|
Post by tigercpa on Feb 16, 2016 1:01:36 GMT
What?
Both of you are paying 0% of discretionary income in taxes. By definition, discretionary income is what is left after taxes.
A ratio of taxes to discretionary income is nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 16, 2016 1:50:56 GMT
Yet I got more utility out of the taxes. If you got more utility out of the taxes, then.... Hooray for you. It's likely, that your utility is also giving back to the community in a greater way. You, aND others who think like you, need to GET OVER your guilt for being successful. Roads, and police are EQUALLY available for all. Some people just endeavor to do far more with them.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 16, 2016 1:59:55 GMT
It's not nonsensical. It is why poor people suffer from a flat tax more than the rich.
Bob makes $50, pays 10% on tax and spends $10 on basic needs. He is left with 70% of his income.
I make $100, pay 10% in tax and spend $10 on basic needs. I'm left with 80% of my income.
A flat tax hurts him more than me. Very simple concept.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 16, 2016 2:04:38 GMT
Yet I got more utility out of the taxes. If you got more utility out of the taxes, then.... Hooray for you. It's likely, that your utility is also giving back to the community in a greater way. You, aND others who think like you, need to GET OVER your guilt for being successful. Roads, and police are EQUALLY available for all. Some people just endeavor to do far more with them. Being successful shouldn't result in me paying less. Publicly funded roads, schools, universities, etc. allowed me to make more. A flat tax doesn't result in me paying an equal share of the burden taxes cause me.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 16, 2016 2:12:42 GMT
aufan: "Being successful shouldn't result in me paying less."
Fret not, aufan. If you don't like your tax rate being lowered, the IRS will gladly accept any amount you wish to pay above your statutory obligation.
I wonder, how many limousine liberals who complain about taxes on the wealthy being too low voluntarily pay at the tax rate they contend is fair?
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 16, 2016 2:37:01 GMT
aufan: "Being successful shouldn't result in me paying less." Fret not, aufan. If you don't like your tax rate being lowered, the IRS will gladly accept any amount you wish to pay above your statutory obligation. I wonder, how many limousine liberals who complain about taxes on the wealthy being too low voluntarily pay at the tax rate they contend is fair? Unlike you, I don't care to leave the world worse off than I was born into it. I don't revel in gaining more than I contributed. With respect to taxes, that means the people that benefited the most from this world should pay back more. A flat tax does the opposite. With a flat tax, the poor lose a higher percent of their available income than the rich.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 16, 2016 3:16:25 GMT
aufan: "Unlike you, I don't care to leave the world worse off than I was born into it."
I will never cease to be amazed at how well you can read my mind.
aufan: "I don't revel in gaining more than I contributed."
God bless your little heart.
aufan: "With respect to taxes, that means the people that benefited the most from this world should pay back more."
That would be the case with a flat tax.
aufan: "A flat tax does the opposite. With a flat tax, the poor lose a higher percent of their available income than the rich."
New math?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 16, 2016 17:30:40 GMT
It's not nonsensical. It is why poor people suffer from a flat tax more than the rich. Bob makes $50, pays 10% on tax and spends $10 on basic needs. He is left with 70% of his income. I make $100, pay 10% in tax and spend $10 on basic needs. I'm left with 80% of my income. A flat tax hurts him more than me. Very simple concept.
So... the natural extension of your logic is: The Government should take EVERTHING above what is actually needed for normal living expenses. Then, we will all have EQUAL income for living. Liberal nirvana.
Anything else, using your logic, would be unfair.
It is nonsensical. With a flat tax, the rich pay MORE... A chick making $10M would pay $1M in taxes... vs a dude earning $10k, who would only pay $1k.
$1MM >>> $1K
yes... The Chick still has $9M to play with. It's hers...she EARNED it. The government has taken their share of it. She has every right to be able to enjoy the rest. I'm always baffled as to why liberals just assume that this poor girl's hard earned money doesn't belong to her.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Feb 16, 2016 17:46:07 GMT
It's not nonsensical. It is why poor people suffer from a flat tax more than the rich. Bob makes $50, pays 10% on tax and spends $10 on basic needs. He is left with 70% of his income. I make $100, pay 10% in tax and spend $10 on basic needs. I'm left with 80% of my income. A flat tax hurts him more than me. Very simple concept.
It is nonsensical.
Bingo
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 17, 2016 0:47:11 GMT
It's not nonsensical. It is why poor people suffer from a flat tax more than the rich. Bob makes $50, pays 10% on tax and spends $10 on basic needs. He is left with 70% of his income. I make $100, pay 10% in tax and spend $10 on basic needs. I'm left with 80% of my income. A flat tax hurts him more than me. Very simple concept.
So... the natural extension of your logic is: The Government should take EVERTHING above what is actually needed for normal living expenses. Then, we will all have EQUAL income for living. Liberal nirvana.
Anything else, using your logic, would be unfair.
It is nonsensical. With a flat tax, the rich pay MORE... A chick making $10M would pay $1M in taxes... vs a dude earning $10k, who would only pay $1k.
$1MM >>> $1K
yes... The Chick still has $9M to play with. It's hers...she EARNED it. The government has taken their share of it. She has every right to be able to enjoy the rest. I'm always baffled as to why liberals just assume that this poor girl's hard earned money doesn't belong to her.
I just think people that can afford to pay more should pay more. A flat tax does the opposite, the people least able to pay have to pay a higher percentage of their available income, and that income is more valuable to them. I don't think we will come to an agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 17, 2016 1:31:28 GMT
You clearly have a warped view of what "paying more" means.
It's a common malady these days.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Feb 17, 2016 3:02:27 GMT
You clearly have a warped view of what "paying more" means. It's a common malady these days. As do you. If both Bob and I pay 10%, I am "paying more" than him, twice as much as him. To take your logic to the extreme, it would be fair if both Bob and I paid a flat amount, not percentage based. I make $100 and pay $10 in taxes. He makes $50 and pays $10 taxes. Completely fair, correct? I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you understand the relative value of money, which is why you opt for a percent rather than a flat rate. $10 is much more valuable to Bob than it is to me. I am using the same logic. 10% of Bob's income is more valuable to Bob than 10% of my income is to me. So if Bob pays 10% of his income, I should probably pay a more than 10% of my income. How much more is up for debate.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 17, 2016 5:54:02 GMT
aufan -- how large do you think that the federal government is, in terms of spending per average household?
A. 10% of the median household income? B. 25% of the median household income? C. 40% of the median household income? D. 57.73% of the median household income?
The 2016 federal budget is $3,590,000,000,000 ($3.59 trillion). There are approximately 115,900,000 households in the U.S., @ an average of 2.78 person per household = 322,762,018 2016 population. The median household income is around $54,000. The federal government spends approximately $30,975 per household, which equates to 57.73% of the median household income.
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Feb 17, 2016 14:03:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 17, 2016 16:00:14 GMT
I am using the same logic. 10% of Bob's income is more valuable to Bob than 10% of my income is to me. So if Bob pays 10% of his income, I should probably pay a more than 10% of my income. How much more is up for debate. Yes... it's up for debate. Just keep in mind, what we're now debating is: Who gets to decide just how much of YOUR money, YOU deserve to keep? Why should you be allowed to keep more than Bob? Won't it ALWAYS mean less for you than it does for him? As long as you get to keep more? It's an argument that my side has lost... for a long time. But, I believe it's a concept still worth fighting for. History has shown: When people get to keep more of their own earnings, they work much harder. I also reject the idea that, YOU won't spend your own money MORE WISELY than the government will. Who knows, you MIGHT even be more charitable than the government? Did you see any of the stories about how much tax Cam Newton was going to have to pay on his Super Bowl winning? Hint: He paid MORE than he actually earned. www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2016/02/03/california-taxes-will-eat-up-all-of-cam-newtons-super-bowl-earnings/#6e2a23df50a6I think, THAT was why Cam was so upset during his press conference. He knew he lost more than the game... he actually LOST money, playing in the Super Bowl. We've gone too far. W's tax cut "For the Wealthy" removed MILLIONS of people from the tax rolls entirely. Our country is spending FAR MORE than we collect, and it simply cannot continue forever. Obama's budget last week projects $1TRILLION annual deficits beginning in just a few more years. We simply can't get that money from just the 1%. Not even if we took ALL their money. Even Bernie understands this... his tax plan raises taxes on EVERYONE. Even still, his spending plans far outstrip his ambitious tax plan. So badly, a Democrat economist call it a " puppies and rainbows" lol dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/puppies-and-rainbows-even-obamas-top-economic-adviser-is-bashing-sanderss-health-plan/[/quote]
|
|