allow the upper percentage of earners to define what is "fair" for the lower percentages to have to pay in the same manner you believe the uppers should have to pay as defined by the lower, it would be "fair" to accept the opinion of the top percentage as to what would be "fair" for the bottom percentage to RECEIVE?

Or is it your contention that it is actually 'fair" for everyone to accept what is deemed to be "fair" for all by only "some"? I know, it might be that you are of the opinion that the more a person has the less they can possibly know about 'fair", is THAT it?


Care to elaborate any?
 
Care to elaborate any? Sure. 'Fairness' is a word that is very difficult to define. No one has EVER been able to come up with a definition of 'fair' that everyone would accept. That's because different people have different value systems, obviously.

But we live in a democratic republic....supposedly. That means decisions on tax levels should be decided by our elected representatives, but should represent, at least roughly, the will of the majority. Or else you are admitting to being opposed to democracy.

And, as others have reported here, 72% of the public was in favor of the Buffett Rule. Which is precisely why some pundits are saying that we no longer live in a functioning democracy.

Congratulations. You're turned us into a banana republic.
 
UPNYA2 said:
"EVERYONE, even little kids, pays taxes of some kind."

Indeed.

So I suppose the NEXT logical question would be; "But does EVERYONE, even little kids, who pays taxes of some kind, actually pay their "fair" share?

Which would THEN bring us to; "If so, or not, according to WHOM, and why them?"

IF we are to accept the fact that the "fair share" for "the rich" is to be defined as such by, (oddly enough), those who will NOT be affected, which is what would be the case if we raise the tax rates on "just some", should we not in turn, to be "fair", THEN allow those deemed to be "the rich", to define what would "fair" for the OTHER "X percent" of everyone?

Perhaps if you do wish to allow the upper percentage of earners to define what is "fair" for the lower percentages to have to pay in the same manner you believe the uppers should have to pay as defined by the lower, it would be "fair" to accept the opinion of the top percentage as to what would be "fair" for the bottom percentage to RECEIVE?

Or is it your contention that it is actually 'fair" for everyone to accept what is deemed to be "fair" for all by only "some"? I know, it might be that you are of the opinion that the more a person has the less they can possibly know about 'fair", is THAT it?


Care to elaborate any?
Click to expand...

The bottom 50% own 2% of the wealth, how much blood do you want to beat out of that turnip?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top