The Root of a Lot of Evil
04-09-2010, 10:13 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: USAF
Posts: 1,398
We ALL benefit from the freedoms in this country and we all use it's resources. We should all share the burden equally. Be it the Fair Tax Act or a flat rate income tax (which would eliminate billions of dollars wasted trying to navigate the tax code). For those earning less than XX dollars, you either pay nothing or get a refund at the end of the year. However there is absolutely no reason that someone making 250K+ should carry a higher percentage than those earning 50K. By definition a flat tax would tax them more anyway.
The system is out of control, along with gov't spending.
Some people seem to have the notion that taxes somehow equal benefits (whether it's roads, schools, etc). Few realize, and to paraphrase de Toqueville, that politicians are simply buying votes by spending other people's money. It is for that reason, I don't believe that a true Fair Tax type system would be put in place, no matter the logic. As a matter of fact, its problem is that it makes too much sense. There is reason for the twisted, corrupt, and seemingly illogical class warfare tax system in place.
04-09-2010, 10:15 PM
#22
With The Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Are you really trying to say the 50/50 split is due to those that pay tax and those that don't? Cause if so, you are seriously underestimating the amount of New England suburbanite liberals in the top 50, and definitely leaving out some white Southern Baptist conservatives that live in single wides and are firmly in the bottom 50. Check again, sir - the highest incomes are in the blue states, and redistribution is mostly from the blue states to the red states.
04-09-2010, 10:21 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 150 left seat if I'm lucky
Posts: 172
I find that interesting. If I make a million dollars and you make 10,000 and we are both taxed at 10%, who pays more?
The sad part is that not only are the higher earners paying more for the exact same benefits, but they contribute far more to the economy and the government.
The sad part is that not only are the higher earners paying more for the exact same benefits, but they contribute far more to the economy and the government.
04-09-2010, 10:22 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 150 left seat if I'm lucky
Posts: 172
04-09-2010, 10:29 PM
#25
With The Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Wrong again. Let's assume a road, and a gasoline tax to build the road and everyone in town drives the same - in this case it's a regressive tax because the richest pay the same in dollar amount, but the least as a percentage of their income. You might think everyone benefits the same from this road, but you'd be wrong again. The rich benefit more because they are more likely to have workers that travel on this road and they are the ones shipping their products on this road. This is a road whose cost is largely borne by working poor simply because there are so many more of them than there are rich people.
You have mistaken a higher contribution to both society and government as a derivitive of some element of government largesse, a common and sad error in logic.
Bill Gates didn't get rich because the roads were there or the government taxed him less. It is quite laughable to even think this way.
04-09-2010, 10:31 PM
#26
With The Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
04-09-2010, 10:46 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 150 left seat if I'm lucky
Posts: 172
Wow. The road is equally available to all, the benefit is the same, if you happen to run more vehicles across it you will pay more, in addition to your higher amount in flat rate taxes.
You have mistaken a higher contribution to both society and government as a derivitive of some element of government largesse, a common and sad error in logic.
Bill Gates didn't get rich because the roads were there or the government taxed him less. It is quite laughable to even think this way.
You have mistaken a higher contribution to both society and government as a derivitive of some element of government largesse, a common and sad error in logic.
Bill Gates didn't get rich because the roads were there or the government taxed him less. It is quite laughable to even think this way.
04-09-2010, 10:48 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Full Disclosure
04-09-2010, 10:49 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 150 left seat if I'm lucky
Posts: 172
This is the one that shows that most of the red states - the ones so concerned that the rich are paying too much tax, are actually the biggest recipients of Federal tax dollars: The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005
Last edited by FighterHayabusa; 04-09-2010 at 10:50 PM. Reason: wrong link
04-09-2010, 10:50 PM
#30
With The Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
That is why a flat tax for all and zero corporate tax would be in all of our best interest. Don't you agree?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
lietuveens
Flight Schools and Training
5
11-11-2008 01:09 PM
B727DRVR
Cargo
14
08-22-2008 03:23 PM
