The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 100

Thread: Should The Rich Pay More Taxes?

  1. #31
    Senior Member T. Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Out West
    Posts
    1,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paul young View Post

    addressing your second point: it's clear to me that the rate of taxation for FICA needs to be increased.-Paul

    15% is not enough?????

  2. #32
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,805

    Default

    Paul. let's try federal INCOME taxes. Almost 50% pay nothing. How is that fair to those of us that pay federal income taxes?
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Oakdale,ct.
    Posts
    2,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. Mac View Post
    15% is not enough?????
    apparently not, if you believe what's being printed. you gonna tell me to my face, after contributing for almost 40 years "thanks for the donation"? if you do, prepare to get your nose bloody........-Paul
    there's no good reason to fatten up a retriever.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Oakdale,ct.
    Posts
    2,829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    Paul. let's try federal INCOME taxes. Almost 50% pay nothing. How is that fair to those of us that pay federal income taxes?
    that's exactly what i was talking about. i actually have 25% witheld weekly. when i file my return, i get about 5-6% back.

    who do you personally know who pays nothing?-Paul
    there's no good reason to fatten up a retriever.

  5. #35
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goose View Post
    If you think for a minute that social security is anything but a gigantic ponzi scheme you're delusional. There's nothing in the "Trust" fund but a big, fat IOU from the Treasury and in case you haven't noticed we're $14 trillion in debt already. None of the "Trust" fund assets are marketable. They're WORTHLESS! Absolutely worthless. These assets cannot be sold to anybody so our government either has to print more money to cover the social security checks they have to write or borrow money from some moron stupid enough to loan us money. Social Security is flat-ass bankrupt and will not survive for long with 20% unemployment. Bernie Madoff would be proud. Wake up, son!

    We live in Cuba now.

    Tell that to the millions of senior citizens who have subsisted on SS, and lived their retirement years with dignity.

    Your simpleton comments are totally heartless, and very snobbish and elitist. Of all the BS corporate donations our tax dollars go to, like Haliburton execs, I'm glad to see some of it going to helping fellow Americans...especially the ones who handed us the greatest nation in history.

    Why DON'T you go live in Cuba??
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  6. #36
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paul young View Post
    well, according to them, i'm at the top of the bottom 50%. funny thing is, 20% of my wages doesn't feel QUITE like im paying no federal taxes. i don't know ANYBODY who doesn't pay federal taxes. even the people on unemployment pay some federal tax.

    addressing your second point: it's clear to me that the rate of taxation for FICA needs to be increased.-Paul

    Another lib (you and the Oracle of Omaha) calling for more taxation. Lasttime I checked, the Feds would welcome a donation by you two, and the rest of you liberals. But neither of you want to help out, you only want to see EVERYBODY pay in so it's always equal suffering. It's part of your philosophy. It's like if a conservative doesn't like to listen to Olberdork, we turn him off. But if a liberal doesn't like to listen to Rush, you want to make a law to remove him from the air.

    Concerning your first paragraph, you must not have read the URL you quoted. Let me copy some of it and present it here for your edification.


    The IRS data below include all of the 139.96 million tax returns filed in 2008 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earned enough to owe taxes. These figures exclude those tax returns filing a return merely to receive a stimulus check.
    From other IRS data, we can see that in 2008, around 52 million tax returns were filed with either positive or negative AGI that used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2008, but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the earned income tax credit (EITC), the refundable portion of which is not included in the aggregate percentile data here. (For a detailed paper on the distribution of the entire U.S. fiscal system, including all federal, state and local taxes, read "Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991 - 2004.")

    So, regardless of what you see getting withheld from paychecks, it doesn't mean that person paid ANY Federal income tax. 52,000,000,000 out of around 140 million returns fell into that category, BUT they DID NOT include those filing just to get a stimulus check. Wonder how many of those we might locate???

    Here's a novel idea. I would bet a bundle that if you found all those that filed in that manner, they would all be from your party, and voted for Obama.

    Now here's another novel idea. Wouldn't it be fun to contact all of them, and present your plan to increase the FICA on their paychecks? Bet they would all be elated to "give back" so the infrastructure would be re-built; or their schools that gave them that incredible education could afford more of those erudite teachers; or we'd have more in the 'kitty' for those unfortunate unemployed, that are going to be 'cut-off' after only 3 years of not working; and the major reason for pumping up the government coffers is so all the unions can pay those exorbitant salaries and pension fees that allow you to retire in the lap of luxury.

    What's clear to me, Paul, is you liberals have no clue how this nation is run. Your views that big government, unionization, class envy that espouses the same old mantra of "tax the rich", and attempting to keep this present oligarchy in power, are about to be put on display for what they really are.

    "We the People" are eventually taking back this nation, because left to those you are blinded by, Paul, this nation can't last another generation, regardless of how much FICA gets increased, OR how generous your donation to the cause is.

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  7. #37
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,805

    Default

    For 2010 A family of 4 with a gross income of 50,000 would have zero federal tax liability and actually get a check from the taxpayers for $38.00
    This calculation was done using the standard deduction.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  8. #38
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,805

    Default

    same thing but 4 kids rather than 2. ZERO federal tax liability and a very nice redistribution of wealth check of $3130.00 from the actual federal income taxpayers.

    Now lets looks at the DINKS . They would have a federal tax liability of $3058.00
    Total redistribution of wealth.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  9. #39
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    same thing but 4 kids rather than 2. ZERO federal tax liability and a very nice redistribution of wealth check of $3130.00 from the actual federal income taxpayers.

    Now lets looks at the DINKS . They would have a federal tax liability of $3058.00
    Total redistribution of wealth.
    Pretty screwed up, I agree. I hope you've written your congressmen urging them to change the tax code.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Oakdale,ct.
    Posts
    2,829

    Default

    i ask again, who do you personally know who pays NO federal income tax? anyone? i know a lot of people in that income range with 2 dependant children, and they're all paying federal income tax. they're not exactly living large, either.-Paul
    there's no good reason to fatten up a retriever.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •