|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 584 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: States petition for secession | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 860 days) Posts: 3228 Joined:
|
Exaggeration.. and 53 is higher than most of the other states.
However,
Regardless of Mickelson's top rates, his actual income tax bill isn't anywhere near one-half of his income. While it's hard to tell what the golfer really pays without seeing his tax returns, millionaires pay roughly 26% of their income in federal taxes, on average, according to William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation. This doesn't take into account other taxes, such as property levies. Correction: An earlier version of this article did not take into account the new limitations on deductibility of state and local taxes -- which by the Tax Foundation's estimate would add 1.2 percentage points. To top of page
Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
I would rather argue for a flat consumption tax And that is actually highly regressive. A family of four getting by on $23,000, the poverty level, spends all of their income just to survive, whereas a family of four earning $1,000,000 needs to spend only a fraction of that on their daily needs and thus would pay taxes on only a fraction of their income. The real question is, why in the world do you want to create a disincentive to spend money, when it's the spending of money that drives the economy? Of all the silly ideas you've floated in this thread, this is the most ridiculous. And please, STFU about the Caymans. That has fuck all to do with the U.S. Edited by subbie, : TyopRidicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4059 Joined: Member Rating: 9.4
|
There are a lot of people that would love to just pay 50% of what they earn in taxes each year. Many are now paying 63% of their income in taxes. If you live in California and make 40 million dollars this year you will pay a total of $25,000,000 million in taxes. What percent of what a person earns do you think they ought to be able to keep? Hi ICANT, I live in California. I work as an IT contractor, and I'm paid pretty well. I make six figures. I pay, combined, around 40% of my income to combined state and Federal taxes. I'm very happy that, through my taxes, I'm able to help those less fortunate than myself. That includes those who are "lazy." And living on welfare in California isn;t exactly a great time - you may not have seen what our Section 8 housing looks like, or how little food stamps will actually pay for, but I can certainly tell you that those receiving benefits are not simply the "lazy" leaching folks like me of their hard-earned pay. The people receiving benefits are just like me. You see, a few years back, I lost my job and was unemployed for about a year. I lived solely on unemployment checks that were extremely small. I ate a lot of $0.10 ramen noodles. I had no internet, or phone, or cable television, and was barely able to pay my rent. I defaulted on my very first auto loan, and the car broke down on top of it (the repo man wouldn't even take it, and I couldn't afford to fix it). But I have an affinity for computers, and in fact the job I lost had been repairing computers. I took the "opportunity" of unemployment to go back to school...using publicly subsidized student loans. The degree I earned there allowed me to enter the workforce at a higher wage than the job I had lost, and has directly contributed to the very comfortable salary I make today. I owe an awful lot to the taxpayers of California and the nation as a whole. My life prospects are significantly better than what they would have been if I had not been able to survive on unemployment for so long, or if a government-subsidized loan had not been available. I'm very happy to repay that debt, in part, by paying tax dollars to fund the very same programs that helped me when I needed it most. And those programs are not the only ones I benefited from - tax money paid for my basic education, for the roads I drive on, subsidized the power lines that give me power, helped pay for the medical discoveries and logistics and facilities that saved my life when I was a premature baby, and more. Now, your numbers are a lot higher than even what I make, and I'm pretty comfortable. And I think they're extremely misleading. For example, Social Security taxes are capped! A person making $400,000 per year will pay exactly the same dollar amount, not percentage, in Social Security taxes as a person making $40,000,000. Income tax brackets do not go into the millions of dollars..and people who make millions of dollars per year are typically not doing so through "income," as in paychecks, but rather through capital gains...which are taxed at only 15%. Your typical multimillionaire will pay a lower total tax percentage than his typical secretary. But more than that, let's focus back on my own example. I can well afford to pay 40% of my income in taxes. I'm no longer eating $0.10 ramen noodles. But when I was eating ramen, I couldn't afford to pay 40% of the pittance I received - I would have starved. I paid about 10% in taxes at the time, and that was pretty tight. It seems to me that a "flat tax" could only ever benefit the wealthy and hurt the very poor (with the exception of minimum-income proposals like RAZD's idea). There is absolutely no way a poor person could pay the same tax rate that I pay...nor is it fair for I, who have benefited so much from the social programs available, pay the same low tax rate that a poor person can afford. At issue is what's "fair." From one perspective, $1 from John is the same as $1 from Joe - perhaps everyone should pay the same dollar amount in taxes? That would be "fair" from one point of view. But then the poor would pay a significant percentage of their income, while the very rich pay, essentially, nothing in terms of percentage. So what about 10% from John, and 10% from Joe? That also seems "fair," right? But 10% of John's $20,000 per year is far more precious to him than 10% of Joe's $200,000...and Jacob would hardly miss 10% of his $2,000,000 in terms of comfortable living. Is it really "fair?" It seems to me that our society is stronger and more successful on the whole when, as I experienced, we focus on helping those who are poor to be more successful. It seems "fair" to me that the burden of taxation be carried more heavily by those who benefit most from being part of society - the wealthy, who can better afford to shoulder that burden. Even though that means that I have to give up roughly 40% of my income. Nobody deserves to starve. I wouldn't wish a diet of potatoes, eggs, and ramen noodles on anyone...not even the very lazy. Not even drug addicts. Not even prostitutes, or convicted felons, or the mentally ill, or people just down on their luck. I think they deserve, and we as a nation can afford, an absolute bare minimum standard of living for everyone, ensuring that nobody has to choose between paying rent or eating for the next three days, and so that no parent need go hungry to feed their child, even if they've made all of the worst decisions possible in their lives. And I'm perfectly willing to put up with the inevitable few who will scheme to take advantage of any system. Many of them will be caught. But even if they weren't...the risk of abuse does not justify allowing people to starve. I may be an atheist, but I can find absolutely no fault with the Christian commandment to love thy neighbor, as you would love yourself. And my favorite quote from Jesus may well be "what you do to the least of these, you do to me." It's ironic, then, that we find so many Christians (like you) supporting the exact opposite of what their savior commanded, repeatedly and fervently - to help the poor, even at the expense of your own wealth, without reservation or consideration of why the person may be poor.
Everybody that actually works and recieves a pay check for that work. There are too many people who half works and still receives a full pay check. Ironically, the people who make the most money are the people who use investments and perform no actual work. Mitt Romney, as an example, made only a tiny fraction of his money through income from speaking engagements - the man is unemployed. Yet he makes millions each year in returns on his investments. Indeed, he receives a very full paycheck for half (or no) work. Conversely, there are far too many who work a full-time job, or two, and despite their backbreaking, exhausting labor, despite the sacrifice of time with their families, they are unable to make enough on minimum wage to keep the lights on and their children's bellies full at the same time. Those people receive a half paycheck for more than full work. Who needs more help? What are our real American values? What would Jesus do?The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Why did he claim nearly 63%,
Because he is an idiot.
and why are he and a number of other professional athletes leaving?
If true, because they are idiots. California has a booming economy, because of the policies implemented by the Dems.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2354 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Do You Live In A Death Spiral State?
Do You Live In A Death Spiral State?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.5
|
Has anyone at Forbes been right about anything about the economy in the last 10 years.
They are nothing but corporate shills. North Dakota? North Dakota? They are turning that in to a toxic wasteland. Who is going to be on the hook for the massive cleanup costs? THey are creating more and more takers every day in the injured workers that are going on government assistance because safety regs are very lax and not enforced.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yes, it seems to me pretty clear now that theocracy can't work at all in this fallen world. I'd love to find a way to get out from under what I consider to be the current intolerable governmental tyranny ... Tyranny. Right. Instead of a tyranny where all adults get to vote, you want a free republic where only people who agree with you get to vote. Or ... wait ... Look, just because you don't like the outcome of living in a democratic republic, that doesn't make it a tyranny. And after all, what tyrannical things has this republic done to you? Has it deprived you of your freedom of speech, your freedom of religion? Executed you, put you in a concentration camp? Not at all. Your objection to it seems to be that it allows things you disapprove of, for example letting Jews have the vote. Its "tyranny" involves an supposed excess of liberty which your ideal republic would apparently take away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Oh look, someone said something stupid on the Internet!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Yes, that's what I want, a state where Christianity rules but that nobody is denied basic rights. All the accusations that I want a tyranny are false, I just want to be free of ideologies I despise and I wanted to see how far it might be possible to do something like that without depriving anyone of their rights. Since it seems there's no way to do that I've given up the daydream I was pursuing here.
And again I'd mention the fact that some religions are tyrannical at the core, with designs to rule the world, and that Protestantism is not one of them. Giving them political power uin a Protestant state would be like inviting the wolves to devour the sheep. In Muslim countries you aren't allowed political power if you aren't a Muslim, and it would be stupid for them to allow it because they want to keep their state Muslim. But if I want a Christian state, which in my conception would be quite peaceloving and generous, I get accused of all kinds of terrible motivations I simply do not have. I may be naive about the feasibility of such a state but I have no desire to run other people's lives, I just don't want them running mine. This government is BECOMING a tyranny, it's on its way there, although you apparently don't see it. Some of us have seen it coming for a long time. Having given up on a theocracy, however, I could still consider the feasibility of red states seceding. He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.5
|
In Muslim countries you aren't allowed political power if you aren't a Muslim, and it would be stupid for them to allow it because they want to keep their state Muslim. But if I want a Christian state This is beyond cognitive dissonance. This plain simple crazy.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 983 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
Amen, Rahvin.
My situation is a bit like yours, and you've told what I think better than I could have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I wanted to see how far it might be possible to do something like that without depriving anyone of their rights And you didn't think that denying them political power and outlawing the teaching of their religion would be depriving them of their rights, because, uh, that right never existed in your state? Because they can just leave their lives and get out if they are, say Southern Baptists, CMEs, Jews, or Episcopalians? The truth is that you never made any attempt to protect anyone's rights other than those of you and your friends.
Protestantism is not one of them Protestantism may not be out to rule the world, but they've historically been pretty tyrannical and intolerant in the little pieces of earth that they have gotten to rule.
Having given up on a theocracy, however, I could still consider the feasibility of red states seceding. Yes you can. We're right in the middle of celebrating the 150 year anniversary of the mess created by the last set of losers. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
This is beyond cognitive dissonance. Not really, Theo. It is quite consistant with Faith's desire. Moslem theocracies do not allow you or I any power so as to keep the nation moslem. Faith wants a christian theocracy where you and I have no power so as to keep the nation christian. Except her christian theocracy would stem from the flower child side of her sect. All peace love and happy. Where she gets off the horse is in negelecting the fact that the moslem theocracies involve gross violations of human rights by necessity to keep the nation pure. And so eventually must her flower child theocracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1841 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Progress in today's current methodology of pursuit requires the declination of another. To add to one, takes from another.
The better option in my opinion is to grow the whole by properly defining the constitutional rights of the country and then actually enforcing them. To start over will mean going through the same growing pains we have already went through, and with constant change, perhaps some new ones. The impact is not ascertainable, but the potentials of devastation are very likely to happen, both foreseen, and unforeseeable consequences.keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yes, that's what I want, a state where Christianity rules but that nobody is denied basic rights. All the accusations that I want a tyranny are false, I just want to be free of ideologies I despise and I wanted to see how far it might be possible to do something like that without depriving anyone of their rights. Except the right to vote.
And again I'd mention the fact that some religions are tyrannical at the core, with designs to rule the world, and that Protestantism is not one of them. That depends on the Protestant.
World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. [...] Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.' (404- Not Found) Those who are obedient to His commands will rule the world, reconstructing it for His glory in terms of His laws. [...] The nation that will not serve us will perish (Isa. 60:12); all the peoples of the earth will be subdued under our feet (Ps. 47:1-3)--promises made originally to Israel, but now to be fulfilled in the New Israel, the Church.' (404- Not Found) In Muslim countries you aren't allowed political power if you aren't a Muslim ... That, again, would depend on the Muslim country.
This government is BECOMING a tyranny, it's on its way there, although you apparently don't see it. Some of us have seen it coming for a long time. And all this long time you've been seeing it coming, it hasn't actually come, has it? How is it on its way? Have political dissidents been a little bit imprisoned, executed, deprived of the vote? You throw the word "tyranny" around very carelessly. We have a democratic republic, bound by the rule of law and circumscribed by a constitution. Our citizens are not shot for dissent, they're not dragged off to torture chambers, they're not burned at the stake, they don't have to submit to an ideological purity test before they can vote, they can say what they like and worship how they choose. If you lived under a real tyranny, you'd be screaming for a system such as we have. Possibly literally. Read about Stalin, about Hitler, about Caligula, about Bloody Mary. Then if you still come crying to me that the US is "becoming a tyranny", I'll laugh in your face. You are free and living in one of the freest countries in the world --- one of the freest countries that there has ever been. Enjoy it. I do.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024