In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1348
Online now 2898 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Dude is crying about getting taxed for playing a sport that most ppl play for fun and pay to play, yet he makes millions of dollars this can't be real life..
Well, you could look at it this way: Say you've got two people, one making $20,000 a year working as a janitor and one making $200,000 a year working as a consultant. So, per month, that means the janitor is making roughly $1700 while the consultant is making $17,000. Say we tax both at 20% (just a random number). That means the janitor is paying $340 a month in taxes while the consultant is paying $3,400 (it's worth noting that one is still paying more than the other, obviously the nature of percentages). Now, that means the janitor is now making $1360 per month compared to the consultant who is now making $13,600 per month.
Now, I'm not speaking with an agenda or saying I think things should be done a certain way; I don't support socialism or the lazy. However, let's not act like a flat tax rate of 20%, while on the surface "fair," doesn't affect some people more than others. While the richer of the two people in my example is technically paying more money, the other is now going down to the wire just to get by. I'm not saying we should make everyone rich, God no. But, as the example says, $2,000 means a lot more to the person making $20,000 than $20,000 does to the person making $200,000.
To me, it always boils down to one of two points: (1) A lot of people generalize all poor people as "lazy" [and are under the false assumption that "moving up" is easy or attainable for everyone and/or refuse to acknowledge that jobs like our janitor's still have to be performed by someone] and (b) that we have to up-tax the rich to make up for not having to hurt the poor as much. Personally, I say we start with a comfortable tax on the rich and reduce spending, and that way we can reduce taxes on the poor and, IMO, everyone wins.
It's kind of weird when you see so many upper and middle class people so jealous of people living at or below the poverty line, isn't it?
You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#
Fair tax is the way to go. A consumption tax where you get prebates on necessities so the poor will only get taxed on the rims, TVs, DVDs etc they buy. Warren Buffet will finally pay more taxes than his secretary unless he just doesn't spend a dime.
"People always ask me if I wish I were bigger. I tell them no. I always wanted to be a miniature badass." Dustin Pedroia
See, there you go making generalizations about the poor again. Why is it we hear one story about someone abusing the welfare system and then all of a sudden we ignore the thousands of people who haven't even watched a TV in a decade because they can't afford it?
I think it's more frustration that a family of four making $75K a year has less disposable income than a single parent making $20k living off the Government.
I agree with a lot of what you say and I've seen polls where over half of the polled rich people don't have a problem paying more. It's the fact the Democrat's solution is take more money from the rich but are unwilling to even discuss the out of control spending. Before Obama was elected, he was already known as studying Socialist ideas. So when the debt issue came up and he was only willing to raise taxes on the rich as a solution and not touch spending, it just showed that the debt was of no concern to him.
It's no different than having a wife with a spending problem. If she got a raise at work (more tax revenue), what do you think she would do with the extra money she now makes? If she doesn't address her maxed out credit cards (national debt) then what good is it to have more income if she is just going to spend it on shoes (wasteful gov't spending)?
I have no problem paying more taxes but your right if they keep this spending and blowing money I have a huge problem with it. Just last week numbers came out that welfare spending is set to increase 80% in the next decade. Obama is taking us to bankruptcy.
How to fix the janitor's problem?
Get a higher education in a field that will allow him to earn more than $20,000 a year...
There is no way am I going to feel sorry for someone that dropped out of HS or just got their HS diploma when there is financial aide/scholarships/student loans for all to apply for to get at the very least an associates degree or a trade certification that will allow them to make at least in the $40,000 a year range.
How about we start encouraging people to better themselves by furthering their educations so they to can aspire to make $200,000 a year instead of expecting the guy who has gone to school and worked hard to make the $200,000 a year to foot the bill?
So everyone that works a $20,000 a year job did something wrong or is a bad person. That's how you view it?
Also, you realize someone still has to work those jobs, right?
Where did I say they did something wrong or are a bad person?
I just said that there are resources available to advance yourself and your education, it is up to you to take personal responsibility to utilize those resources and if you don't then there is nobody else to blame for your financial situation than the person in the mirror every morning.
Also how much is that guy making $20,000 getting back the next year for a tax refund? Most likely it's everything he paid in.
How much is the guy that makes $200,000 getting back?...
But there are people out there who can't do more than these simple jobs. Maybe they're just not capable of higher learning or they have a physical disability, there are many reasons it could be. It's all well and good to say anyone can take charge and work their way up and it works for most people; I've worked hard to be where I am. But let's not act like life is so black-and-white. Some people just are not capable of certain things; some people aren't built for much more than menial jobs. That sucks, but it happens. And those people are still ready to work hard and what they do and I recognize that they might need some help. I don't view that as a bad thing.
So we went from a scenario of two able bodied and mind workers with one making $20,000 and the other making $200,000 to one of them possibly having mental and physical limitations or disabilities?
Now you are really comparing apples to oranges...
We can go back to the able bodied discussion if you want. Which goes back to the fact that someone has to work those jobs. So someone WILL only be making said $20,000 or less. Those jobs aren't going anywhere.
And why would it be apples to oranges? The point of my argument was that people will have to work these $20,000 or less jobs and that a flat tax rate will hurt them more than it does people that make more money.
And I never even called for upping taxes on those that make more money, so I'm not sure what you're getting fired up about.
This post was edited by sf2k4 15 months ago
I am finding it difficult to reconcile this belief with the link provided at the bottom of the first page of this thread. That link shows that "entitlement" spending is spent principally on the elderly, seriously disabled, or households where people are working.
I'm curious, how would a person choose to live off the government and do nothing? What sort of government assistance would they be provided?
The 2011 Budget Control Act provided for $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, and the fiscal cliff deal provided for another $600 billion in deficit reduction. Most people think the interest savings from those is somewhere around $300 billion, meaning to date we have already trimmed $2.4 trillion off the deficit. This doesn't even inclue the sequestration cuts which will be another $1 trillion. This is a total of $3.4 trillion in deficit reduction. These are based on the same decade scale you are referencing above. How is it that laws which have been put in place reduce deficit spending but the US is still going to go into bankruptcy? What would the US entering bankruptcy even look like?
And why do you say Obama is taking us into bankruptcy. I'm no constitutional scholar but Congress has the power of the purse, right, and isn't there a provision that requires all spending bills to originate in the House. If this is so important to House republicans, why don't they pass bills in the House to reduce medicare, social security, medicaid benefits, and other entitlement spending problems? Even if it's just a symbolic vote they know won't go anywhere, why won't they do it (they have voted to repeal Obamacare over 30 times knowing that would go nowhere)?
the first income tax was ruled unconstitutional 10 years after it was first implemented. the tax rate was only 3% - 5%. it didn't disband the federal government then. there are other means to raise tax revenue than income tax. for example, a consumption based tax which in theory would remove the unfairness of the rich fully supporting the lower classes. a 100% consumption based tax probably wouldn't work but a hybrid of some sort with drastically reduced income tax brackets for all levels would.
10 Major Poll National Titles (CFB record)
35 Bowl Wins (CFB record)
72 Wins over last 6 years (CFB record)
So you want to create an entirely new branch of the IRS to handle the federal sales tax to go along with the already existing IRS structure handling income taxes?
This post was edited by rms02d 15 months ago
In his last sentence he says 100% consumption wouldn't work but a hybrid with reduced income tax rates would. I took that to mean that the income tax stays around (along with that branch of the IRS) at lower rates, and add a federal sales tax (and correspondingly an IRS branch to police and enforce the rules). I could be wrong, but that is what I took his proposal to mean.
If Obama was a Socialist why would he not care about the National Debt?
That doesn't even make sense.
Socialist countries still have to maintain a foreign currency exchange, they participate in international financial markets, and they care about the value of their own currency.
The resulting income tax would be simple low flat rate for all. No loopholes of any sort. Much less need for a large IRS oversight.
So you think that corporations and other special interest groups such as homebuilders, realtors, etc (corporations that like the mortgage interest deduction), financial planners and money managers (people who like 401(k) tax deferrals for money management fees), health insurance companies (premiums tax favored), or how about cost recovery and accelerated depreciation for manufacturers (accelerated write-offs for tax purposes), and every other group that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years requesting benefits from the tax code are just going to let that go for a low rate? When people or corporations with money want government influence to help their business, the tax code is where they go; that won't stop seeking these benefits in the future, regardless of the system in place.
With a sales tax, does it apply only for goods or do services apply to? Who is responsible to pay the sales tax and what happens if they don't? Do we have escrows and trust funds in place to ensure the government gets its money or is it an honor system? What if something is part goods, part service?
All of this results in a sales tax (federal and state) which would be somewhere above 35%, maybe more. So when you go to the store to buy a $1,500 television, you actually have to pay well over $2,000. In a consumption based economy, I don't see how this won't impact purchasing and spending. I will see if any reputable economists have studied this to determine any effects on GDP.
I'm not saying it won't work; it might. But I believe that IRS enforcement activity will not be reduced. So long as there are taxes of whatever kind, there will be people breaking the law to not pay them. Whether it be directly by simply refusing to file and/or pay (ala Wesley Snipes) or tax shelters like the Son of Boss transaction that Mitt advised Marriott to engage in when he was on the board of directors, it doesn't matter what structure it's in. Enforcement activity needs to be part of the equation and treated like a serious issue to be considered.
This post was edited by CockAtLaw 15 months ago
Dude the whole point of bringing consumption based taxing up was to have a way to eliminate the unfair results of the current income based tax structure (the rich paying an exorbitant amount of the tax revenue). I wasn't really referring to corporate tax structure. And I don't know the best way to implement it, but the idea is you get taxed for what you use not what you make.
Didn't mean for it sound like I was saying that he is a socialist, just saying that people were labeling him as one based on the redistribution of wealth aspect of his policies. So when his only solution was to take more money from the rich, not touch spending, it didn't help the labeling.
I don't think he is an outright socialist but I do think there are hints of it in his policies. His ideas to raise taxes on the rich for the purpose of taking care of the lower classes with that redistributed money is what I am talking about. Would you agree that the spending problem has to be addressed if we ever want to put a dent in the national debt?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports