- This topic has 155 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 23, 2012 at 12:37 AM #751752September 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM #751758
elzocalo2
Participant[quote=CA renter]The reason why so many people are paying low/no taxes is because they are too poor to do so. The 1% have managed to off-shore their jobs and destroy their ability to earn enough money to pay taxes in the first place. It’s funny how they try to blame the victims of their profiteering and political corruption. That needs to change.[/quote]
Thank you CA renter -Reducing these numbers to federal tax payers vs. non-payers is a way to justify nothing else but full lack of compassion. To blame others for their lot allows us to absolve ourselves from any responsibility for their need.September 23, 2012 at 12:25 PM #751762Anonymous
GuestALL of the Governments “resources” come from the taxpayers. The government has no money of its own. He WAS talking about redistribution of wealth, he WAS exactly talking about redistribution of wealth, and he was ONLY talking about redistribution of wealth.
Spin it any way you want, he is a socialist, and that means he wants to redistribute wealth. AND, ACCORDING TO YOUR QUOTED ARTICLE, HE ADMITS IT.“Pooling resources” = taxing those that have.
“Government systems” = the IRS
“Facilitate SOME redistribution” = redistribution according to socialist dogma.“Foster innovation” = something that will NEVER happen. A socialist wet dream.
September 23, 2012 at 12:27 PM #751763GuestI bet he pays more in taxes in a year than you will in your entire life. Yet, all you can think of is how to punish him for it.
September 23, 2012 at 12:30 PM #751764Guest[quote=CA renter][quote=squat250]if romney had said, 47% of americans pay no income tax, and left it at that, it wouldn’t be obnoxious. if he argued for policies to make more americansearn enough to pay taxes, it might even be mildly inspiring…
When romney says 47% of americans see themselves as victims just looking for a handout, then he qualifies as douchiest politican of the last 100 years. except for hitler.
i figured we were going to get to hitler eventually so i thought i’d just cut to the chase.
it is pretty hilarious that he omitted his charitable deductions to keep his tax rate above 13%. I mean, jeepers, he pays so little tax himself that he has to basically forego deductions to pay what he beleives will look like a non-repulsive tax rate. and then he has the gall to call half the rest of the nation a bunch of freeloading dirtbags who have no interest in helping themselves.
sheesh! high-larious!!![/quote]
The #1 way to “broaden the tax base” is to bring jobs back to the U.S. and give workers a greater share of the surplus value they create.
So far, all we’ve heard is lip service from either party. This could be done very easily, but the moneyed interests (who are trying to convince the stupid masses that people aren’t paying taxes because they are “lazy freeloaders”) won’t allow it. If any politician got up there and said, “I’m going to make it my sole mission to reverse the tax and trade policies that have decimated this great nation, and I’m going to make sure that we no longer socialize the losses while privatizing the profits,” they would be history.
The reason why so many people are paying low/no taxes is because they are too poor to do so. The 1% have managed to off-shore their jobs and destroy their ability to earn enough money to pay taxes in the first place. It’s funny how they try to blame the victims of their profiteering and political corruption. That needs to change.[/quote]
What was it Ross Perot used to say about a “giant sucking sound”? Could he have been RIGHT?
September 23, 2012 at 2:21 PM #751766ocrenter
Participant[quote=Brutus]ALL of the Governments “resources” come from the taxpayers. The government has no money of its own. He WAS talking about redistribution of wealth, he WAS exactly talking about redistribution of wealth, and he was ONLY talking about redistribution of wealth.
Spin it any way you want, he is a socialist, and that means he wants to redistribute wealth. AND, ACCORDING TO YOUR QUOTED ARTICLE, HE ADMITS IT.“Pooling resources” = taxing those that have.
“Government systems” = the IRS
“Facilitate SOME redistribution” = redistribution according to socialist dogma.“Foster innovation” = something that will NEVER happen. A socialist wet dream.[/quote]
by that very definition, anyone that espouses the idea of having a government that collects taxes IS a socialist.
September 23, 2012 at 3:43 PM #751767Veritas
Participant“The number of people who commit suicide in the U.S. has drastically increased while deaths from car accidents have dropped, making suicide the leading cause of injury death.”
They cannot afford the gas: “When Barack Obama took over in 2009 gas cost an average of $1.85 per gallon. Now that average cost is $3.87 per gallon!”
http://www.varight.com/opinion/how-much-is-the-obama-gas-price-increase-costing-you/September 23, 2012 at 4:22 PM #751772SK in CV
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=Brutus]ALL of the Governments “resources” come from the taxpayers. The government has no money of its own. He WAS talking about redistribution of wealth, he WAS exactly talking about redistribution of wealth, and he was ONLY talking about redistribution of wealth.
Spin it any way you want, he is a socialist, and that means he wants to redistribute wealth. AND, ACCORDING TO YOUR QUOTED ARTICLE, HE ADMITS IT.“Pooling resources” = taxing those that have.
“Government systems” = the IRS
“Facilitate SOME redistribution” = redistribution according to socialist dogma.“Foster innovation” = something that will NEVER happen. A socialist wet dream.[/quote]
by that very definition, anyone that espouses the idea of having a government that collects taxes IS a socialist.[/quote]
Very true. Any taxation other than a flat tax…and by that I mean $X per person…is a redistribution of wealth. Income tax at 10% of income is a redistribution of wealth. Property taxes, computed any way other than based on square footage of land is a redistribution of wealth.
I find it hilarious that some have seized recommendations of some higher tax rates as a sudden redistribution of wealth. In the US, taxation has ALWAYS been a redistribution of wealth. Does that mean we have always had a socialist economic system? I don’t think so.
September 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM #751777Jazzman
ParticipantMy understanding is entitlements have actually increased 8% more under Republicans, no doubt in efforts to win over the 47%. Politicians are so absorbed with votes they don’t have time for causes.
September 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM #751779ParticipantIt’s ironic America fought to rid itself of its colonial shackles, shaped by centuries of monarchic and class rule, only to continue the battle of class within its free-spirited, egalitarian borders, in spite of decades of social and humanitarian development. Perhaps it never went away, and is only appearing to emerge as a result of a growing awareness of it. Every American will be asking themselves was it all a lie? The term “middle-class” is a euphemism for socialism, and therein lies the contradiction, which has cleverly masked the truth, of what we are and what we aspire to be. There is no changing human nature, but neither are aspirations to be abandoned, as long as they’re accompanied by a bit of humility.
September 24, 2012 at 10:54 AM #751790Diego Mamani
Participant[quote=Brutus][quote=Diego Mamani]The problem is not so much the figure he gave, namely the 47%. The problem is that he said that the 47% have a victim mentality, believe are entitled to handouts, and take no personal responsibility.[/quote]
There are relatively few poor people in America that bear no responsibility for their situation.[/quote]
Exactly, relatively few poor people take no responsibility for their financial situation. That’s why Mitt’s 47% is so terribly wrong. 47% is virtually half of the population, which is far, far from few people. Most likely Mitt doesn’t believe that half of Americans don’t take responsibility for their situation. But he said so to pander to the rich donors he was addressing. That’s very dishonest and disqualifies him for high office, IMO.September 24, 2012 at 12:32 PM #751792dumbrenter
Participant[quote=flyer]If they are going to quote controversial percentages, IMHO politicians would probably be better off launching a verbal battle about why only 5% or less of the US population has $1M+ in assets (excluding real estate). I know I’ve mentioned this before, and it still astounds me.
A number like this definitely does not bode well for the future of this country–unless, of course, we end up in a a society that is primarily supported by the government. If, or until then–it’s a real concern going forward as to how the majority of people plan to support themselves long-term–especially in retirement.[/quote]
Is your concern that only 5% or less have assets above $1M or is it that 5% is too many?
If its not too many, what would make you comfortable? 15%? 18%?September 24, 2012 at 4:06 PM #751805flyer
ParticipantThe concern I expressed with regard to the stats that reveal 5% or less of US households have $1M+ in assets (excluding real estate) foreshadows a future where many people will need assistance just to survive–especially when every investment professional I’ve ever spoken to estimates most of us will need between $1-3M minimum, (or the equivalent) to support ourselves in a viable way through our retirement years–and I agree.
Eventually, politicians will be forced to address issues like this, so it was my suggestion that they start now–hence, the purpose for my post.
These, of course, are just my opinions. Everyone is free to plan their financial lives as they see fit.
September 24, 2012 at 4:34 PM #751806
CoronitaParticipant100 posts…. That’s how long I think this thread will end up being.
In the end, we still won’t have agreement on the definition of “fair share”… But I have to admit, government has done a pretty fine job at polarizing this class warfare thing.
September 24, 2012 at 4:36 PM #751807CoronitaParticipant[quote=flyer]The concern I expressed with regard to the stats that reveal 5% or less of US households have $1M+ in assets (excluding real estate) foreshadows a future where many people will need assistance just to survive–especially when every investment professional I’ve ever spoken to estimates most of us will need between $1-3M minimum, (or the equivalent) to support ourselves in a viable way through our retirement years–and I agree.
Eventually, politicians will be forced to address issues like this, so it was my suggestion that they start now–hence, the purpose for my post.
These, of course, are just my opinions. Everyone is free to plan their financial lives as they see fit.[/quote]
not nearly enough in if you’re generation X or younger. Your new bar will be 5 million before you turn 50, and that will before a mid-class retirement.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.