dance of joy

[JBUCK66]

>>>>>RICH TO PAY FAIR SHARE<<<<<

 

[DanBengalfan]

That will never happen.

 

[ckhokie]

>>>>>RICH TO PAY FAIR SHARE<<<<<

...will not matter when the President is still spending a trillion dollars a year more than the government brings in.

 

[flamingrey]

...will not matter when the President is still spending a trillion dollars a year more than the government brings in.

It's unfortunate his predecessor put him so far behind the eight ball.

 

[flamingrey]

>>>>>RICH TO PAY FAIR SHARE<<<<<

As long as Republicans have the House or Senate, it won't ever happen. They'll just hold the rest of the country hostage if anyone even proposes eliminating corporate welfare.

 

[vancelot23]

American politics is a sham. It's nothing more than party agendas butting heads with the American populace in the middle. We're screwed no matter what.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

Everyone should pay fair share is my opinion, the rich should not be the only ones paying.

My opinion, they keep reforming these government programs that are spending in excess, remove programs that don't seem to be accomlishing their objectives or put others in charge who will see that objective get accomplished. Lower spending, and charge everyone, 1% extra federal tax that would be used specifically for National Debt only. Absolutely cannot be used for anything else. Plus balance the budget so you are at least not spending more than you are making BEFORE this 1% tax, that would then go away one we got caught up on the debt again.

Balance budget, and everyone equally pays their share above to help the ND in a percentage since everyone makes a different amount of income. Balancing the budget should be the first objective though so we do not keep adding to that damn thing. Hopefully by balaning the budget we also lose worthless programs and unnecessary overspending in the process.

 

[DanBengalfan]

American politics is a sham. It's nothing more than party agendas butting heads with the American populace in the middle. We're screwed no matter what.

glad you're awake.

 

[DanBengalfan]

Everyone should pay fair share is my opinion, the rich should not be the only ones paying.

My opinion, they keep reforming these government programs that are spending in excess, remove programs that don't seem to be accomlishing their objectives or put others in charge who will see that objective get accomplished. Lower spending, and charge everyone, 1% extra federal tax that would be used specifically for National Debt only. Absolutely cannot be used for anything else. Plus balance the budget so you are at least not spending more than you are making BEFORE this 1% tax, that would then go away one we got caught up on the debt again.

Balance budget, and everyone equally pays their share above to help the ND in a percentage since everyone makes a different amount of income. Balancing the budget should be the first objective though so we do not keep adding to that damn thing. Hopefully by balaning the budget we also lose worthless programs and unnecessary overspending in the process.

I think the balanced budget amendment was proposed once upon a time.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

I think the balanced budget amendment was proposed once upon a time.

Oh I am sure it was, I mean actually doing it though instead of ignoring it like usual.

 

[flamingrey]

Everyone should pay fair share is my opinion, the rich should not be the only ones paying.

My opinion, they keep reforming these government programs that are spending in excess, remove programs that don't seem to be accomlishing their objectives or put others in charge who will see that objective get accomplished. Lower spending, and charge everyone, 1% extra federal tax that would be used specifically for National Debt only. Absolutely cannot be used for anything else. Plus balance the budget so you are at least not spending more than you are making BEFORE this 1% tax, that would then go away one we got caught up on the debt again.

Balance budget, and everyone equally pays their share above to help the ND in a percentage since everyone makes a different amount of income. Balancing the budget should be the first objective though so we do not keep adding to that damn thing. Hopefully by balaning the budget we also lose worthless programs and unnecessary overspending in the process.

I agree with "fair share". Unfortunately, the richest do not pay their fair share and Republicans will always protect them from having to. And no, they are not the only one's paying, nor is anyone suggesting they be the only ones to pay. However, there is no reason for Romney's - or any rich person's at that - effective tax rate be 13% when the average American pays 20%. There is nothing "fair" about that.

You have one entire party protecting the rich and their interests. Does that not come at a price as well? That's not to say Democrats don't have special interests - including corporations - that they look out for because they absolutely do. But all that influencing of policies, tax structure, etc. that only the wealthy have the ability to do, should that not be weighted? More influence/benefits should mean more taxes.

Low capital gains taxes. That directly benefits the rich. Who is more likely to have capital gains? Rich people or poor people? How can an investment be taxed at a lower rate than labor? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons for this to be the case, but just showing how the entire tax system favors the wealthy.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

I am not supporting Romney or Obama.

I think political parties should be abolished anyways. Everyone run on an independent card and run for what they believe in. Maybe their is a democrate who believes in local oil and energy while not beliving in abortion. The political parties completely ruin our system. It is all or nothing, and if you are not one or the other, you stand no chance of making it or making a difference.

Everyone should run on their own beliefs and their own ideas, not t hat of their party because they want to be president.

If you had more people allowed to run with what they believe in, there would be a whole lot less sellouts and maybe soemthign might actually get done in this country instead of one party always tryign to overwrite that of its opposing party. Representatives can actually vote for a good bill or vote against a bad one because they are good or bad, not just because it is their parties bill, or against because it is the opposing parties bill.

What two competing teams actually work together to try and earn a tie? Have you ever seen a competition where the goal of the competition is to get a tie with your opponent, to make sure everyone is a winner? Could you imagine professional football being like this? Yuck.

However, that is what should happen in politics, what is best for the country, not you against me, and I need to win. This practice in politics only makes everyone a loser.

That is my 2 cents.

 

[ckhokie]

Lower spending, and charge everyone, 1% extra federal tax that would be used specifically for National Debt only. Absolutely cannot be used for anything else.

Interesting idea, but the fact remains, that the majority of the population doesn't even pay any federal tax to begin with.

 

[ckhokie]

I agree with "fair share". Unfortunately, the richest do not pay their fair share and Republicans will always protect them from having to. And no, they are not the only one's paying, nor is anyone suggesting they be the only ones to pay. However, there is no reason for Romney's - or any rich person's at that - effective tax rate be 13% when the average American pays 20%. There is nothing "fair" about that.

You have one entire party protecting the rich and their interests. Does that not come at a price as well? That's not to say Democrats don't have special interests - including corporations - that they look out for because they absolutely do. But all that influencing of policies, tax structure, etc. that only the wealthy have the ability to do, should that not be weighted? More influence/benefits should mean more taxes.

Low capital gains taxes. That directly benefits the rich. Who is more likely to have capital gains? Rich people or poor people? How can an investment be taxed at a lower rate than labor? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons for this to be the case, but just showing how the entire tax system favors the wealthy.

I have no problem with Mittens taking advantage of our completely fucked tax laws, as anyone else would do the same. I would hardly call capital gains 'for the rich.' Tax diversification is just as important as any investment diversification, and anyone who is in the 25% bracket (let alone 28) should be investing a portion of their money anyways, and taking advantage of those rates.

Phase outs are what are necessary. There need to be phase outs added for those earning a million (arbitrarily picked number) or more a year in investment income, as well as phase outs for charitable donations. Without phase outs, that is where you get the absurd marginal tax rates for guys like Mitt or Warren Buffett.

 

[flamingrey]

Interesting idea, but the fact remains, that the majority of the population doesn't even pay any federal tax to begin with.

47% is not a majority.

Half of those people don't because their income falls below the standard deductions and personal exemptions.

Almost a quarter of them are on Social Security which doesn't get taxed for federal income.

Another 10-15% are low-income families that take advantage of various childcare credits.

So, while they don't pay federal income tax, they're still subject to various other taxes, so your "fact" has little bearing on the idea.

And just because we're on this topic, you can expect 100% of low-income families income to go right back into the economy, whereas wealthy people enjoy hoarding theirs.

 

[flamingrey]

I have no problem with Mittens taking advantage of our completely fucked tax laws, as anyone else would do the same. I would hardly call capital gains 'for the rich.' Tax diversification is just as important as any investment diversification, and anyone who is in the 25% bracket (let alone 28) should be investing a portion of their money anyways, and taking advantage of those rates.

Phase outs are what are necessary. There need to be phase outs added for those earning a million (arbitrarily picked number) or more a year in investment income, as well as phase outs for charitable donations. Without phase outs, that is where you get the absurd marginal tax rates for guys like Mitt or Warren Buffett.

I agree with all of that, but politicians are in all of these wealthy peoples' pockets, so nothing will ever change, especially as long as Republicans have any power anywhere.

My point was in regards to "fair share". The wealthy absolutely do not do their part.

 

[flamingrey]

For the record, I've never voted, nor do I see myself ever voting.

Both sides suck. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The craziest people are those that stick to their party like glue as if they can do no wrong.

The easiest place to begin to fix the system is giving Congress term limits. Simple, but it would never happen.

 

[vancelot23]

Who knew, with all the disagreements between flamingrey and myself, that politics of all things would be what we agree on. I've been in favor of term limits for Congress forever. You're right, it won't happen.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

Interesting idea, but the fact remains, that the majority of the population doesn't even pay any federal tax to begin with.

Well, those not making enough to not have to pay would be in th same boat, minus the 1% that is required on everyone regardless of income. Maybe the rest becomes a write off because a majority do not make enough to exceed the braket and pay federal tax, but the 1% would be required no matter who you are which goes straight to the National Debt.

 

[ckhokie]

47% is not a majority.

Half of those people don't because their income falls below the standard deductions and personal exemptions.

Almost a quarter of them are on Social Security which doesn't get taxed for federal income.

Another 10-15% are low-income families that take advantage of various childcare credits.

So, while they don't pay federal income tax, they're still subject to various other taxes, so your "fact" has little bearing on the idea.

And just because we're on this topic, you can expect 100% of low-income families income to go right back into the economy, whereas wealthy people enjoy hoarding theirs.

My point had nothing to do with '47%' but was just making mention to the common misconception that most people pay Federal income tax, which they do not. The wealthy already are taking the lion share of the tax burden. Should the ultra wealthy pay more, absolutely. But let's not discount the fact that most Americans pay nothing more than FICA taxes to the federal government.