Island Dog Island Dog

Is It Time for the "Poor" to Pay Their "Fair" Share?

▼

Is It Time for the "Poor" to Pay Their "Fair" Share?

from JoeUser Forums
Reading through some posts here recently I noticed how a certain resident liberal explained how the rich should have their taxes increased.  While this is nothing new from the left, it's just ridiculous to even think about giving the government more money when they have proved time and time again it's nothing but a total waste machine for taxpayer dollars.

At the same time they say the "rich" should be taxed higher, it is also proclaimed that the "poor" in this country should not have to pay any taxes, and should have full access to the wasteful social programs from the government.  Now it's hard to nail down an exact figure of what liberals consider "poor", but certain ones here are trying to convince others that someone making $30,000 is somehow poor.  It's total nonsense.

If the democrats want to start increasing taxes (which we know they will), then it's time for everyone to start paying their share no matter what their personal circumstances are.  If you take a look at the poor in this country, they have luxuries others can only dream about.  Cell phones, video game systems, computers, etc. are common among these "poor" household, so tell me again how the "poor" cannot afford a minimal tax increase to help pay for the services they use like the rest of us.


25,672 views 82 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hell no, that's my money and I want it!



no its the governments money until they give it back.    
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good, they're working. Just not to Gid, because it's far too serious a subject with him... especially with his 23 exemptions... how many 1040s does it take to list all your dependents, Gid?


Hey...if we implement a national sales tax, i'll be paying more taxes than you, so BITE ME...lol!
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Taxes will never be fair, because nobody can decide what fair is.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Taxes will never be fair, because nobody can decide what fair is.


Very true. To liberals, "fair" is the poor getting PAID to be citizens. To the wealthy, "Fair" is everyone paying the same share.

Frankly, the latter view seems more "fair". A sales tax, admittedly, isn't "fair", but as it is based on consumption, it would be less prone to fraud. For those who are rich enough to go overseas to shop, they should have to pay import duties equal to the sales tax.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Would you put the sales tax on everything, or just some things? Ie, not taxing food or clothes?

That would make it fair, I think. If you're rich enough to buy something you don't need, you start paying tax. If you're just skating by and need food and clothes to live, you wouldn't be paying tax...

Also, what about rent? Or real estate in general? Sales tax, or not?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, you know that increasing taxes on the rich people in order to supply services to the MIDDLE class (underline MIDDLE class), which they won't have to pay, will help a lot toward increasing the spending power of this middle class?

Spending power OR saving power. Which mean it's possible to increase the number of people considered "rich". If someone becomes rich during it's life, he should be grateful to have received a little help from the gov, and pay his taxes. If someone was BORN rich, I don't see why being one of the few favored by birth should not have some disadvantages.

"Oh my god, my poor you! Because you inherited 10 millions dollars, you have to pay a 4% tax! Life is so unfair"
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also, what about rent? Or real estate in general? Sales tax, or not?


Rent? No. Because a tax on rent would expressly TARGET the poor. The rich don't need to rent.

I think the best way to address the extreme poor would be to offer sales tax exemption vouchers that exempt specific purchases from sales tax. Everyone else, including the working poor, should be willing and able to pay their fair share.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gid, I don't like that idea. There you go, making it unfair. "Why doesn't HE have to pay sales tax and I do?" We currently have no sales tax where I am on certain goods, and I think if we kept the exempt goods along those lines it would be fine. Having vouchers and such would cost money - and we would have to process applications, deal out the vouchers, etc. and that will all take time and money. If you just make the product exempt, then there's no vouchers, no people to hand them out, etc.

If you tied the vouchers to WIC or something like that, then it would make sense. But they don't even have to pay for the food.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you just make the product exempt, then there's no vouchers, no people to hand them out, etc


But if you make food exempt, then guess what? Mrs. Frisbee's Filet Mignon gets exempted too. There's simply no "fair" way to do it. If you make clothes exempt, A&F gets the same exemption as Rustler jeans. If you make toiletries exempt, Paul Mitchell shampoo gets the same exemption as Suave. Exempting a class of goods allows loopholes that can and will be exploited.

You can check income levels through social workers in private agencies without a "real" cost to the government. If people don't want to stand in line to get the exemption vouchers, well, then, they just don't get the exemption. Honestly, I wouldn't consider it worth waiting for.

I honestly believe that every wage earner in this country should pay some tax, even if it's just a buck. And honestly, thanks to hidden taxes, the vast majority of Americans DO pay some taxes. If we were to implement a national sales tax, I would rather skip the idea of exempting anything altogether than exempt a "class" of goods.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Filet Mignon should be exempted. And A&F should be exempt, too. That would be fair - you just don't pay tax on food and clothes, no matter who you are or what you're eating. Unless you're eating tires. Then you're out of luck.

Or, exempt nothing. That could work, too.

Now, are we still taxing corporate income? Or will that tax go away, too, and we could possibly some prices dropping?
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Oh my god, my poor you! Because you inherited 10 millions dollars, you have to pay a 4% tax! Life is so unfair"


More like 50%.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
More like 50%.


That is so right. I'm sorry, the poor guy is left with 5 million dollars he didn't earned. He inherited it. Life IS unfair, after all.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
"so your saying only 1 type of tax increases prices, what about gas tax. what about sales tax. oh wait it is only the income tax that a business owner will absorb himself. a business that doesn't pass on its expense to its customers."

Restoring the Individual Federal Income Tax rates to the pre 2000 levels on the top 10% will not increase the retail price of goods. Keeping the Federal Estate Tax will not increase retail prices. An increase in gasoline taxes will as would the Flat tax that some talk about.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Restoring the Individual Federal Income Tax rates to the pre 2000 levels on the top 10% will not increase the retail price of goods.


And that will not resolve anything.  You just want to tax successful Americans to give more money to the government to waste just because you think they should pay more. 
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is so right. I'm sorry, the poor guy is left with 5 million dollars he didn't earned. He inherited it. Life IS unfair, after all.


You really want to starve poor Paris? How cold! How Cruel!

How can we send her to you?
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
I thought poor Paris was able to starve herself.

Cut government waste and you'll be able to keep taxes the same, or lower them. But, nobody can seem to cut government waste. It doesn't matter who we send to the House, it's still wasted.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
But, nobody can seem to cut government waste


After living through most of the 40 straight years of Democrat control of congress, that was my biggest disappointment with the Republican one. I actually thought things would be different. Live and learn.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I actually thought things would be different."

Can't... stop... laughing...

... actually, it's just sad, that things AREN'T different when we change who is in power. If we could just get some third party or independents into powerful positions, it might change things... but probably not. Hey, the government has plenty of money, why not spend it on crap nobody wants.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)Island DogAugust 15, 2007 13:15:50Reply #39
Restoring the Individual Federal Income Tax rates to the pre 2000 levels on the top 10% will not increase the retail price of goods.


And that will not resolve anything. You just want to tax successful Americans to give more money to the government to waste just because you think they should pay more.

It will help BALANCE THE BUDGET!
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reduced spending will balance the budget. Like, not spending trillions on a war in Iraq. So what, you want to raise taxes to pay for the war?
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Can't... stop... laughing...


I can see your laughter! Your cynicism is based on hearsay. Mine is based upon experience.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
After living through most of the 40 straight years of Democrat control of congress, that was my biggest disappointment with the Republican one. I actually thought things would be different. Live and learn.


Well, in the past 40 years, the majority of president had been republican (or so was my impression). Reagant did pretty well reducing the governement's spending with a Democrat congress, didn't he?

And Clinton managed to have a pretty balanced budget too.

So.. would you say that the reason Reagant managed to have a balanced bugdet DESPISE the Democrat control of the House..

And Clinton had a balanced one BECAUSE of the Republican's control of the house?

I hate to say it, but it seems pretty fallacious thinking.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now, are we still taxing corporate income? Or will that tax go away, too, and we could possibly some prices dropping?


No. Corporations are not individual entities. Taxes should be as minimal as possible, period.

Truthfully, I'd rather there be no exemptions on sales tax, but if there MUST be an exemption, we need to be careful how broadly we apply it.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reagant did pretty well reducing the governement's spending with a Democrat congress, didn't he?


That is the falacy most fall into. The Budget is a Legislative thing. The president has veto power, but that is limited in its use (it has been tried to shut down the government).

The Reagan years slowed the growth, as did the last 6 Clinton ones. Due to the power of the veto, and the fact that the house (where spending originates) was controlled by a different party. Technically that dynamic should work now, but as we say with the elder, only when the president really uses the veto power. Sadly veto and bush do not fit in the same sentence - regardless of the first names.

That aside, my disappointment was when the republicans had both. And nothing really changed. They did have a chance after 2000, but did not take advantage of it.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Would you put the sales tax on everything, or just some things? Ie, not taxing food or clothes?

That would make it fair, I think. If you're rich enough to buy something you don't need, you start paying tax. If you're just skating by and need food and clothes to live, you wouldn't be paying tax...

Also, what about rent? Or real estate in general? Sales tax, or not?




i have been thinking about this since i discussed this with gene. tax everything because as i stated above you are paying income tax out of your pay now. so you are doing with out that money anyways. until you get the tax return and then you just go out and have a big party anyways.