|
Post by lakhota on Jun 11, 2011 18:04:21 GMT -5
Whether a country has high taxes or low taxes would seem to be a straightforward question. Yet in the United States, the debate rages on. This week, the Center For American Progress claimed a firm stake, creating 10 charts showing that in comparison both with other countries and its own history, the U.S. has low taxes. Many disagree, and few more so than Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). “We don’t have this problem because we tax too little," McConnell said in a press conference at the end of last May. "We have it because we spent too much.” Still, the statistics show otherwise. Among the 30 nations included in studies by the Organization For Economic Co-Operation and Development, the United States ranks among the countries with the lowest effective tax rates. At an average of 26.9 percent of America's gross domestic product from 2004 to 2008, the effective federal tax rate is significantly lower than in Denmark, for example, whose average effective tax rate was the highest of the countries studied, at 49.3 percent of its GDP. Similarly, the United States taxes corporations at lower rates than other countries. American corporations enjoy a rate of 13.4 percent of their profits. Compare that to Australia, whose corporations cough up 30.5 percent of what they make. In many ways, American taxes have decreased significantly over the last half-century. In 1945, for example, the highest possible tax rate was 94 percent of income. Today, the highest rate is only 35 percent. Federal tax revenue today accounts for only 14.8 percent of America's gross domestic product. In 2009, the most recent year with data available, the average ratio of tax revenue to GDP of OECD nations was 33.7 percent. Below are ten charts showing how low American taxes have become. This material, "Ten Charts that Prove the United States Is a Low-Tax Country," was published by the Center for American Progress. CHARTS: www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/10/ten-charts-showing-how-low-american-taxes_n_875067.html#s290494&title=1_Tax_Revenue
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 11, 2011 18:07:59 GMT -5
Ten Charts that Prove the United States Is a Low-Tax CountryOur Citizens and Corporations Pay Much Less Than They Once Did and Much Less Than in Most Other Countries.Taxes for the wealthy, and superwealthy like Warren Buffett, have plunged in recent years. The United States is a low-tax country. That’s true for individuals and for corporations, and it’s true whether you compare us to other countries or the America of the past. No matter how you slice it the conclusion is the same. Conservatives like to claim that our budget deficits are purely a “spending problem.” Said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “We don’t have this problem because we tax too little. We have it because we spent too much.” It’s a popular talking point, but it simply isn’t true. Deficits do not stem from spending levels alone. They are the product of a mismatch between spending and revenue. And when revenue is as low as ours is, you end up with big deficits. Recently, President Obama met with a group of House Republicans to discuss the federal budget and the national debt. During the course of that meeting, the president noted, correctly, that taxes today are even lower than they were under President Ronald Reagan. This fact was met with “a lot of ‘eye-rolling’” from the Republicans. They didn’t believe him. This anecdote suggests that perhaps the reason conservatives think we don’t have a revenue problem is because they don’t know the facts. Taxes today are lower than they were under President Reagan. They’re lower today than they’ve been in 60 years. And they’re lower than they are in most developed countries. We do have a debt problem coming down the road. That debt problem is the result of an aging population, rising health care costs, and, yes, revenue levels that are too low. Here are 10 charts demonstrating the simple, clear truth that federal taxes in the United States are very low. CHARTS: www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/low_tax.html
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 11, 2011 19:23:55 GMT -5
Bachmann Calls For Huge Corporate Tax Cut Alongside Tax Increase For The Working PoorSeveral of the 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls have laid out economic platforms that would include huge cuts in the corporate tax rate. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) called for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, while former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) went a step further, calling for a cut to 15 percent. In an interview published today by the Wall Street Journal, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — who is toying with a presidential run herself — decided to one-up both Romney and Pawlenty, calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 9 percent. Adding insult to injury, Bachmann wants to pair that huge tax cut with giant tax reductions for the rich, as well as a tax increase on the working poor: “In my perfect world,” she explains, “we’d take the 35% corporate tax rate down to nine so that we’re the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax.” [...] Her main goal is to get tax rates down with a broad-based income tax that everyone pays and that “gets rid of all the deductions.” A system in which 47% of Americans don’t pay any tax is ruinous for a democracy, she says, “because there is no tie to the government benefits that people demand. I think everyone should have to pay something.” Let’s take these one at a time. First, cutting the corporate tax rate to 9 percent — a reduction about two and a half times larger than that called for in the radical House Republican budget — would cost more than $2 trillion over ten years. (The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 10 point reduction in the corporate tax rate would cost about $915 billion.) Second, zeroing out the capital gains tax and the estate tax would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, as about 68 percent of capital gains taxes are paid by the richest one percent of the country, and fewer than the richest one quarter of one percent pay the estate tax. Finally, Bachmann implies that she would raise taxes on those Americans who earn too little to have any income tax liability. (It’s simply not true that they pay nothing, as Bachmann seems to believe, since those who have no income tax liability still pay payroll taxes and any state and local taxes.) The reason so much of the income tax liability has become concentrated at the top of the income scale is because over the last few decades income inequality has skyrocketed. The richest one percent of the country currently earn nearly one quarter of the income, and therefore pay the lion’s share of the income tax. Bachmann would raise taxes on those who have seen their incomes stagnate or even drop over the last ten years, even as she cuts taxes on the ultra-wealthy. thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/11/242953/bachmann-tax-increase-poor/
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 11, 2011 19:26:38 GMT -5
The $2.5 Trillion Tragedy: What America Has Given Up For 10 Years Of Bush Tax CutsToday marks the 10th anniversary of former President George W. Bush signing into law his 2001 tax cuts (he passed a second round in 2003). While doing so, Bush promised prosperity and growth, but the nation got neither. The cost of these budget-busting 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was, as estimated by Citizens for Tax Justice, roughly $2.5 trillion through 2010. But America didn’t have to go down this route of cutting taxes and hoping for growth to miraculously appear. There were other policy options available to policymakers. ThinkProgress, using data on various social spending projects from the National Priorities Project — which does these calculations for the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars — has estimated ten other possible policies we could’ve paid for at the same $2.5 trillion price of the Bush tax cuts. While not all of these policies are currently performed by the federal government, they do represent an accurate calculation of the monetary tradeoffs, and each one individually would cost the same as the Bush tax cuts. Here are ten alternatives we could’ve pursued instead: - Give 122.7 Million Children Low-Income Health Care Every Year For Ten Years - Give 49.2 Million People Access To Low-Income Healthcare Every Year For Ten Years - Provide 43.1 Million Students With Pell Grants Worth $5,500 Every Year For Ten Years - Provide 31.5 Million Head Start Slots For Children Every Year For Ten Years - Provide VA Care For 30.7 Million Military Veterans Every Year For Ten Years - Provide 30.4 Million Scholarships For University Students Every Year For Ten Years - Hire 4.19 Million Firefighters Every Year For Ten Years - Hire 3.67 Million Elementary School Teachers Every Year For Ten Years - Hire 3.6 Million Police Officers Every Year For Ten Years - Retrofit 144.6 Million Households For Wind Power Every Year For Ten Years - Retrofit 54.2 Million Households For Solar Photovoltaic Energy Every Year For Ten Years The tradeoffs paint a stark picture. For the same price as the Bush tax cuts, which did little to help the economy, we could’ve sent tens of millions of students to college, retrofitted every household in America with the capacity to generate alternative energy, hired millions of firefighters and police officers, effectively ended our national shame of having kids who lack health care coverage, or put millions of more teachers into classrooms. But instead, Congress passed budget-breaking tax cuts, and then went on to pass even more in 2003. In 2010, Congress then went on to renew the Bush tax cuts for an additional two years, and the political will for the sort of public investments listed above appears to have dried up. thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/07/237560/10-years-bush-tax-cuts/
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 11, 2011 19:51:06 GMT -5
Pubs are now a tax cut cult- the solution for everything, and just for the rich and corporations...
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 11, 2011 20:36:35 GMT -5
I don't see why we should feel good that compared to Communist countries we pay lower taxes. Taxes can go much, much lower. All the things that could have been done with the extra tax money? I don't see anything there that benefits the rich. So why should the rich pay for all of that? Does the poor and middle class go out of their way to help the rich with their own tax money? No, they just mooch off of the rich. So cut taxes for the rich already. If you have to compensate for that, raise taxes for the poor and the middle class.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 11, 2011 20:38:35 GMT -5
ravinglunatic, how is life out there in la la land...?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 11, 2011 20:39:25 GMT -5
ravinglunatic, how is life out there in la la land...? Not good. I pay way too much in taxes. Gut Medicare already.
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Jun 11, 2011 23:04:40 GMT -5
Lakahota,
It comes down to this: You want the Federal Government to equalize wealth in this country. You want to do it by taxing the rich and redistributing that wealth to the "less fortunate".
Well, that economic system has been tried, and it failed.
"From each according to his ability to each according to his need". Karl Marx.
Sorry, don't want that here.
I propose we stop taxing income altogether, and tax consumption. The Fair Tax. Those that spend more would pay more tax. The rich spend more than the poor. They would pay more tax. The super poor (poverty level and below) would pay no tax because they would get a "prebate" equal to the estimated amount of tax incurred on basic necessities. (As would everyone else.) It's only when you spend more than for basic necessities would you pay net taxes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 5:48:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2011 23:43:48 GMT -5
The Center for American Progress was created in 2003 as a left-leaning alternative to think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.[5]
First off I posted the above to show that they aren't impartial. My guess is that they "proved" exactly what they set out to prove (Just as they could have showed we are over taxed if that's what they wanted to prove). I would also point out that a lot of the "facts" they were looking at were historical. Those are no longer valid because of the tremendous way that he has spent money. That means that our taxes ARE going up just about no matter what to pay off the national debt. So any tax increase taken based on this information (if anybody believes it) would be on top of that that tax increase we haven't had yet.
As for us paying less taxes than most countries, that's probably true. That's because our form of government is unique & our taxation system is based on it. We aren't socialist "yet" so we also don't pay near the amount that Soviet type governments or even European socialist government pay. That of course looks like it could very well change as we add more socialist type programs.
Another thing that makes us unique compared to European Socialist countries is that we are bigger, a lot bigger. That means that when they start raising gas taxes (& they will, they have to) we will pay a lot more because of the extra shipping distances. The last numbers that I heard on gas there was 7 to 11 dollars a gallon (in Europe). We won't go up to that but I could see 5 to 6 dollars a gallon because of taxes. Even at that lower prices it will greatly increase the cost of delivered good plus of course the cost of producing those goods in the first place. That will work like a snowball going down hill. The poor will be the first to suffer & lower (for sure) & possibly middle class will get hammered. Many of them may well become earning wise what is generally excepted as poor. (The number qualifying you as poor will go up).
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 12, 2011 0:18:24 GMT -5
Pure bullshit.
First of all, I said nothing about, nor do I advocate, "equalizing" wealth in this country. What I do advocate for is humanity, as opposed to Ayn Rand radicals.
Secondly, "that economic system" has NOT failed.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 12, 2011 11:09:46 GMT -5
Pure bullshit. First of all, I said nothing about, nor do I advocate, "equalizing" wealth in this country. What I do advocate for is humanity, as opposed to Ayn Rand radicals. Secondly, "that economic system" has NOT failed. Humanity covers the rich too. What about some tax cuts for the rich? That economic system may or may not have failed but surely giving the rich more tax cuts cannot hurt?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 12, 2011 11:12:47 GMT -5
I propose we stop taxing income altogether, and tax consumption. The Fair Tax. Those that spend more would pay more tax. The rich spend more than the poor. They would pay more tax. Excuse me, how exactly is that fair? This kind of Socialist nonsense really pisses me off. What's done with the taxes? It is spent in public service. Who uses the public service more? The poor and the middle class. So tax them, don't tax the rich! The rich don't use the public services at all. The system I prefer is one of no taxes at all, and all public services having associated fees. So, no local taxes, but public schools will have tuition. You can't pay the tuition? Well, homeschool.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 12, 2011 11:34:54 GMT -5
Whether a country has high taxes or low taxes would seem to be a straightforward question. Yet in the United States, the debate rages on. This week, the Center For American Progress claimed a firm stake, creating 10 charts showing that in comparison both with other countries and its own history, the U.S. has low taxes. Many disagree, and few more so than Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). “We don’t have this problem because we tax too little," McConnell said in a press conference at the end of last May. "We have it because we spent too much.” Still, the statistics show otherwise. Among the 30 nations included in studies by the Organization For Economic Co-Operation and Development, the United States ranks among the countries with the lowest effective tax rates. At an average of 26.9 percent of America's gross domestic product from 2004 to 2008, the effective federal tax rate is significantly lower than in Denmark, for example, whose average effective tax rate was the highest of the countries studied, at 49.3 percent of its GDP. Similarly, the United States taxes corporations at lower rates than other countries. American corporations enjoy a rate of 13.4 percent of their profits. Compare that to Australia, whose corporations cough up 30.5 percent of what they make. In many ways, American taxes have decreased significantly over the last half-century. In 1945, for example, the highest possible tax rate was 94 percent of income. Today, the highest rate is only 35 percent. Federal tax revenue today accounts for only 14.8 percent of America's gross domestic product. In 2009, the most recent year with data available, the average ratio of tax revenue to GDP of OECD nations was 33.7 percent. Below are ten charts showing how low American taxes have become. This material, "Ten Charts that Prove the United States Is a Low-Tax Country," was published by the Center for American Progress. CHARTS: www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/10/ten-charts-showing-how-low-american-taxes_n_875067.html#s290494&title=1_Tax_RevenueLet's see...according to my records from last year: (As a percentage of gross wages) Fed income tax - 12% State income tax - 5.6% FICA/Med tax - 7.43% Property tax - 7.20% Sales taxes - 2.00% Gasoline taxes - 0.05% Misc surcharges and taxes - 0.80% So over 35% of just my income (and I am not even close to upper income - more lower/middle) is not enough? Ah...probably more liberal ideology that people's pay should be communal property and the government should be distributing to us what they think we should need, eh comrade?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 12, 2011 11:39:22 GMT -5
>>What I do advocate for is humanity, as opposed to Ayn Rand radicals<<
So you're definition of humanity is to sit on your ass demanding government confiscate other people's income and blindly pass it along to those that haven't earned it? Doesn't sound too "humanitarian" to me...but, then again, I believe in personal responsibility...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 5:48:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2011 14:33:49 GMT -5
Lakahota,
It comes down to this: You want the Federal Government to equalize wealth in this country. You want to do it by taxing the rich and redistributing that wealth to the "less fortunate Well, that economic system has been tried, and it failed. Pure bullshit.
First of all, I said nothing about, nor do I advocate, "equalizing" wealth in this country. What I do advocate for is humanity, as opposed to Ayn Rand radicals.
Lakhota, Lakhota, Lakhota, I hate to break it to you but your ALL about equalizing wealth in this country. Not only do you preach it (tax the rich more, raise taxes on the rich, they should pay more it's only right, etc) but you support a party that pushes that agenda. About the only way you could be more for it is if you went out & robbed the rich yourself. How did you fool yourself into missing that fact? Oh & Obamacare is all about wealth redistribution too. Don't believe me, look it up. It's a wealth redistribution plan.
Secondly, "that economic system" has NOT failed.
I'm thinking you probably didn't read this correctly or don't want to admit that the democrats economic principles are socialist. Anyway the poster you replied to said that wealth redistribution plans (in socialist countries) have all failed. Well Russia's did & a lot of the others aren't on good ground (at least nothing like our economy was before social programs started bleeding us dry). Anyway your answer was basically saying that socialist economic systems had not failed. I think your so much in denial of our economic problems because of social programs (& overspending) that you just assumed he was talking about us. He wasn't.
What I do advocate for is humanity, Ah NO, not even close but I guess it's how you want to look at it (even if it's a warped way of looking at it). Much like a guy that goes hunting to "SAVE" deer (you shot them so they don't starve in the winter). Sure you want to "take care" of humanity. But you do that by giving with one hand (to those you feel are poor) but taking from those that you feel are wealthy).
In other words your playing GOD (you deserve more, he deserves less). Then there's the problem that your hurting those that your trying to help (I won't explain that, I have in a lot of posts so far). The evidence is out there but you refuse to see it. If someone sat on your chest you "might" admit that it happened in a small number of cases, but you really don't care. Helping the poor isn't really why your in the "liberal" business. Your in the liberal business because of your inner needs & it makes YOU feel better. You will & have already screwed generations of poor people but that doesn't really matter to you because your committed to you feeling better about yourself. Just my opinion but I'm dead on.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 12, 2011 19:36:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 12, 2011 20:29:56 GMT -5
oldtex, try not to blow a gasket on your fantasies. You pubs are out of control...
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 12, 2011 21:25:19 GMT -5
Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, UK...
Even the US is trying to stave off failure from having government involved too much in the life of Americans. Total government spending is over 40% of GDP.
It's just sad for people to believe that 40% or more of peoples time & money should go towards government and/or people not earning it.
An entitled society is one that ultimately fails. Every single time.
|
|
AGB
Familiar Member
Joined: Jun 9, 2011 14:27:49 GMT -5
Posts: 745
|
Post by AGB on Jun 12, 2011 21:41:22 GMT -5
What I do advocate for is humanity,Ah NO, not even close but I guess it's how you want to look at it (even if it's a warped way of looking at it). Much like a guy that goes hunting to "SAVE" deer (you shot them so they don't starve in the winter). Sure you want to "take care" of humanity. But you do that by giving with one hand (to those you feel are poor) but taking from those that you feel are wealthy). I am not familiar with Lakhota's thoughts on this, so forgive me for inserting myself here but... yes, there has to be humanity. There will always be those who cannot help themselves, not because they don't want to, but because they simply are not in a position to do for themselves... the disabled, those too sick or too old to work... we need a system in place that is their safety net. And yes, it will require taking from those who have to give to those who have not. Not at the level it is currently being done, but we cannot do away with it all. Not a redistribution of wealth, but a means of pure survival. At least those are my 2 cents on "humanity".
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 12, 2011 21:59:21 GMT -5
What I do advocate for is humanity,Ah NO, not even close but I guess it's how you want to look at it (even if it's a warped way of looking at it). Much like a guy that goes hunting to "SAVE" deer (you shot them so they don't starve in the winter). Sure you want to "take care" of humanity. But you do that by giving with one hand (to those you feel are poor) but taking from those that you feel are wealthy). I am not familiar with Lakhota's thoughts on this, so forgive me for inserting myself here but... yes, there has to be humanity. There will always be those who cannot help themselves, not because they don't want to, but because they simply are not in a position to do for themselves... the disabled, those too sick or too old to work... we need a system in place that is their safety net. And yes, it will require taking from those who have to give to those who have not. Not at the level it is currently being done, but we cannot do away with it all. Not a redistribution of wealth, but a means of pure survival. At least those are my 2 cents on "humanity". oldtex is just pissed off because I sometimes use the word "pubs", which he thinks is somehow dirty or insulting. I don't think he understands the common abreviations for Dems and Pubs.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 12, 2011 22:01:28 GMT -5
I fully agree. We already have massive amounts of rich people migrating to low tax countries. How long are we going to stand back and do nothing to bring them back.
|
|
AGB
Familiar Member
Joined: Jun 9, 2011 14:27:49 GMT -5
Posts: 745
|
Post by AGB on Jun 12, 2011 22:09:52 GMT -5
oldtex is just pissed off because I sometimes use the word "pubs", which he thinks is somehow dirty or insulting. I don't think he understands the common abreviations for Dems and Pubs. Oh, so this is a personal thing between you two... carry on... while I sloooowly back out...
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 12, 2011 22:12:53 GMT -5
oldtex is just pissed off because I sometimes use the word "pubs", which he thinks is somehow dirty or insulting. I don't think he understands the common abreviations for Dems and Pubs. Oh, so this is a personal thing between you two... carry on... while I sloooowly back out... No, it apparently is personal with oldtex, but not with me. No need to back out...
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 13, 2011 8:26:45 GMT -5
oldtex, try not to blow a gasket on your fantasies. You pubs are out of control... And there is the tired old liberal response...when losing the argument, attack the poster/change the direction of the post. "Pubs are out of control?" How about - libs have nothing to stand on except their "feelings," which makes for very poor fiscal policy...as evidenced by our current and future economic issues.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 13, 2011 9:23:04 GMT -5
Let's see...according to my records from last year: (As a percentage of gross wages) Fed income tax - 12% State income tax - 5.6% FICA/Med tax - 7.43% Property tax - 7.20% Sales taxes - 2.00% Gasoline taxes - 0.05% Misc surcharges and taxes - 0.80% So over 35% of just my income (and I am not even close to upper income - more lower/middle) is not enough? Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 11, 2024 5:48:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 13:00:20 GMT -5
oldtex, try not to blow a gasket on your fantasies. You pubs are out of control...No worry about a blown gasket. You srats are out of control. oldtex is just pissed off because I sometimes use the word "pubs", which he thinks is somehow dirty or insulting. I don't think he understands the common abbreviations for Dems and Pubs.Actuarially I had never seen it used (pugs) before Lakhota came here. Then I saw it 30 or 40 times per day many of which were attached with insults. That's why I now refer to Democrats as srats. Oh, so this is a personal thing between you two... carry on... while I sloooowly back out... Not personal, we are just at the exact opposite of the political spectrum. Odd considering that we both are the most vocal about our Indian heritage.
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Jun 13, 2011 23:01:16 GMT -5
Lunacy,
I'm not sure I understand your concept of "Government Services". If I were rich, then I'd have more to lose. So, I think that by paying more in FairTax would be ok to pay for the military to secure the country, more for police protection, etc. Roads? Well, I guess my additional FairTax on gas would pay for that.
Now, if your idea of "Services" is what I call "entitlements", well, there is no doubt that the poor use more of those.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 14, 2011 2:57:40 GMT -5
Take your meds and get some rest, oldtex. I probably haven't used the "pubs" abbreviation near 30 times the entire time I've been on this board, let alone "30 to 40 times per day". I sense some hidden hostility...
BTW, I have NEVER used "pugs" as you stated (unless it was a typo). Are you sure you don't have me confused with another poster?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 14, 2011 6:43:07 GMT -5
Just because we have a lower tax rate than other countries, doesn't mean we have a low tax rate. Saying that is kind of like telling somebody who makes $10/hr that they make a good salary because others only make $7/hr. I doubt most people would say either one is a great salary. The simple point is that just because it is better, doesn't make it good.
|
|