Taxes drop to lowest level in 60 years

[Gazi 4,780]

You are more likely to see a VAT tax added on top of the income tax.

Not in our lifetime

[Cat 5,093]

Now please define for me "rich".

Since you seem to be falling for the same game as those I thought less intelligent than you.

Namely, "rich" is defined by anyone making more than you, and "they" should pay more because that is better than you or the "not rich" chipping in more too.

*shakes head*

I thought we were all equal here in the land of opportunity.

Guess not.

fact is, if we are cereal about eliminating our debt, we have to temporarily (ugh) increase taxes, cut spending dramatically and across the board, and get it done.

Then we can start bringing down tax rates across the board, and for everyone.

The above will never happen.

I looked at the tax record on an IRS webpage. I can't find it right now. But here are two other links. By rich I meant the top bracket. And I don't think of the rich as anyone who makes more than me. We make good money, hell I'm rich compared to most and I don't mind paying more taxes if it helps our country get fixed.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Edit: Also I don't think we are all equal. Some people are smarter, some people are more athletic, some people are born to mega rich parents, supportive parents, and dead beat parents. There is nothing equal about it. That's my belief at least. Maybe that's why we might view things a bit different.

[Matt Moore 2]

I come from a High School where less than 20% of the student body went to college. It was a rural high school without the financially advantaged. Everyone in that school had access to the same classes....the same teachers...the same facilities. 20% chose to take advantage of it....and 80% chose not to. I guess that 80% can blame the system.....bullsh*t.

so if the majority of the students didn't go to college that doesn't support the fact that there is something wrong with the system

ok then

:auto:

[pstall 5,788]

I looked at the tax record on an IRS webpage. I can't find it right now. But here are two other links. By rich I meant the top bracket. And I don't think of the rich as anyone who makes more than me. We make good money, hell I'm rich compared to most and I don't mind paying more taxes if it helps our country get fixed.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

And this is why I think those who want to, go ahead and do it. It's your choice. But there are some that might not want to or give in different forms.

I have been saying for years, allow more people to choose how to allocate some of their taxes. At least on the local level.

But year after year we blindly drop money into a bucket and we have no clue where it really goes.

[Chimera 3,584]

equal opportunity .....divert much of that money into social programs....

equality = some people sowing, others reaping. Got it.

[Matt Foley 1]

equality = some people sowing, others reaping. Got it.

Liberal = Not too good at running his own life, but an expert at spending your tax money

[Cat 5,093]

Liberal = Not too good at running his own life, but an expert at spending your tax money

Way to generalize and over simplify. There are many liberals that are quite successful and rich. Clearly able to run their lives just fine.

[cantrell 3]

so if the majority of the students didn't go to college that doesn't support the fact that there is something wrong with the system

ok then

:auto:

no see that 80% just wanted to steal the hard working rich man's money. and hey, the majority of the upper class is male and white and haven't you heard? the straight, white, wealthy, christian male is the most persecuted person in america.

[cantrell 3]

Way to generalize and over simplify. There are many liberals that are quite successful and rich. Clearly able to run their lives just fine.

you're wasting your time.

here, let me explain it to you in meat's posting style:

meat = literally retarded

[Chimera 3,584]

Way to generalize and over simplify. There are many liberals that are quite successful and rich. Clearly able to run their lives just fine.

It isn't liberals. Its everyone. I really don't see as many people volunteering their own money as I see volunteering other people's money. It only gets annoying when they start screaming equality.

Anyone could need help at anytime. That's why I don't rail too hard against handouts. But for a person's entire livelihood to depend on the work of others is asinine.

[ItsNotGonnaBeAlright 4,998]

Huh. According to that tax calculator pstall directed me too, for a person to be hit by the full 35% top rate, that person must be making $447,125,001 a year.

The tax on that is $156,471,394.

[Mr. Scot 49,640]

The difference in basic philosophy is pretty simple.

Option One: "We let you keep most of your money, but it's up to you to take care of yourself. We're only going to do the essential stuff like national defense."

Option Two: "We'll take care of everybody - health care, welfare, whatever - but that's expensive, so we'll need to take a fair amount of your money."

The devil is in the details as far as how you execute those philosophies on a national level, but of those two basic options, I prefer the first.

[Matt Foley 1]

The difference in basic philosophy is pretty simple.

Option One: "We let you keep most of your money, but it's up to you to take care of yourself. We're only going to do the essential stuff like national defense."

Option Two: "We'll take care of everybody - health care, welfare, whatever - but that's expensive, so we'll need to take a fair amount of your money."

The devil is in the details as far as how you execute those philosophies on a national level, but of those two basic options, I prefer the first.

I wish Option Two would be handled by the states, but the libs would never go for that. Can't stand to see self-reliant people succeed and government-reliant people struggle.

[cantrell 3]

The difference in basic philosophy is pretty simple.

Option One: "We let you keep most of your money, but it's up to you to take care of yourself. We're only going to do the essential stuff like national defense."

Option Two: "We'll take care of everybody - health care, welfare, whatever - but that's expensive, so we'll need to take a fair amount of your money."

The devil is in the details as far as how you execute those philosophies on a national level, but of those two basic options, I prefer the first.

no, this isn't really true at all. you can have national defense in "option two". you don't have to outspend every other country in the world by leaps and bounds to have effective defense.

[Mr. Scot 49,640]

no, this isn't really true at all. you can have national defense in "option two". you don't have to outspend every other country in the world by leaps and bounds to have effective defense.

You seriously thought the second option didn't include national defense?

Wow :nonod: