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.


25,671 views 82 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also, what about rent? Or real estate in general? Sales tax, or not?


people don't pay sales tax on rent now. there are other taxes added but not sales tax. real estate has sales tax so yes .
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)JythierAugust 15, 2007 13:49:22Reply #45
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?

In every past war we have increased taxes to pay for the war. That was true in the civil War, WWI WWII, KOREA and Vietnam. Bush has put the total cost of the Iraq war on the National debt!
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
"people don't pay sales tax on rent now. there are other taxes added but not sales tax. real estate has sales tax so yes"

Commercial real estate rented in Florida is subject to sales and use tax.

Also, you can claim exemption from withholding.

"In every past war we have increased taxes to pay for the war. That was true in the civil War, WWI WWII, KOREA and Vietnam. Bush has put the total cost of the Iraq war on the National debt!"

I thought the cost of war was taken from bridges? And, now that we're raising taxes for bridges AND the war AND a hundred other things, what percentage are we going to pay? 50? 60? 100?
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


I disagree on rent. That's a targetted tax that disproportionately affects the poor. Rich people don't need to rent.

And if I'm already paying $1200/month for a place, we don't need to jack that up to $1320/month.

One possibility I wouldn't rule out is taxing it beyond a certain value. Tax rents, say, in excess of $1000/month. That would give landlords incentive to keep rents below that mark, basically initiating a self motivated sort of rent control.

This is interesting conversation, though. Let's keep it going.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with you, Gideon, no rent tax. I was just seeing where you would go with it.

But I wouldn't tax rents above a certain level, either. It wouldn't control rent, it would just go up even higher to account for any tax. So you would find a lot of people stuck in $1000/mo apartments that can't move up to the next level without a lot of pay increases. Well, I suppose they could buy at that point.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even better, if we want to tax something that specifically doesn't target the poor, we could tax unearned income, and leave wages and such alone.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
That would give landlords incentive to keep rents below that mark, basically initiating a self motivated sort of rent control.


Not really - the tax would be passed on to the consumer. Landlords are not really competing on price (to a limited degree yes), but on Location, Location, Location.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think I should not have to pay any taxes at all, cause I don't want to. Colgene could pay my taxes for us instead.

Since I have no representation in Congress, I go back to the heyday of revolution citing. NO TAXATION without REPRESENTATION!

Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
we could tax unearned income, and leave wages and such alone.


2 things on that.

First, it is. You pay tax on interest and dividends and Capital Gains.

And it does not affect the poor directly, but it sure harpoons investment such that those who can, divert the money into tax shelters instead of investing back into the economy to make it grow. So in the end, the poor get it in the end, since with no investment, there are no new jobs and it is not the ones with experience who lose out. That is what happened in the 70s.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know it is, but we were wiping out all taxes except sales tax. Dr. Guy, keep up here!

Anyway, good point with the tax shelters. Don't want the economy to go soft. I'm so glad I'm not the president...
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top

I know it is, but we were wiping out all taxes except sales tax. Dr. Guy, keep up here!

You young pups are just too fast for this old goat.

Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
America would be doomed were I the president right now.

"You young pups are just too fast for this old goat."

Yes.



Argh... how do you make things fair, give the poor a chance, and not stick it to the rich so bad they stop investing? I just don't know... except... tax the MIDDLE CLASS! They don't need money anyway.
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
tax the MIDDLE CLASS! They don't need money anyway.


In the end, it is always thus. The rich have the resources to avoid them (they do pay tax - just not to the degree that the democrats want), the poor cant pay them, so the middle class is stuck with all new taxes.

Set the base level high? Inflation will then move it to the middle class. Make the rates on the rich higher? They take their compensation in non wage means.

The original income tax (way back in 16) was designed to tax the upper 1% on their excess. We know that it is now placed on everyone, and the rich pay their share - but not exorbitantly so. They did not get rich by being stupid enough to fall for the idiots in washington.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, but a lot of people have now INHERITED wealth. So they may very well be idiots! We should try again.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
I thought the cost of war was taken from bridges? And, now that we're raising taxes for bridges AND the war AND a hundred other things, what percentage are we going to pay? 50? 60? 100?

If we return to the rates before the Bush tax cuts, the top rate will be 39%

The cost of the war was added to the National debt!
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you believe people making $30,000 or less are not poor you must be living in China not the USA!

I lived quite nicely on a few thousand less than that.  If you think someone making $30,000 is "poor" then you need help.


Yeah? Try that in New York city. Shining shoes after work, you'll be.  
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, but a lot of people have now INHERITED wealth. So they may very well be idiots! We should try again.


Always with the negative waves Moriority! Always with the negative waves!

But! Since they are not the smart ones, they do lose their money and "you end up in jaillllllll....." (in my best bass voice).
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
Try that in New York city.


If you live in NY city, that is already 2 strikes on you. The rest of the nation does not need to live down to those standards.
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
I lived quite nicely on a few thousand less than that. If you think someone making $30,000 is "poor" then you need help.


I have no idea where you live but in the area I live in, $30,000 is POOR!
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
And there's your problem. $1 in New York isn't $1 in LA isn't $1 in Boise isn't $1 in Lowcostoflivingsville, Kentucky.

Get rid of ALL federal taxes, leave it to the states, which then pay a flat rate to the federal gov.
This also places more incentive on states to keep their spending and rates low. If all taxes
are being paid to states, those with higher rates will stick out more, those with lower rates
will look more appealing. Provides an added level of fiscal accountability as states must stay
competitive.
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
Rent? No. Because a tax on rent would expressly TARGET the poor. The rich don't need to rent.
The landlord includes his real estate tax in the rent but doesn't give his tenant a proportionate rebate that he writes off on his schedule A.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top

It will help BALANCE THE BUDGET!

No it won't. They'll simply spend it.

As has been pointed out to you before, we could balance the budget right now by simply not increasing the budgets of federal programs for one year. No cuts.

In fact, we could balance the budget in a few years if we only increased the annual budget at the rate of inflation. But congress doesn't work like that. You give them money, they'll find a way to waste it.

Now sure, you don't care if they spend our money wisely, you barely pay any taxes. But as someone who paid over a MILLION dollars last year in taxes, I care quite a bit how it's used and the suggestion that I should pay more makes me incredulous.

What some people fail to understand is that the wealth of this country is overwhelmingly created by "the rich".  Our government merely slows down the rate in which our (all of us) standard of living improves by looting capital from the productive to distribute to the unproductive.

The government certainly needs to tax, and at a progressive rate IMO, but we are overtaxed for what we get.  We need taxes to provide a strong and fair legal system. A law enforcement branch. A military that can provide international stability. And a reasonable social insurance system.

But our government is way beyond that. We have politicians wanting to provide medical insurance to everyone regardless of means.  Our government squanders money on wasteful social programs, inefficient educational programs, and coerced retirement programs not to mention the myraid of wasteful pork projects (like subsidizing ethanol which drives up food prices).

People who want to raise taxes in my experience are overwhelmingly people who simply want to feel good about themselves -- they're compassionate.  But people like me are the ones who end up having to pay for other people's compassion and ultimately, when I have to pay, so does everyone else indirectly.

Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now sure, you don't care if they spend our money wisely, you barely pay any taxes. But as someone who paid over a MILLION dollars last year in taxes, I care quite a bit how it's used and the suggestion that I should pay more makes me incredulous


sorry draginal but i haven't payed taxes my whole life. meaning when i have i have gotten it all or almost all of it back. and right now i am on disability. and i care how badly those idiots in washington are waisting the tax money.


and i do not consider spending money on our troops a waste of money as gene does.
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
It will help BALANCE THE BUDGET!


That's highly doubtful, especially if democrats get more power and start expanding their government health care ideas.  You continually make excuses on why one class of people should get the highest taxes, pure class warfare on your part.
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have no idea where you live but in the area I live in, $30,000 is POOR!


LOL.  I live in Florida where $30,000 would be considered a decent income for many people.  The problem with you gene is your standard of living is so high, anybody who doesn't have a cell phone, car, 3 bedroom house, boat, and pony farm is "poor".