NRA

[texaspackerbacker]

I tried, Little Whiskey. There just seems to be more interest in taxes than guns--and I have to admit, I feel that way too.

Tyrone, you don't mind paying taxes? I would say that narrows you down to being a hypocrite or a fool, but based on your history of posting, there's plenty of room for you to be both.

Damn straight, we conservatives bitch about taxes. Not only are they a personal anathema, they are the poison pill that kills an economy.

If you want to defend something liberal, Tyrone, consider spending. I found myself in the very uncomfortable position of actually agreeing with that bastard, Obama, today when he spoke of the necessity to spend, both on a personal level and on a government level in time of economic downturn. He was wrong in stating the unanimity of economists about this, but he was correct in the necessity for demand to be stimulated to bounce back. He also was wrong not to give greater emphasis to tax cutting in the stimulatory process.

You stated, Tyrone, that the tax system is bias in favor of the rich. The numbers, of course, all say otherwise. To that extent that your kind, however, sees unfairness or favoritism to the rich in across-the-board i.e. equal tax cutting, the justification is that they are the ones who own the businesses that provide the jobs--arguably the most effective economic stimulant.

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

No, i'm not in the minority..most people have no problem paying taxes. the issues is the amount paid, not the concept itself.

Taxes are bad? Really? Cool. Let's end them. I'd like to see how the gov't exists without them, i'd like to see how our military survives, etc.

Rich: Sorry, but your personal opinion isn't relevant. I made the argument about taxes based on income vs. wealth. There is no argument about it. The wealthy don't pay their share of taxes.

It is so obvious that you demagogue because who else could argue against my example. IT wasn't a 20k guy vs. a 250k or 25 million. It was 250K vs. 24 mill.

Actually, Tyrone, I have written posts advocating exactly that--no taxes at all--just "print the money" i.e. borrow, and have the debt instruments back the currency--which we do now, but I'm saying go all the way and have no tax at all. There would, of course, be some inflation, but NOT runaway inflation--not even enough to cost what taxes cost now.

It is absolutely LAUGHABLE and LUDICROUS that you claim the "rich"--make the cut off for richness pretty much anywhere you want to--don't pay their "fair share". The ONLY rational way to define "fair share" is "equal percentage of income"--or do you somehow dispute even that?

And the figures are obvious--painfully obvious to anybody in the "rich" category that the "rich" pay an EXTREMELY much larger percentage of their income in taxes. Hell, wasn't it you who claimed 41% on the low end don't even pay taxes? Or were you on the other side of that? If it isn't 41%, it certainly is some large figure--31, 21, 11%, whatever--the point is it is absolutely factually indisputable that the rich pay a MUCH larger than equal share of taxes--the thing you liberals euphemize as "progressive" taxation.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote:a25c009fef="mraynrand"]41% of Americans have representation without taxation, at the Federal level.

Really? They don't pay any taxes?

Think hard about that.

Tyrone, he's right, you're wrong, again.

You are implying that these people pay social security. What you're forgetting about is that most of the social security taxes these low income workers pay is rebated through other credits on the tax form, examples are child tax credit, additional child tax credit, earned income credit, and various other entitlements.

While the 41% deals with specifically federal INCOME tax, there is a large percentage of that 41% number that is paying no effective federal taxes of ANY kind.

Maybe you should stop googling for a little while and start thinking. If you've got it in you...

Here's something to get you started.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Sorry, but FICA and income taxes aren't the only Federal taxes we pay.....

Now you want to talk semantics. Ok, how about the guy who "pays" $10 of taxes by your definition but gets $20 of benefit/services back. Does he pay taxes or not?

Classic liberalism, can't argue the point straight up so play number/word games to shift the attention away from the fact that 41% of the people's vote have been bought by giving them get out of taxes free cards.

We are arguing the point, straightup. The 41% stated is factually incorrect.

As for the payin vs. bennie. Stupid. Of course he pays taxes.

You don't hear me complaining about taxes and how i'm subsiding conservative families with kids...after all, i pay taxes that are used for education..yet, i have no children.

First off I don't believe in the child tax credit, or any other crap like that. I don't even mind a slightly progressive tax, but it should be straight up, this is what you made, this is what you pay. As far as the education thing...you might not have kids, but you used the education system yourself (although some may argue you didn't get your moneys worth).

You don't believe? How convenient for you.

Education: Sure, i used it. But, didn't my parents pay taxes? So, am i being double billed? Or, since i used it for 22 years...shouldn't i only be expected to pay in for what i used.

Huge quote chain...proud to be part. Ty, I don't believe in social engineering through the tax code so I don't believe in the child tax credit. The GOP does, but I don't have to agree with them.

As far as the education thingy, I could make several arguments about how you benefit from an educated society even without children. I have no children either, but I accept that schools are vital infrastructure. Your parents also likely used public school anyway, so we can keep taking this backwards. I highly doubt you believe your own rhetoric on this one, likely its more obfuscation.

The original point was the 41% don't pay federal taxes..that is completely untrue. If the statement had been income then we might have something to talk about.

Schools: The point was that many of us pay taxes and don't receive an equal benefit..something you brought up. I pay, and will pay far more in taxes then i ever receive..and since your example didn't include societal benefits...it is kinda disengenous for you to bring that up now.

I have no problem paying taxes....it is always the right/conservs that bitch about taxes.

But, if you want to do so....then, why are you complaining about those that dont' pay? Don't you receive a societal bennie from making sure those people are taken care of?

P.S. Since we are talking about taxes...and that group that doesn't pay taxes.....lower socio economic groups tend to smoke more. Guess who is paying a federal tax for their smokes?

We also pay fed excise tax on phones, gas, etc. To make a claim that 41% of people are getting federal representation without paying taxes..is well, absurd. Not to mention all the extremely wealthy individuals that figure out a way not to pay any taxes.

Our tax code is tremendously rigged to favor the wealthy, especially the very wealthy and the very large corporations.

Surely you aren't going to argue that a doc who earns 250K..prolly losing 170 in taxes (fed, ss, state, medicare) is getting the same amount of "representation" as a wealthy heir who earns a "meager" 3% on his 25 mill in stocks/bonds fund (assets, not income are the truth measure of wealth)..."earning" 750K and paying under Obama 20%...150K..leaving him/her with 600K.

You are good. I answer every ridiculous point you make so you turn to making 3 misstatements of fact and 2 obfuscations in the same post. I admit it, you wore me down with your tactics. I no longer care enough to counter your outright attempt to NOT debate the issues.[/quote:a25c009fef]

I see. My points are ridiculous...that shows how little you respect others.

3 misstatments..which 3. 2 obsfu..which 2.

The simple fact is that a statement was made that is factually incorrect. You nor anyone else can argue it.

As for Tex...you are just too damn dense to figure it out. I spelled out the difference tween income and assets and how they are taxed.

[texaspackerbacker]

You're talking about a Federal tax on assets? You're even a bigger idiot than I thought.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're talking about a Federal tax on assets? You're even a bigger idiot than I thought.

I gave you the doctor vs. the 25mill example.

Please show me how the wealthy are paying the same as someone making 250K.

[mraynrand]

The simple fact is that a statement was made that is factually incorrect. You nor anyone else can argue it.

Of course we can. It just gets tedious to argue with you when you are being deliberately misleading. So I forgot to write 'income.' You knew exactly what I meant - 41% of Americans don't pay federal income tax - and are therefore represented without taxation - at the federal level (which I did write) and only with respect to income taxes. If you want to continue to distract, feel free. Payroll taxes are for the retirement/ponzi scheme and are not the same. state sales and income taxes are not the same. Fees are not the same. No one would dispute the fact that the very poor all the way up to the top earners are ALL TAXED and taxed up their asses, one way or another. Some ultra rich find shelters and the very poor may get taxes and fees, but also have access to a vast majority of the entitlement programs.

And I disagree with you on the anger about the taxes - I believe (for me it is certainly true) that people are angry about what tax dollars are used for (or wasted on), moreso that the amount of the taxation. No one likes taxes, but to know they are being used to fund the likes of ACORN as well as a million other pet projects pisses me off.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tyrone, you're wrong on this from any angle you choose. It's simply ridiculous that the rich do NOT pay extremely much more tax.

Raw amount: not even in the same ball park.

Percentage: that's the definition of a PROGRESSIVE income tax

Asset tax: the prime example of that now is property tax. Rich people tend to have more valuable property, and thus, pay more property tax.

Sales tax: some say this is "regressive"; At worst, it is equal, percentage-wise, and in total amount, obviously the rich pay more because they spend more.

Any way you approach it, it's indisputable.

Why don't you follow up on what you stumbled into about no tax at all. I say it would work. Deficit spending is an excellent economic stimulant; Carry it out to its extreme--operate on nothing but borrowed money--turning over the debt/paying on it with more borrowed money. Growth will outstrip the increase in debt, or at least come close enough that the inflation is manageable. Most of our conservatives hate the idea; You, Tyrone, as a liberal, should love it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The simple fact is that a statement was made that is factually incorrect. You nor anyone else can argue it.

Of course we can. It just gets tedious to argue with you when you are being deliberately misleading. So I forgot to write 'income.' You knew exactly what I meant - 41% of Americans don't pay federal income tax - and are therefore represented without taxation - at the federal level (which I did write) and only with respect to income taxes. If you want to continue to distract, feel free. Payroll taxes are for the retirement/ponzi scheme and are not the same. state sales and income taxes are not the same. Fees are not the same. No one would dispute the fact that the very poor all the way up to the top earners are ALL TAXED and taxed up their asses, one way or another. Some ultra rich find shelters and the very poor may get taxes and fees, but also have access to a vast majority of the entitlement programs.

And I disagree with you on the anger about the taxes - I believe (for me it is certainly true) that people are angry about what tax dollars are used for (or wasted on), moreso that the amount of the taxation. No one likes taxes, but to know they are being used to fund the likes of ACORN as well as a million other pet projects pisses me off.

NO, i didn't. I choose to believe that when you construct a sentence that is what you chose to write. Just as I know you specifically wrote federal.

I'm sorry, but you don't make any argument that suggests that because one pays more income tax that means the other is represented without taxation. Sorry, but income tax, sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, cig tax...it is all the same to me. The gov is taking my money.

Anger: Your position is a no win position. We are never going to agree which programs are worthy. things you feel are worthy i might not.

Lastly, I watched FNC..and i saw anger about the tax rate..not the programs. Very little about wasteful spending...it was far more about the gov't getting too much and the system being overly complicated.

But, you guys can keep bitching..it is great.

Like i said...Fox was going to get much more fun to watch with the Obama admin. Everyday is like Xmas.

[mraynrand]

Sorry, but income tax, sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, cig tax...it is all the same to me. The gov is taking my money.

Either you're lying or stupid then. Because all taxes aren't the same. Do you smoke? Do you walk, ride a bike bus or drive to work? Own a house or rent? Live in a state with low or high sales taxes, etc. How much of the government largess do you get due to your job/economic/racial/etc. status? No one is the same, and a lot of people, in balance get more from the government (certainly if you only count the FEDERAL government and FEDERAL taxes) than they pay in. If you don't smoke, but you have a few children and make say, 60K - hey SCHIP will cover you. Is the government taking your money? Nope, it's taking it from someone else and giving it to you.