R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:
LMAO. I think we struck a nerve.
Bill, you're so f*cking clueless, it's unbelievable. I have been in that position in my life before, and it's not nearly as hard as you make it out to be. There was a point not so long ago that I had 2 kids and a household income of approximately 40K. I still managed to have 2 decent cars, pay my rent, and save enough of a down payment to purchase a house. It can be done, but people aren't willing these days to go without any luxury items, such as a big screen TV, the latest game system, etc., and racking up credit card debt on foolishness they don't need. People piss their money away on crap, and then don't understand why they can't get ahead.
He used to make the 40k. He's still married with the kids. Just because someone has a family and doesn't make a lot of money, should not exempt them from shouldering part of the tax burden. To believe otherwise is to believe "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". People can live off $3000 a month...comfortably too. They might live in a poorer area of town and drive a used cavalier, and pack their own lunches for work, no morning starbucks run....one landline and no cell phones...kinda like how my grandparents raised my parents. It can be do e easily if people don't get buried in high interest car loans and collections companies.
As a single man, it irks me that baby mamas, earning the same or less $ than me, pay no federal income taxes at all. And don't go one about how expensive kids are to raise. Having a kid is like buying a dog. It's gonna cost you X amount of money to take care of it. I that isn't in your budget, then perhaps a box of Trojans is.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:LOL. There you go again, thinking you have somehow "won" when you further proved your ignorance. When my household income was $40K, none of these credits were in place. The $1,000 child tax credit was instituted in 2003, by which time I had purchased a house.
Here's where Quik steps on his Dick so hard, it's more than funny, it's ceremoniously outstanding:
When his "family" was making 40K a year, he was paying minimal if any income tax. As a result, he was able to save enough to make a down payment on a house. Had taxes taken a larger bite of his minimal income at that time, he'd not have been able to save that down payment money.
Quik, you completely f'ed yourself on this one. Unless you didn't take advantage of this low tax burden and intentionally paid more into income tax than you were required to (as a conscientious objection to the low tax rate applied to you at that time, a scenario I find EXTREMELY unlikely), you are guilty of having benefited from the very tax situation you are now whining about.
Dude, I claim checkpoint on this one. You are done. The tax benefit you enjoyed with that low income got you your down payment for a house. You just illustrated my point better than I ever could. You're not only a hypocrite, you're also clueless about how to effectively argue a point.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Goodwrench, again you miss the point that there are many people who you think should be supportive of these type of policies that actually see how they can hurt their chances for bettering their lives, because they result in less opportunity, and a slower economy. Liberals always love to talk about how things are for the greater good, but they fail to accept the fact that many of the very things they like to vilify are, in fact, for the greater good more than the punitive tax laws they try to sell people on. The statistics prove it. When taxes are lower for everyone, the revenue increases, jobs increase, and the top earners actually foot a larger portion of the bill.
What irks me is when low and mid level income folks that bitch on the tax credits when it is designed for their own category, and ridiculous when those low and mid level income folks defend the high level income folks as if they them selves fall in that category. Some of you all remind me of the juveniles sitting and not clapping; because Obama didn't mention more tax credit for the 10% in the first 2mins of the vid and Obama pointed it out. lol.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Nowhere, in this thread or any other, have I bitched about families making $40K not paying a high enough tax. What I said was no one should get back more than they pay in. It's a simple concept. You obviously realized that you couldn't win that argument, so you moved on to claiming I am clueless as to how hard it is to raise a family of four on $40K per year. I spelled it out for you how I have been there, and made out just fine without the hand-outs. Somehow you read into it that when I was in that situation, I received the same hand-outs I'm against, but you're wrong. Again, to spell it out better for you: I have never received more than I paid in, because when my income was at $40K, the credits weren't there (also, the deductions were lower, causing my taxable income to be higher). I have stepped in nothing, you have simply misread everything and jumped to incorrect conclusions.
No, Quik. You blew it, hard. Pouring words onto the page is your way of trying (in vain) to deal with that. You stepped in it so deep you can't clean it up with paragraphs. You fool no one, except perhaps yourself.
Yes, keep criticizing families for doing exactly what you did yourself when your income was lower...
Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:Bill, everything you post sounds the same, and you're still getting it wrong.
Blah blah blah...I won, you're squirming...blah blah...hypocrite...blah blah...rightwing nutjob...blah blah...
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Fixed. This is your biggest problem. You're comparing apples to oranges, and using your misreading of my posts to back up your purile insulting, because you can't have an intelligent discussion. Your weakness.
I can't comprehend that credits that give you back money you didn't pay in and low tax rates are not the same thing. OOPS.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:The only lack of comprehension is on your part Bill. To illustrate better what the difference is, when I was making $40K, I was paying in close to $2,000 per year in Federal taxes. Now, someone in the same situation receives almost as much as I was paying in. See the difference? A positive number is different than a negative number. This is where you are lost. I am not comparing low tax rates to different low tax rates. I am comparing low tax rates to hand-outs. This is a huge difference, and it's where the tax code is currently causing problems. Not only do we have flat-out taking from one and giving to another, but it begs the question: how the hell are they ever going to bring the budget even close to balanced if they're giving money to people who should be paying into the system? It's not about the shoe being on the other foot, it's about changes that have been made which have turned the tax system into a subsidy system for the bottom 20% of income earners. I have absolutely no problem with low income families paying little or no taxes. My problem, (that you are either too stupid to understand, or have ignored for sake of perpetuating your idiocy) is when money is given to them through the tax system, under the name "credits". Simply put, a tax refund should never exceed the amount paid. I don't know if this childishness on your part makes you feel good about yourself or not, but it's only making you look like an incompetent fool to anyone who reads it.
Sorry you refuse to comprehend that your point is completely diluted by your actions and previous tax status.
You once kept back more money while those with more income paid more into the system. That's why you were able to afford your house down payment.
Now that you're making more money, you think that's all so unfair. HAH!
Hypocrisy is a bitch, dude. You're 100% guilty.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:You only want to move past the argument now because I've shown repeatedly how the entire pissing contest was due to your desire to smear, and that you were fabricating the argument with either false accusations or false impressions. However, if you're willing to stop your childishness, and have a reasonable discussion, let's have at it:
I'm past your f-up now. You should get past it too.
Quote:A 3% net tax rate would be hardly slamming someone (if you do the math on my example, that's how it works out paying 15% on the $8,000 [1/5 of the $40K actual gross income]). While the concept of giving someone a leg-up seems reasonable, and don't get me wrong, I'm not at all about keeping anyone down, when you have actual hand-outs (look at Ztwenty4door's example--he got a check from the IRS for over $5k, and he had paid nothing in all year), the incentive is to stay where you are. When there are only deductions, which lowers your taxable income, but you actually pay a small amount on that, the result is that as you make more money, you are still keeping most of it, thereby giving an incentive to increase your income.
As for the flat tax concept? I still don't buy it. No, even a simpler system like you describe from the past is nowhere near a flat tax. The impression I am getting here is that you and Scotta feel the future of the nation's finances rests on making the avarage Joe and Jane pay more during these harsh times? As I see the current fed tax situation, it's designed to help the general population get a leg up during these tough economic times (times, that, by the way, were not evident when you were making a family income of $40K). More tweaks should come in the future. For the time being, slamming the rank and file harder isn't going to help anything. Let's heal first.
The low income people don't typically own legal businesses, and therefore, do not create legal job opportunities.
Lobs like to say, "rich should pay still more, so we can give it to the poor, who will spend it on the rich mans goods"
Non-Lunatics believe "lowere the rich mans business taxes, and he'll hire an extra worker, who will earn a paycheck, and spend it on rich mans goods"
when you are only concerned about unfair policies that affect someone else, you are settling into a mindset of "it can't happen to me".
When you allow govt to erode someone else's liberty, you are enabling them to to remove yours next.
Lookee Lookee ^^^
So what's wrong with a flat income tax.
How can we heal first when businesses are getting screwed over with taxes? Why is it that Texas is the number one destination for people moving away from their home state? Very pro-business tax structure there. It seems to be working well for them, but to adopt Texas' policies, is to admit defeat, and we can't have that in an election year, or jeopardize Hope N' Change II in 2012.
I work with 2 baby mammas. They have 2 + 3 kids respectively.
customers also need jobs to have money, so why punish the businesses? it all comes back to them. i firmly believe if businesses had lower taxes, they would hire more workers.